On Wednesday, March 12, 2008, the ABA was joined by other industry organizations in Washington, D.C., for a “Band of Bakers & Allied Forces March.” This united effort was designed to alert Congress, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Bush Administration to the severity of the crisis and the potentially dire impact on the industry and consumers. To kick off the day, ABA and its allies held a press conference at the National Press Club.  

Over 80 bakers, representing businesses of all different sizes, visited with more than 45 members of Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture and his senior staff, and key White House policy officials to urge immediate action on ABA’s Three Point Plan, including: 

• Early release of non-environmentally sensitive CRP acreage; 
   
• Elimination of the ethanol import tariff and temporary waiving of ethanol production limits; and 
   
• A USDA review of wheat export policies in light of the new market dynamics.

Bakers are hard pressed to manage the extreme volatility of flour prices. “Last year I was paying about $14 for a hundred-pound bag of flour – last week I was quoted $57 for that same bag of flour,” commented Len Amoroso, ABA member and Executive Vice President of Amoroso Baking in Philadelphia, Pa. “This means that I will have to spend $13 to $15 million more this year just on flour…bakers can’t keep up with these increases - we will be forced to make cuts or go under.”

Reuben Gist, Director of Advocacy, Capital Area Food Bank, spoke at the press conference about what this means to consumers. “A loaf of bread now costs the same as a gallon of gas. People are having to make hard decisions on the basics, including transportation, health care, childcare and housing.

The result is that more of the working poor are turning to food banks, such as ours, for their basic food needs.”

Bakers and other wheat users are also very concerned over the historically low stocks, with the industry currently operating with less than a one-month supply. “ABA is asking USDA to review export policies in light of these historically low domestic wheat stocks,” said Mr. MacKie. “While we are not calling for an export moratorium, USDA has a responsibility to review its policies in light of the new commodity paradigm.”

“While there is no ‘silver bullet’ fix for the current commodity crisis, ABA strongly believes that steps can be taken to help stabilize commodity markets, give wheat users increased confidence about supply availability, and importantly, provide some relief for consumer concerns about escalating food prices,” commented David Brown, ABA Commodity Task Force Chairman and Vice President of Procurement for Sara Lee Corporation.

ABA was joined by a number of industry groups in its Band of Bakers and Allied Forces March on Washington, D.C. Members of the Independent Bakers Association, Retail Bakers of America, Snack Food Association and BEMA lent their voices to this critically-important effort. “We recognize that the drastic increase in commodity prices not only affects our baker members, but all commodity users. We greatly appreciate these allied groups’ support and participation in today’s meetings,” said Mr. MacKie. 
 
“While the March was a success, I cannot stress enough the importance of our continued efforts to put pressure on policymakers in Washington to act now,” said ABA Chairman Ron Turano, President, Turano Baking Company. “All bakers should continue making calls, writing letters and visiting their members of Congress, to support the ABA Three Point Plan.”

This letter was delivered via email on Monday, March 10, 2008.

Programs Under the Agricultural Policy Framework are Continuing for Quebec Producers

April 1, 2008 -- The Honourable Gerry Ritz, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Honourable Laurent Lessard, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, today announced the continuation of programs under the Agricultural Policy Framework (APF). The ministers stated that the continuation of APF programs is necessary to allow programs to be developed under Growing Forward.

“Growing Forward is delivering real results for Canadian agriculture and this Government is working with the provinces and territories to give farm families stability while we develop important new initiatives,” said Minister Ritz. “Providing this stability while delivering progress on Growing Forward is another example of this Government’s commitment to put farmers first.”

“Continuing programs will allow for a smooth transition to Growing Forward, thereby addressing the concerns raised by all stakeholders in the sector, and will ensure the continuity of the efforts and initiatives undertaken by our farmers and our partners,” added Minister Lessard.

The continuation of programs under APF will allow Growing Forward programs to be developed with the needs of the sector in mind. “This gives us the time we need to ensure farmers have the voice they deserve in program design,” said Minister Ritz.

Programs are Continuing for Ontario Producers

April 1, 2008 -- The federal and provincial governments are working to deliver new programs for Ontario farmers through the Growing Forward initiative, but while that progress continues, existing programs under the Agricultural Policy Framework (APF) will be extended for up to one year, starting April 1, 2008.

The Honourable Gerry Ritz, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Honourable Leona Dombrowsky, Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, today announced details about the continuation of programs under the APF. 

“Growing Forward is delivering real results for Canadian agriculture and this Government is working with the provinces and territories to give farm families stability while we develop important new initiatives,” said Minister Ritz. “Providing this stability while delivering progress on Growing Forward is another example of this Government’s commitment to put farmers first.”

“Ontario producers need ongoing access to programs that can help them achieve a prosperous and profitable future,” said Minister Dombrowsky. “Managing the smooth transition from APF to Growing Forward will provide certainty for our farmers and all our partners.”

Consultations will continue so that Growing Forward programs are developed with the needs of the sector in mind. “This gives us the time we need to ensure farmers have the voice they deserve in program design,” said Minister Ritz.

Farmers for Justice calls Canadian Wheat Board “Un-Canadian”

“The root of the issues for the Western Canadian farmers lies in democratic freedom; freedom that men have fought and died for.  What is happening these days is very un-Canadian.”

