Chiefs at The Pas want DA Grain

[parsley]

Winnipeg Free Press
Monday, February 26, 2007


QUOTE

Churchill helps farmers

Re: Not on backs of farmers, Feb. 21. At the recent meeting of the northern mayors and chiefs at The Pas, we strongly supported the Port of Churchill.

The purpose of the port is to give farmers a cost-effective alternative. It is the nearest deep-sea port to much of the agricultural growing region and is a cost-effective way to move grain to Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.

Roughly a half million tonnes of wheat, barley, canola and peas are shipped through the port annually.

For the catchment area, Churchill provides significant cost advantages of roughly $15-$20 per tonne versus positioning grain into St. Lawrence system ports.

The CWB directs grain to the port that provides the highest return to producers. For farmers in northeast Saskatchewan and northwest Manitoba, this is Churchill.

By receiving grain from the prairies, terminals earn extra fees for storage, elevation, blending and cleaning.

If the Conservatives succeed in scrapping the Canadian Wheat Board, the grain companies will direct all grain to their own terminals at Thunder Bay and the West Coast.

Farmers, not just northerners and the Manitoba economy, will suffer under that move.


OSCAR LATHLIN
Minister of Aboriginal
and Northern Affairs

UNQUOTE

[Fransisco]

Lets see it makes economic sense to ship grain through churchill therefore in an open market no one will ship grain there.

Makes sense to me.

[parsley]

I guess he knows something we don't....that being that the CWB itself will dicontinue shipping through Churchill.


Perhaps the CWB can reassure them that the CWB will continue shipping through Churchill in a dual market even though THEY have determined the accredited agents will decidedly choose a more alternate/expensive route.

Parsley

Parsley

[rainman]

Hmm, the natives and university professors think the board should stay, better Keep it!

[parsley]

rainman,

The CWB can't seem to understand what has value.

ie Lesser grades seem to be shunned by the Board. They don't value them even though some years because of weather, they have to be the farmers' bread and butter. They only show interest in selling top grades.

For example, in a November 24, 1994 article on page 5, in the Western Producer, Adrian Ewins quotes CWB Commisioner Beswick as saying, " Local feeders get the best quality barley while the Board gets stuck with product that's lightweight or high in moisture".

stuck with. Hear that?

Often, we hear the CWB referring to 'best' quality. They seem to focus on good quality grain and devalue the potential of poor quality grain.

Remember when the CWB told Manitoba farmers to burn the fusarium grain?

Can the CWB not realize that even the straw has value?

Farmers need some agressive marketing people that view the grain as having worth.

Parsley

[Burbert]

Parsley, Are you that politico science guy from U of C that put the insert in the barley pleb mailer? The bit about buyback, that nobody else cares about appears to have given you away!!!

[parsley]

Burbert, I've decided to be decidly nice to you because you might be having a fresh perch fish-fry.

I can just taste them.

Parsley