Wheat Board insults Americans at Organic Spring Contracting Meeting

[parsley]

Sunday, April 1, 2007

Mr. James Chatenay,
Canadian Wheat Board Director,


Dear Mr. Chatenay,

I am a shareholder-member of the Farmer Direct (FD) Co-operative in Regina, Saskatchewan along with my husband.

This is a fledgling organic company managed by a young pair of fellows, who are actually attempting at operating in Western Canada! They need encouragement and capital, hence our association with FD.

FD holds an annual spring marketing meeting for shareholders, and this year, they again invited some of their US buyers to be present to meet with farmers to promote potential contracting and farmer-buyer relationships.

One of the chronic problems both FD and growers face, is the Canadian Wheat Board's buyback, (now dubbed PDS).

Farmers need a resolution to this ever re-occurring problem, and I believe it was probably for this reason that FD invited the Canadian Wheat Board to speak with their shareholders, and consequently, both CWB elected Directors Mr. Rod Flaman and Mr. Kyle Korneychuck attended.

With three Americans present, Mr. Flaman on a power-point presentation, referenced some Bilateral Trade Agreement countries that the USA had entered into in specific yrears, including: Peru in 2005, Columbia in 2006, Ecuador in process, and Mexico in 2006.

Mr. Flaman described these US agreements as side deals, and obviously, was not happy with them. He referred to the tariff disadvantage resulting from these American "side deals".

He was definitely displeased with the USA.. He continued to tell FD shareholders that, "We (the CWB) used to have 100% of the Moroccan markets. We're going to be shut out of that now." Everyone got the message..... Americans are rotters.

Considering that FD had invited the Americans to contract with their farmer members, and the Americans had already been introduced, and considering it was a time for cordiality and good will, the CWB's message was not only inappropriate, but mean spirited. The CWB quickly became a source of embarassment.

To say Mr. Korneychuck and Mr. Flaman were not well received, would be an inderstatement, particulary a little later, when Mr. Korneychuck referred to the USA as bullies.

I arose and made a motion that aknowledged Americans as organic's best buyers because

a) Americans are good to deal with,
b) Americans speak the same language, c) Americans pay their bills, and
d) Americans pay top prices. The President of Farmer Direct,
Gene Davis, spontaneoulsy seconded the motion and it was overwhelmingly passed by the shareholders.

The Americans present, then stated that the most problems they had doing business in Canada was with the Canadian Wheat Board. It was embarassing.

We never want this kind of fiasco to happen to any other producers ever again.

Producers worked hard to develop this market and we do not need a Government institution to come and insult any valued buyers.

Was the CWB trying to sour the existing relationships because the CWB wants to now take over marketing organics?

This snapshot should provide you with the very reason why so many organic producers want NO association with the Canadian Wheat Board and do not want the CWB to become our business partner.

We cannot afford a business partner like this.

You should be aware that later on in the meeting, another motion was passed.

"The Canadian Wheat Board issues no-buyback export licenses to organic farmers in Ontario.

Be it resoved that the Canadian Wheat Board issue no buyback licenses to organic farmers in Western Canada the same as they do for farmers in Ontario.

32 farmer-shareholders voted for the motion . There was 0 producers voted against the motion.

Mr. Flaman and Mr. Korneychuck both seemed unprepared to vote to support this motion at a CWB Board of Directors' meeting.

Kindly find an attachment that the 150 producer organization "Organic Special Products Group" (OSPG) graciously provided as background information at Farmer Direct's Spring meeting.

They were in the form of handouts available on the registration desk for producers regarding the buyback issue.

I ask, Mr. Chatenay, that you please disseminate this letter to your Minister, his Parliamentary Secretary, and to your fellow Board of Directors, so that these concerns will have a freshened viewing and an airing.

In the new global environment we must live in, we cannot criticize the USA for building alliances; rather we must build them ourselves. All players, including the CWB must learn to look at our US customers with new eyes of appreciation. We must not resent competiiton, we must learn from it to become stronger.

And lastly, the CWB must look at Western producers as eager marketing players with the potential to create newfound wealth.

If you would be so kind as to pass this message on, the attachment, too, and acknowledge receipt of this e-mail, it would be much appreciated.

Very sincerely yours,

Carol Husband
Organic Farmer at Wawota, Saskatchewan
306.739.2900

[parsley]

Agri-villers,

I spoke with CWB Director Mr. Chatenay tonight. He has had an opportunity to inform both his fellow Board members and His Parliamentary Secretary of this situation.

Mr. Chatenay was kind enough to hand deliver this letter to Minister Strahl yesterday.

Mr. Chatenay has been an advocate for the farm community ever since he was elected, and he has always taken the time and effort to thoroughly understand what the issues are, and how the CWB's decision makiing affects the bottom line.

Without the dedicated efforts of Mr. Chatenay, Western farmers would never be able to realize the marketing freedom that Eastern Canada enjoys.