April 2, 2008 -– As Ian White, new CEO of the CWB settles into his first week behind his desk, Farmers for Justice is hopeful his ear is attuned to “more than the same tired voices we’ve heard repeatedly,” says FFJ spokesperson Colleen Bianchi.

And they have reason to be hopeful.  White’s extensive agriculture background includes senior and high level executive positions with a variety of Australian agribusiness companies.  Australia maintains a transparent and accountable wheat board with marketing choice.

“This is not about money,” Bianchi said.  “It’s about fundamental rights.  Western Canadian farmers are being denied the same rights as Quebec and Ontario farmers have enjoyed for years.  This is about democratic freedom – having marketing choice, and eliminating discrimination.  Any less than that is simply un-Canadian.”

Parliament is voting on Bill C-46, a bill which will amend the CWB Act.  There have been calls for a plebiscite on this Bill, but FFJ disagrees.

“A plebiscite is costly, and a recent plebiscite has already showed very clearly that only 38% of western farmers supported retention of the CWB monopoly,” continued Bianchi.  “What we are expecting is no different than what is already granted to the rest of the country: No Cost Export Licenses.”

“It is our hope that the decision of Ian White, the CWB Board of Directors, and the Canadian Parliament will accurately reflect the wishes and desires of Western farmers.  We want choice.  We want fairness.  We want freedom.  And we need to hear we have those rights by the August 1 new crop year.”

Hill faces ongoing struggle with Tory government

March 29, 2008 -- The farmer run Canadian Wheat Board has elected Larry Hill as its new chairman after Ken Ritter, who had led the marketing agency since 1999, stepped down this week.

"I know that it's not going to be an easy job, but it's an important thing that the CWB function in the best interest of producers," Hill said in an interview on Friday.

The wheat board, which had $4.95 billion in revenue last year, has been locked in a struggle with the federal government, which wants to end its monopoly on sales of Prairie wheat and barley to millers, malsters and export markets.

Hill, a farmer from Swift Current, SK, is a strong monopoly supporter and has been on the wheat board's board of directors since 1999.

Ritter, who farms at Kindersley, SK, became the first chairman when the governance of the 72-year-old wheat board was overhauled to give farmers more control over the agency, one of the world's largest grain marketers.  Farmers elect 10 directors to the board.  The government appoints five, including the CEO.  A narrow majority of elected, pro-monopoly directors now controls the board.

Ritter's term as a director is set to expire this year.  He said he stepped down so a new chairman could begin at the same time as the agency's new chief executive, Ian White, who takes the helm on Monday.

"it's a new beginning, a very fundamental change for the organization, and this is a s good a time as any to make that exchange" a the board of directors, Ritter told Reuters.

Before he joined the board, Ritter had advocated for a "dual market," where the wheat board would compete for farmers' grain with other buyers.  But he changed his mind after joining the board, and became a staunch monopoly supporter, leading the fight against the Conservative government's push to change the agency's mandate.

Ritter said he is optimistic about the wheat board's future if farmers are allowed to continue to control it.

"If it's left in the hands of farmers, I think the board has a bright future.  If it's left in the hands of government, who know s - they have to answer that question," he said.

Reply to a Letter

April 22, 2008 -– Ken Ritter, former chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), responded to Art Mainil (an honourable farmer who has fought for farmers' freedom for years) over the issue of farmers freedom and the CWB ("Farmers do better with CWB", Leader-Post Letters, Mar 27.

In his letter, Ritter tactfully avoided the question of freedom. Instead, he referenced the fact that Quebec voted for a CWB single-desk marking system for wheat to support his argument to keep the CWB.

In this fact lies the essence of freedom. The Quebec farmers voted. The collective system in Quebec for marketing milling wheat is accountable to farmers and only to farmers.

Instituted in 2003 by a vote, it can be terminated by farmers by simple majority of 51 per cent.

Despite only 38 per cent of farmers in Western Canada supporting the retention of the CWB monopoly in the most recent plebiscite, we have not achieved change. Why? Because the CWB is not accountable to farmers (despite Ritter's rhetoric claiming falsely it is).

The CWB is, always has been, and remains accountable to the government of Canada, which is why MPs are now voting on the change that farmers already supported in the plebescite held last year. If we had the same system as Quebec, the CWB would be gone, long gone.

Western farmers have been under the War Measures Act, which instituted the monopoly system in 1943 by the Parliament of Canada. And despite farmers going to jail and being branded as criminals by the very country that imprisoned them in the 1990, and a vote that clearly stated we were done with the institution and the attempts of the federal Conservative government to let freedom reign, we cannot attain freedom to chose, which is all we've been seeking -- for years.

The CWB is a violation of the freedom of western farmers, who want to chose how they sell the wheat and barley the produce on their farms.

And, yes, in Ontario they can chose. And in Quebec, they can vote.

For western farmers, the Parliament of Canada will decide how just that is.

The CWB monopoly discriminated against western farmers' rights and freedoms.

Yes, the CWB is only in Western Canada and, yes, farmers in the rest of Canada are treated very differently.

To think that my uncles died for freedom in the same war that took away farmers' rights.

Vicki Dutton
Paynton, SK

March 26, 2008 -- Canadian railways are reaping unreasonable profits, farm groups said yesterday, releasing a study they said should nudge the federal government to investigate what it costs rail carriers to ship grain.

Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway get a 50% return on the variable costs, according to estimates by rain analyst John Edsforth.

That's more than double what they were allowed to earn before rail laws were overhauled in 2000, and twice what they would earn if there was more competition, Edsforth said in a study commissioned by the Canadian Wheat Board.

Farm groups said railways make at least $100 million a year in excessive profits, or about $9,000 from an average farmer's annual $50,000 freight bill.

"We're paying an extra $9,000 (per farm) that currently has been going toward CN and CP shareholders," Manitoba farmer Ian Wishart said at an elevator northwest of Winnipeg where tractor-trailers unloaded wheat and canola.

A spokesman for Canadian National, the country's largest railway, which has complained it was being hurt financially by "creeping re-regulation" of its grain transportation business, dismissed the complaints.

China has slightly over one-fifth of the world population, and with a rapidly growing middle class, it is a major economic driver in the global market.  China is now the world's largest producer and consumer of agri-food products.  Its emergence as a key competitor in some markets, and as a market destination in others, is of considerable interest to the Canadian agri-food sector.  This issue of the Bi-weekly Bulletin examines some key elements of China's agricultural sector and looks at the prospects of increased trade between Canada and China.

March 6, 2008

I want to personally thank you for your support of this government's commitment to bring marketing freedom to western Canadian grain producers.

I have been working hard, alongside Prime Minister Stephen Harper and my Conservative colleagues, to make that commitment a reality.  I am very pleased to inform you that I have introduced legislation in the House of Commons that will allow western barley producers the freedom to market their grain outside of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly.

Producers across the Prairies have been calling for choice, and we are listening.  We are, however, in an uphill battle against an Opposition that would prefer to see western Canadian farmers shackled to the monopoly rather than making their own marketing choices.  Today, I am calling on you to make your voice heard and let the Opposition know that you will not stand by while they continue to obstruct your freedom.

We are at a critical crossroads.  In a time when world grain prices are skyrocketing, it is a shame to watch wheat and barley producers turn to crops outside the hold of the monopoly when they could be taking advantage of a thriving wheat and barley market.

Together, we have a mandate to enact choice for grain producers.  Now is the time to make your voice heard.  It is our goal to bring marketing freedom to the Prairies for barley producers by August 1, 2008.  To do this, the Opposition needs to hear from you today.  Call the Liberal, Bloc and NDP members of Parliament and let them know that you deserve and demand the freedom the rest of Canadian producers take for granted.

Again, thank you for your hard work in helping us bring marketing freedom to Western Canada.

Sincerely,
Gerry Ritz, PC, MP

CLICK HERE FOR A COMPLETE LIST OF MP TELEPHONE NUMBERS

What the CWB is Doing for YOU!!
Based on a 1500 acre farm in the Killarney area

**Possibility of getting LESS than CWB Pro is likely.

**CANOLA price is the same on both sides of the border without CWB control

US price is based on BTR Farmer's Elevator, ND and Bottineau Elevator, ND.  These are all within a 90 mile radius of Killarney.  There are no US subsidies included in these prices.  Grain prices as of January 9, 2008.

Loss of income with CWB marketing: $134,074

"Thank you, CWB, for what YOU think is a "great" job of marketing our grain."  - A Canadian Farmer

Contact Your Local Member of Parliament

• Write letters and emails to the MP's and the Ministers -- including the Liberal and NDP Member's of Parliament
   
• Hold your grain back from the CWB until the very end
   
• Do not sign up right away for the different contracts until the last day

May 27, 2008 –- The Government of Canada is introducing amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act to make sure that board members are elected only by Western Canadian farmers who are commercially producing grain. The Honourable Gerry Ritz, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, introduced Bill C-57 in the House of Commons today. 
 
“You earn the right to call yourself a farmer by growing crops, not by filing paperwork,” said Minister Ritz. “This Government is making sure the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) listens to real farmers by introducing this legislation to give farmers a stronger voice in director elections.” 
 
The current legislation allows any producer to vote in director elections. Many producers who are named in a permit book have retired, rented out their land, or only grow small amounts of grain as a hobby. 
 
This legislation will ensure voters in CWB director elections are genuine farmers who have produced at least 120 tonnes of grain in either of the two crop years preceding the election. The Government of Canada intends to have these eligibility requirements in place for the director elections in the fall of 2008. 
 
“The CWB must be responsive to farmers and this Government’s legislation delivers that accountability,” said Minister Ritz.

Marketing Choice Meetings

Over 300 farmers, representing three provinces, gathered in Weyburn on March 6, 2008.  The movie "Against The Grain" ran first and the room was in silence during the whole time.

Farmers were then given the opportunity to speak and gave their opinions as to what action should be next. Most were concerned whether the Government Barley Bill will happen before the new crop year.

There was discussion on what the next step for farmers should be.  The meeting went "in-camera" so the media then left.  There were some conclusions made and the plan has already been started.

June 6, 2008 -- Fewer Western Canadian farmers support the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on wheat and barley sales than did a year ago, according to an annual poll released by the farmer-run agency on Friday. 
 
For wheat, 57 percent of farmers said the CWB should keep its government-granted monopoly on sales to millers and export markets, while 39 percent said the market should be open. 
 
Last year, 61 percent of farmers supported the monopoly, while 35 percent wanted it to end. 
 