I trust that this information will temper some of Mr. Flaman's accusatory comments based upon non-accuracy.

Parsley

[just_wondering]

Parsley
Back when I referred to you as a she Carrol, is who I thought you were.

PS that's a compliment in my books

[parsley]

Thanks, just_wondering,

Did you call me, did you say?

When I first posted on Agri-ville, many years ago, with Tom4CWB, I thought having a user name was mandatory for some reason, and I always stuck with Parsley.

Literally scads of people know who I am because they call me Parsley at meetings, e-mail me and call.

I, like charliep, am not afraid to sign my name on what I write, but I have grown so accustomed to answering to Parsley mainly because of all my fellow Agri-villers who contact me, that I will continue with it. I like consistency.

Parsley

[parsley]

At the organic meeting on Saturday, an e-mail correspondent, whom I had never met, came up to me and whispered, "Parsley?" I said "Yes", and he told me who he was. I asked if I was what he imagined I would be, and he laughed and said, "No, I thought you were 6'4".

By the way, for all of you who correspond with me and call, and have entrusted me with the anonymity you have chosen, I want to assure you that I will not reveal your identity.

Parsley

[Fransisco]

I think the question is becoming who haven't the CWB directors insulted? If its not the majority of farmers who voted for choice, its the minister or our best customers and closest neighbor.

[just_wondering]

Parsley
I'm on your e-mail contact list once in a while.
I have to look up some election #'s on another computer before I out myself on agri-ville I am just curious enough on Cottons ID to do it.
PS I've seem both Fransisco and Vader talk on separate occasions.
Fransisco is very good live, sorry I missed the radio stuff that was referred to. If you ever get to see him preform when WTO is the topic it's worth the drive.
Vader is not very good as a live speaker but to be fair that's not his job.
Vader
Could you explain how you are not a real fan of the price pooling pillar, or did you change your mind on that one too?

[parsley]

just_wondering,

I should have known!

Best regards,
Parsley

[ridgie]

This shows the mentality of the CWB, the pro-board directors and the couple turncoats.

This hurts our whole industry and drags innocent producers into the agenda and resentments of a few jealous people. This kind of behavior does little to help our industry and will substancially hurt us for some time to come.

Fear, Loathing and Envy....So typical of a socialist sceme and its supporters.

[parsley]

Thursday, October 26, 2006
House of Commons
CANADA
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri- Food
AGRI NUMBER 023 1st SESSION 39th PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
Thursday, October 26, 2006


Ms. Carole Husband (Organic Farmer, As an Individual):
Good morning...or afternoon, I guess it is here. I am very pleased to be invited here today, because the present government has indicated they want to make some meaningful
changes to the Wheat Board, and for farmers.

My husband and I in partnership farm organically in southeast Saskatchewan. We have farmed for 39 years on his family farm, which was established in 1900, and I want to talk to you today about money.

I recently read that $85 billion of the Canada GDP depends upon
an adequate supply of grains.

If you have enough farmers, you can
indeed fill the supply, but western farm children are overwhelmingly
rejecting farming. There is no money in farming.

Everyone knows that agriculture creates tremendous wealth, but in order to survive, farmers need to capture more of that wealth created by agriculture, instead of begging taxpayers.

Legislators can put more money into farmers' pockets by making immediate changes at the Canadian Wheat Board.

Before I give you my three recommendations on how to improve net income for farmers, I want to give you a little bit of background.

Government created the Wheat Board, giving them two distinct duties. Most familiar is the regional marketing duty, which is often referred to in part II and part III—marketing—of the Wheat Board Act.

In part III, the Wheat Board buys grain from farmers who offer
it to them.

Part III only applies to the designated area, which is the west.

This presentation is not about marketing.

The second duty of the Canadian Wheat Board is national licensing, in part IV.

Licensing equally applies to all of Canada, just as the Canada Elections Act applies equally to all of Canada.

All grain moving both interprovincially and for export is subject to having a licence.

There are no exceptions, as Boyd found out, and only the Wheat Board can issue a licence.

When part IV was added as an amendment in 1947, it appears from access to information documents that it was intended to be a national tariff or export taxing provision, with the taxes to be paid to the government and costs paid by the government.

Every exporter in every province is subject to a fee described in
paragaph 46(d) of the act.

It is based upon the existing differences between prices of wheat and wheat products inside and outside of Canada, and because of NAFTA the export tax is presently zero
dollars.

However, there is an almost unknown Canadian Wheat Board policy in play that has a different effect upon farmers in different provinces.

Jean-Pierre lives in Quebec, and markets feed barley into the U.S.A. He gets the necessary Wheat Board export permit and licence and trucks south.

Jim, in Alberta, also wants to sell his barley and applies for an export licence.

The Wheat Board denies him.

The Wheat Board's policy is to deny all designated area applications, so that Jim cannot bypass the Wheat Board as Jean-Pierre does.