For barley, 52 percent of farmers said the market should open, with 40 percent wanting the CWB to retain its monopoly on sales to maltsters and export markets. 
 
Farmers were split last year, with 48 percent supporting the barley monopoly and 46 percent wanting it to end. 
 
"If you look at the 10-year average, the numbers haven't changed much," Larry Hill, chairman of the CWB's board, told Reuters. 
 
Hill said recent increases in cash grain prices have caused some dissatisfaction with the CWB's pooled prices, which give farmers returns based on sales made through a whole year. 
 
But a federal government's "gag order" has restricted the CWB from doing more to explain its prices, Hill said. 
 
"Our opponents have been going full-blast, so that may have an effect as well," Hill said. 
 
The CWB and the federal government will square off over the gag order in court on June 16. 
 
The CWB had C$4.95 billion ($4.85 billion) in revenue last year, making it one of the world's largest grain traders. 
 
Its monopoly powers on sales of Western Canadian grain have long been an irritant to international competitors. Canada's minority Conservative government also wants to dismantle the CWB's "single desk." 
 
Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said the poll supports his plans to make the CWB optional. "There is no longer any doubt how strong and deep support for barley marketing freedom now runs among Western Canadian farmers," Ritz said in a release. 
 
The CWB has said it could not compete in a dual market because it does not own handling facilities. 
 
In a second set of questions, when offered the additional option of a dual market, 41 percent chose a dual market for barley, while 26 percent preferred an open market and 27 percent supported the CWB. 
 
For wheat, 45 percent of farmers picked the dual market, with 12 percent wanting an open market and 42 percent the CWB. 
 
The government said the question shows a combined total of 67 percent of farmers want "marketing freedom" for barley and 57 percent for wheat. 
 
But Hill rejected combining the results, and said he believes farmers want the CWB to find more flexible pricing options while keeping the clout of the monopoly. 
 
"This poll says, 'Keep looking,"' said Hill, a farmer from Swift Current, Saskatchewan. "What this poll doesn't say is, 'Get rid of the single desk."' 
 
The survey of 1,300 farmers was done in early March. 
 
Farmers showed strong support for a new malting barley program designed to track cash markets, Hill said. The program has been rejected by most maltsters and grain companies. 
 
Most also said farmers should decide the CWB's future, not the federal government.

Farm groups are turning their attention from the courts back to the Commons on the issue of Prairie barley marketing.

In news releases Tuesday and Wednesday, respectively, the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board and Western Barley Growers Association reacted briefly to Tuesday's court ruling against the federal government's plans to deregulate barley marketing by order-in-council, and focused on Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz's plan to attempt the same outcome by legislation. 

WBGA president Jeff Nielsen of Olds, Alta., urged the minority Conservative government to introduce legislative reforms "immediately" and urged Prairie barley growers to show support for reform by rallying Friday (Feb. 29) at the steps of the Saskatchewan Legislature in Regina at 12:30 p.m.

"Going to legislative reforms, and introducing them as soon as possible, is a priority, as we need to see these changes done in time for the new crop year Aug. 1," WBGA vice-president Tom Hewson of Langbank, Sask., said in the same release.

"We need the support of the opposition parties to acknowledge the fact that without the ability to see dramatic growth in barley now, we do risk serious economic harm to all of Canada."

Ritz recently said he would introduce such legislation by the end of this month. However, he added, the CWB "has sufficiently stalled things long enough" and will "survive" until after the next federal election when, he predicted, the Conservatives come back with a majority. Then, he said, "all bets are off."

Survival for a Conservative bill to remove barley from the CWB's marketing jurisdiction is seen as unlikely at best in the current minority Commons.  Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale told reporter Allan Dawson in Thursday's Manitoba Co-operator that the party couldn't support any bill that essentially calls for "evisceration" of the CWB or violation of farmers' control of the board.

The NDP also opposes such legislation and the Bloc Quebecois, which backs supply management in other farm commodities, has also expressed opposition.

Removing Prairie barley from the CWB's single marketing desk would allow it to become a "crop of choice," rather than one of last resort and low return -- and more barley production would in turn encourage value-added development, Nielsen said.

"Without growth in the Canadian barley sector, we will see economic losses to those value-added sectors that rely on what once was our supply of top-quality barley for their needs, namely our maltsters and brewers; and, without a constant quality supply of feed barley, shackle our already struggling livestock feeding sector," he said.

"Back in Court"
Meanwhile, the Friends of the CWB -- the group that first launched the Federal Court challenge of the federal government's June 2007 order-in-council for an open barley market, leading to Ottawa's unsuccessful appeal Tuesday -- warned Ritz in a separate release that an attempt to legislate Prairie barley deregulation would wind up "back in court."

The group said any legislative amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act would first require consultation with the CWB's board of directors and a producer vote in favour of excluding barley from the CWB's single desk.

The Friends group, spearheaded by National Farmers Union president Stewart Wells and former CWB director Wilf Harder, said Tuesday that it advised Ritz "not to waste any more farmers' or taxpayers' money on flawed plebiscites, misleading ad campaigns or ill-advised court appeals."

June 6, 2008 -- A poll conducted by a long-time Liberal insider on behalf of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) confirms Western Canadian farmers overwhelmingly support barley marketing freedom. A closer look at the CWB survey results released today shows Western Canadian farmers’ demands for barley marketing freedom are even stronger than CWB Chair Larry Hill stated during his appearance at the Senate Committee on Agriculture yesterday. 

“There is no longer any doubt how strong and deep support for barley marketing freedom now runs among Western Canadian farmers,” said the Honourable Gerry Ritz, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board.

When Mr. Hill appeared before the Senate Agriculture Committee he said 57 per cent of Western Canadian farmers are demanding marketing freedom for barley. What the CWB’s own survey actually says is that 57 per cent of Western Canadian farmers want marketing freedom for wheat.

The CWB’s survey actually shows that nearly 70 per cent of Western Canadian farmers are demanding barley marketing freedom. In fact, Mr. Herle specifically states in the survey that “dual marketing is the preference among farmers for barley marketing” and “if they cannot have a dual market, most would prefer an open market to the single desk.” 

“The results of this survey are so clear the Liberals cannot even spin the numbers coming from their own insider to support their ideological crusade against Western Canadian barley farmers,” said Minister Ritz.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and this Government are working hard to deliver barley marketing freedom and it is time for the Liberals to give Western Canadian barley farmers the freedom they are demanding by supporting Bill C-46.

February 27, 2008 -- Members of the Western Barley Growers Association are greatly disappointed that yesterday in Winnipeg the Court of Appeal denied overturning last summer's lower court ruling which rejected barley freedom on August 1.  WBGA members also saw the Court of Appeal deny its intervention arguments on a constitutional challenge of the CWB Act.  WBGA would like to thank the ten barley producers that allowed their names to stand in our efforts for intervention.

"Today's ruling does nothing to promote and grow barley production in western Canada," says Jeff Nielsen, President WBGA.  "Our Canadian malting industry is in a serious position.  It cannot attract barley acres to fulfill its needs unless they are able to show true market signals and price transparency.  Without removing barley from the CWB's monopoly completely, we will see fewer acres seeded to barley, and less malt barley production.  I call upon Canadian Agriculture Minister Ritz, and our Government of Canada to introduce legislative reforms immediately."

"Removing barley through legislation now, will allow barley itself to be a crop of choice, providing solid net returns to producers; not one seeded as a commodity of last resort and low return.  This will allow more growth in malt production Canada, growth in jobs in Canada, and growth in barley research and development in Canada.  This growth in barley, once it is completely removed from the CWB Act, will be a catalyst towards building strong economic returns right from the producer in western Canada to the brewery worker in Montreal.  Without growth in the Canadian barley sector, we will see economic losses to those value added sectors that rely on, what once was our supply of top quality barley for their needs, namely our maltsters and brewers; and without a constant quality supply of feed barley, shackle our already struggling livestock feeding sector.  Saying that, I encourage those that have fought hard against barley freedom, to work with us now in promoting the necessary legislative reforms," concludes Nielsen.

"Going to legislative reforms, and introducing them as soon as possible, is a priority, as we need to see these changes done in time for the new crop year August 1," states Tom Hewson, WBGA Vice President.  "We need the support of the opposition parties to acknowledge the fact that without the ability to see dramatic growth in barley now, we do risk serious economic harm to all of Canada."

"Barley farmers have spoken, we want barley freedom, freedom where we can market our own barley, just as we do our canola, pulses, flax and oats," comments Doug McBain, WBGA Past President.  "How can members of the Opposition parties deny my personal rights to sell my own barley?"

WBGA is calling on farmers that want marketing freedom from across western Canada to meet at the steps of the Saskatchewan Legislature in Regina, on Friday, February 29 at 12:30 pm.  We will be hosting a rally to show the Government of Canada the support they have for introducing the necessary legislative reforms now.

June 30, 2008 -- One statistic concerning the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) has always caused me wry amusement. When I first began covering the country's collectivist grain merchant more than a decade ago, it claimed to represent more than 120,000 farmers on the prairies. Today it boasts just 75,000.  
 
The amusing part is that this decline undermines the board's central argument for its own worth -- namely that there is strength in numbers; all prairie wheat and barley farmers must be lashed to the board's mast together or, as individuals, they would surely sink.  
 
But in just under 15 years, the number of farmers with permit books -- the licenses they need to sell their grain to the government, and only the government -- has fallen by almost half. If there is so much strength in numbers, how come farmers can be permitted to stop growing the grains that the wheat board markets?  
 
Seriously. When I first argued that the board should be voluntary, there were nearly 120,000 farmers pooling their wheat together under the CWB's "single-desk" selling model. I said, even if a quarter of them chose to market outside the board, that would still leave 90,000, more than enough to provide the strength through unity the board argued was essential.  
 
At the time, board supporters and PR types insisted 90,000 wouldn't do the trick. For their system to work, it had to include all 120,000.  
 
Over the intervening years, tens of thousands of farmers have left to grow non-board crops, such as oats, beans, flax and so on. Some have left farming altogether because the board wouldn't free them to sell independently the wheat or barley they grew on their own land, with their own labour, using their own resources. All that's left is 75,000 growers, far fewer than the 90,000 I was told a decade ago was too few to keep the board viable.  
 
Yet, still the board insists there is no room for farmers to sell their wheat except through the CWB.  
 