With no buyer other than an eager Wheat Board, Jim can eat his load of grain or burn it.

He ends up selling to the board, which is no escape from the Canadian Wheat Board's policy monopoly.Any grain sold to the Wheat Board becomes board grain.

A refusal under the national part IV, which is the licensing part, assures the Wheat Board monopoly buying under part III.

I am always shocked that the Wheat Board bases their monopoly authority upon licensing denial.

If the elected Wheat Board directors,
stacked with westerners, got ornery and denied all export licences to
Quebec and Ontario, the Wheat Board could sell western grain into eastern producers' established markets and all MPs would pay a little bit closer attention to national licensing and licensing denials.

The Wheat Board Act is not an act of prohibition.

I should go back and say that even though part IV licences should be equally issued to all Canadians, they are not.

The Wheat Board backroom boys,swearing by their policy authority, continue to deny licences just because we live in the west, and this is discrimination.

The Wheat Board is not an act of prohibition. In fact, the courts
repeatedly say it is an act of trade and commerce. They also say farming is under the constitutional head of agriculture. This means that all grain companies and railroads, which are described in the act as “works for the general advantage” of Canada clearly fall under trade and commerce and do exactly as the board says.

Farmers with producer-held grain are outside the Canadian Wheat Board trade and commerce jurisdiction but are still subject to the taxing provisions in part IV.

I have a hunch you didn't know the Wheat Board quietly issues export licences to different categories of applicants who have successfully negotiated with the board to bypass the monopoly.

This unadvertised internal policy allows the following groups—
that we know of—to bypass the board's marketing and pooling:
one, all wheat or barley grown outside the designated area;

two, pedigreed seed wheat and barley grown in the designated area;

three, the specialty wheat varieties commonly known as spelt, kamut, and einkorn grown in the designated area;

four, processed wheat and barley grown in the designated area and used for feed purposes under the Export Manufactured Feed Agreement, amount-
ing to millions of bushels;

five, wheat and barley grown in the
Creston-Wynndel region, which were granted licences prior to 1998,
when that region was still included in the designated area;

and six, Ethiopian barley.

My husband and I are privileged that the Wheat Board issues export licences to us for our Ethiopian barley so we can personally bypass Wheat Board marketing and pooling.

We just sold another load this fall without doing the buy-back, and received over $8 a bushel. We have another unregistered variety of barley, but the Wheat Board won't issue an export licence for that one.

Under the watch of the last government, western farmers were charged for not having export permits and were put in jail.

These farmers lived in the designated area where export licences were
automatically denied.

Licence denial is the policy tool the Wheat Board uses to create its monopoly in western Canada.

These are my recommendations:
First, the Governor in Council can and must order the Wheat Board to issue export permits to western farmers, just as it does for eastern farmers.

The Wheat Board will continue to buy and pool the grain for those farmers who choose the board as their marketing
agent, just as it does now.

Because the act does not have to be
changed, the relief from the monopoly can be immediate for those who want to bypass the board, just as it is for us.

This relief has been provided for many other applicants in the six categories I just named.All of them bypassed the board because they wanted to, and all were able to because the Wheat Board has willingly revised its policy to
accommodate each category.

Those asking for a western plebiscite
on who gets national export licences are about as credible as men asking for a plebiscite in 1929 to decide whether or not women could have a ballot.

Second, the government must order the Wheat Board to obey its legislation and stop taking money out of the pooling accounts to pay for national licensing.

Millions of dollars have been taken out of western pooling accounts for national licensing costs, even though
they are supposed to be paid for by the federal government.


Third, the federal government can and must pay back the money taken out of the pooling accounts to pay all national licensing costs of part IV of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

This is what westerners are paying for: the cost of issuing all
provincial, interprovincial, and export licences; all administrative
costs relating to the granting and denial of licences; all adminis-
trative costs of the big feed mills right across Canada under the Export Manufactured Feed Agreement; all compliance costs of licensing, including working with Canada customs and inspections; all Wheat Board costs relating to importing; and all costs of external and internal meetings and correspondence relating to part IV and
other parts.

Recovered licensing costs, even for a ten-year period, will boost the pooling accounts.

I realize that Ontario and Quebec are sitting pretty and don't pay either way, so we ask for your support to shift licensing costs from the west onto the federal government.

The Wheat Board itself should have sent a licensing bill to the government, but it appears to have grown accustomed to playing fast and easy with the western pooling accounts.

Under the watch of the previous Liberal government's Wheat Board minister, the Wheat Board took money out of the western pooling accounts to pay for $400-per-plate dinners for directors and staff to attend Liberal
fundraisers.

With patriarchal governments and institutions, everybody sat idly
by and watched the western accounts dwindle.

But I'm looking forward to the marketing choice commitment the present govern-
ment has made to western farmers.

Governments who have the foresight to commit to trusting in their people will see the nation prosper.
Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Husband.