It's clear, then, the board has no idea what number of farmers is needed to keep it viable, and equally clear the number of farmers shackled to it doesn't matter to the board. What matters -- as it does to all bureaucratic, central-planning agencies -- is control and survival. The board is not interested in maximizing return to farmers as much as it interested in maintaining its iron grip over prairies grain sales and, thereby, ensuring its own continued existence.  
 
If the strength-in-numbers argument were valid, the board would not only be arguing for retention of its monopoly but for an addition law insisting no current wheat or barley grower should be permitted to switch to other crops, or, for that matter, to quit farming altogether.  
 
When I have made this argument before, I have been told it is preposterous, that the board would never dream of forcing farmers to keep farming crops they don't want to. But how is that any more preposterous than forcing them to sell the crops they have chosen to grow only to the board, or face jail time?  
 
The simple fact is, there is no difference. The coercion is only a matter of degrees.  
 
If the board is still as viable at 75,000 farmers as it was at 120,000 
-- and the board insists it is -- than it would be equally viable at 50,000 or 60,000, if those farmers content to take the risk of marketing their own grain were freed to do so.  
 
There is no legitimate argument -- economic or moral -- for permitting the board to retain its absolute control over prairie grain sales.  
 
In his letter to the editor last week about a column I wrote last Monday, CWB chairman Larry Hill said what I had written was full of inaccuracies. I'll concede there was one -- I had missed the appointment by the Conservative government of five pro-free-market directors to the board to replace the Liberals' five pro-monopoly appointees.  
 
I shouldn't have missed it and for that I apologize.  
 
But I reject Mr. Hill's contention that I am a free-speech hypocrite for arguing strenuously for the right to free expression for others, but not the board.  
 
I didn't write the headline that accompanied my piece, "Wheat board should remain silent." I said the wheat board should be made voluntary. That way, whatever money it spent on lobbying for its own existence would come only from those farmer-shareholders who agreed with that goal, rather than also from farmers who wanted out from under the board. What Mr. Hill and other board supporters want is the power for the CWB to be as coercive as government.

Lorne Gunter
National Post

Click here for the decision from the Alberta Surface Rights Board decision 2008/0016.

It seems that in Alberta we have one set of rules that govern Big Business and another set of rules that govern the peasants that occupy the land base of this province.

No doubt big oil will be prepared to spend millions of $ to appeal this $20.00 ruling by the Surface Rights Board, as is testified to by numerous decisions currently being appealed and funded by the obscene profits being pocketed by these companies.  This fact speaks volumes about the rape and pillage that the petroleum industry continues to  force upon the rural land base of Alberta.

We have an opportunity in the next 3 weeks to extract from the politicians, a commitment on what they are prepared to do regarding Annual Compensation on Pipelines.  They have failed to clarify the Land Agents Licensing Act, for three years in a row. This law now requires us to hire only Licensed Petroleum Land Agents to assist with negotiations.  Instead this government continues to steadfastly hide  behind the court system.  Maybe the time has come for the good people of rural Alberta request them to stand up and do what's right for once.  Empty promises do not cut the Mustard!

August 7, 2008 -- For 73 years, the Canadian Wheat Board swore there was strength in numbers; that Western farmers, as a band of grain-pooling brothers, could stand firm against the exploitations of speculators and corporations; that as one of the world's biggest grain marketers, its clout commands premiums. Announcing last week that the board projects a record $7-billion in revenue this year, chairman Larry Hill handed credit directly to monopoly power. The "CWB was able to leverage its role as a single seller ... to achieve strong values for farmers" boasted his press release.

A new study by one of the world's top agronomics firms, Informa Economics, though, suggests the CWB isn't so mighty after all. Commissioned by the Alberta government and released the same day as Mr. Hill's announcement, it concluded the board succeeds no better than your average schmo when it comes to grain marketing. More damning, it calculates that growers would have gotten richer over the past several years from the open market, rather than being forced to sell to the board.

Freeing farmers from the CWB's monopolistic grip has been the federal Conservatives' plan since they were elected in 2006, rooted in Reform Party principles that Westerners deserve the same rights as their Eastern peers to freely sell a product of their labour. So far, their efforts have been frustrated. But this latest report may offer the most powerful ammunition yet in undermining the Canadian Wheat Board's entire raison d'etre.

"If you could show that year in, year out they get a higher return you might be able to argue, 'Well maybe there is a case for denying individual freedom,' " says Blair Rutter, executive director of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, a pro-marketing-choice group. "If you can't even demonstrate that they get an above-average return, then what's their justification?" 

The CWB has studied the report for the past several days, preparing its response. In an e-mail, spokeswoman Maureen Fitzhenry said it may come as early as today and "would certainly refute its main conclusion."

This will be a tough thing to dismiss, though. Informa's reputation is as a top authoritative source for agronomics analysis. Based in Memphis, British owned, it has no dog in this policy fight; its good name (its parent firm is traded on the London exchange) is surely worth more than scoring political points in Canada with faulty studies.

Economists used a treasury of grain pricing data from the UN, USDA and published elevator and gate prices to analyze wheat board profitability using three different models (the CWB refused to share its own confidential sales figures, but controlling 95% of Canadian wheat and barley exports, national statistics come close). Every which way, the study found board taking home prices that, over time, came up short.

If the CWB ever was a market mover, it is no more, says David Reimann, Informa's vice-president. Producers in the former Soviet bloc export more wheat. Americans, too. Western Canada, suffering a heavier drop in wheat acreage than any exporting jurisdiction, slipped from 20% world market share in 1995 to 14%. Canadian barley, just 11%. "The CWB's relatively small share in the international market means it is unable to exert any real influence over global prices," the report states. It is a "price taker" -- meaning it gets the going rate. Anyone can manage that. And without the inefficiencies of the single-desk system, the authors estimate, Western producers could have made $2.25-billion-$3-billion more over the last five years in the open market.

That's Alberta's interest in fact-checking the CWB's claims, spending $50,000 on the report to do it; its producers have long favoured marketing choice (Saskatchewan recently joined the campaign, too, leaving Manitoba's NDP the board's only provincial ally). "The evidence is that the current system is costing [farmers] money," says Alberta Agriculture spokesman Lucas Warren. "We want to provide the best economic opportunity for them."

The federal Conservatives' approach, though, has faced accusations of being more ideological than practical. Attempts to, as a first step, let barley farmers opt out of the CWB have been thwarted by an aggressive, activist board. Directors overturned the government's tries at regulatory changes in court. Opposition parties refuse to support legislation deregulating barley, persuaded by the CWB that a majority of producers prefer the status quo and believe it makes more than going it alone.

But the board's own surveys have shot the first claim: 67% of barley farmers polled this year oppose its monopoly. And if the CWB can't offer one heck of a compelling argument to controvert Alberta's new and potent evidence that board collectivism actually hurts farmers, not helps them, it's going to have a tough time selling its strength in numbers story any longer.

I suggest to everyone that they read a book entitled Stupid To The Last Drop by William Marsden. I do not really like the title because I like to try and keep my thinking balanced but the historical accounting is extremely interesting and as you get into chapters 5 and 6 discussions of the National Petroleum Council that advises the US government shows the incredible task ahead of CAPLA.

The president of Enbridge Pipelines, TransCanada Corporation and EnCana are on this council. I guess I want people to understand the influences we are up against and the thinking of North American government and the effort that will be used against CAPLA as we try to protect landowners in the future.

We need to protect our safety, our environment, our land, our farms and our families. We are not against this industry but we need to stand up and protect ourselves as this industry and North American governments try to infringe their responsibilities onto our shoulders.

I guess I want to start talking about CAPLA goals in the future and where I see our interests best directed to get our issues addressed. We also need to understand that we are up against the biggest lobby group in the world and the only way we can influence in the future is on 2 fronts..... we need to get all landowners and the public on side and then secondly considering the lobby we are up against we need substantial funds to support court actions. How are we going to do this?????????

CAPLA will continue to participate in the NEB processes but with no funding for our participation in their new Land Matters Consultation Initiative, they have basically put us in the arena, but with our hands tied and duct tape on any real influence. We have no choice but to go through the motions, but at the same time we must continue to take the actions that we know work. That is organizing, spreading the word about our issues, interventions, speaking at meetings, using the present Board processes in ways they haven't been used in the past, and fund raising for court and constitutional challenges.

As farmers and landowners we have no choice but to protect our land and to be treated fairly. It is about fair compensation, environmental protection, our safety and protection of our rights and in particular our right to farm.

The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance (CAFTA) stated emphatically today that no new deal at the World Trade Organization (WTO) would be a bad deal for Canadian farmers.

Without a new agreement, the future competitiveness of Canada 's agriculture industry is at stake. The current international trading market remains significantly distorted by a range of barriers - including restrictive tariffs, arbitrary limits on market access, domestic support programs and export subsidies. Combined with the weakened U.S. dollar, which puts an additional burden on all Canadian exporters, the pressure on Canadian agricultural exporters has never been higher. Over 92% (210,000) of Canadian farmers are directly dependent on export markets - they either export their products or sell them domestically at prices set by international marketplaces.

"Billions are at stake for export dependent agriculture," says Darcy Davis, President of CAFTA. "To not get a new WTO agreement would mean tariffs can be raised and domestic supports increased to further distort international trade.  Canada 's trade-dependent agriculture sectors, by far the majority of our agriculture producers, need a new deal not just to increase our access to world markets, but to maintain what we've got. There is no status quo."

CAFTA delegates remain in Geneva where international ministers of trade are attempting to hammer out an agreement on a package of compromise parameters for agricultural tariff and subsidy reductions. Failure to reach an agreement would mean failure for the Doha Round of WTO negotiations and the likelihood that no new WTO agreement would be reached for years.

January 30, 2008 -- The Honourable Gerry Ritz, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, today announced the appointment of Ian White as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB). Mr. White has been appointed for a three-year term starting March 31, 2008.

“I am pleased that Mr. White has accepted the appointment of President and CEO of the CWB,” said Minister Ritz. “With the strong support both this Government and the CWB have given Mr. White, I trust both will give him the freedom and the tools he will require to work in the interests of Western Canadian producers." 

Mr. White’s appointment is fully supported by both the Government of Canada and the Canadian Wheat Board.

"The CWB, in conjunction with the government, engaged in a rigorous process and extensive search to find the best candidate for the position, and we are confident that Mr. White, with his comprehensive background and experience, will provide strong leadership to the corporation," said Ken Ritter, Chair of the Search Committee and the CWB Board of Directors.

Mr. White will provide strong leadership as the CWB faces a number of challenging issues, including farmers’ desire for change.

A biographical note for Mr. White is attached.

Biographical Note – Ian H. White

Ian White has extensive professional experience at a senior executive level in the agribusiness industry in Australia, Canada and the United States.

Mr. White has an in-depth understanding of agribusiness with wide-ranging experience in both international and domestic commodity marketing, customer relationships, and grower relations, in both statutory and non-statutory marketing environments in Australia, and North America.

Mr. White has served as a senior executive at a number of agribusiness companies in Canada, the United States and Australia, including Queensland Cotton Limited, Defiance Mills Limited, Grainco Limited, AgPro Grain (a subsidiary of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool) and Elders Grain. Most recently, Mr. White has occupied the position of Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Queensland Sugar Limited, a multi-billion dollar industry-owned marketing company.

Mr. White holds a Bachelor of Economics (with honours) from the University of Sydney.

August 28, 2008 -- A new poll suggests a majority of Canadians like where the Conservatives have been taking the country, but are bracing for an election and wouldn't mind having a change of government all the same.

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey suggests the Conservatives and Liberals remain in a dead heat in popular support going into an expected fall election.

In the last week, the Liberals stood at 34 per cent, the Conservatives at 33 per cent.

The New Democrats were well back, at 15 per cent support, followed by the Green Party at 11 per cent and nine per cent for the Bloc Quebecois.

A majority of respondents _ 55 per cent _ said they believe the country is headed in the right direction.

Still, nearly half of the more than 1,000 Canadians surveyed - 47 per cent - said Canada would be best served by a new government.

As well, nearly two thirds of respondents said they expect there will be a federal election this fall.

Roughly half of those asked, 48 per cent, said a fall vote would be a good thing. Thirty five per cent said they aren't keen on going to the polls.

"Canadians are gearing up for an election,'' said Harris-Decima president Bruce Anderson.

"Although they weren't sure they want one, they seem mostly accepting of the idea that there will be one.''

The poll, conducted from Aug. 21 through Aug. 24, had a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

January 24, 2008 -- The Canadian government is expected to name Ian White, currently chief executive of Australia's Queensland Sugar Ltd, as the new CEO of the Canadian Wheat Board, one of the world's largest grain exporters, the Western Producer newspaper reported in its January 24 issue.  

White, described as a strong advocate for trade liberalization by the newspaper, was chosen from three candidates by a CWB-government committee, and accepted by Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, the newspaper said. 

Ritz was expected to take the recommendation to federal cabinet soon for formal approval, the article said.

August 29, 2008 -- The Bush administration can prohibit meat packers from testing their animals for mad cow disease, a federal appeals court said Friday.

The dispute pits the Agriculture Department, which tests about 1 percent of cows for the potentially deadly disease, against a Kansas meat packer that wants to test all its animals.

Larger meat packers opposed such testing. If Creekstone Farms Premium Beef began advertising that its cows have all been tested, other companies fear they too will have to conduct the expensive tests.

The Bush administration says the low level of testing reflects the rareness of the disease. Mad cow disease has been linked to more than 150 human deaths worldwide, mostly in Great Britain. Only three cases have been reported in the U.S., all involving cows, not humans.

A federal judge ruled last year that Creekstone must be allowed to conduct the test because the Agriculture Department can only regulate disease "treatment." Since there is no cure for mad cow disease and the test is performed on dead animals, the judge ruled, the test is not a treatment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned that ruling, saying diagnosis can be considered part of treatment.

"And we owe USDA a considerable degree of deference in its interpretation of the term," Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote.

The case was sent back to the district court, where Creekstone can make other arguments

January 17, 2008 -- "Today's call by Minister Ritz to invite CWB Chairman Ken Ritter and CEO Greg Arason to Ottawa to sit down and come to a resolution with barley farmers, our industry partners and themselves is a giant step forward in this current impasse" says Jeff Nielsen president of the Western Barley Growers Association (WBGA).

"Clearly our government is listening to producers and the need to move barley forward to which we make the decisions on who, what, where and when we can sell our own barley.  The CashPlus malt barley program recently announced by the CWB did not fulfill the needs of the producers, our malters or even our grain trade," continues Nielsen.  "We cannot wait any longer for a solution to this refusal of the CWB to do what farmers voted for and what even their own internal surveys have shown is needed."

Both Alberta and Saskatchewan account for 85% + of the total barley production in western Canada and 90% of the malt barley selected.  Both Alberta and Saskatchewan governments along with the government of British Columbia support the call for barley producers to be able to market their barley how ever they choose.

Alberta alone has over a million acres of high quality barley that the CWB can not attract as these producers do not have permit books.  This has frustrated not only our domestic malsters but our grain trade that sees excellent malt barley yet cannot handle it.  In the limited consultations the CWB had with select producers, on the CashPlus plan, it did provide them the controlled - desired results that the CWB wanted.  It is doubtful the CWB consulted with those producers that do not take out permit books, or the 62% of barley producers that voted for choice.

With an open fully transparent barley marketing system, pricing signals and marketing options will encourage and build a grower - end user relationship, with no middle man needed.  This in itself will encourage growth in barley research and development.  Growing the ability of barley farmers to ensure the quality barley our industry partners' need, our vibrant livestock feeding sector and grow in new areas such as food fractionation and ethanol, that can increase returns to the producer.

"We need to know that we are going to be able to market our barley freely for the new crop year now" states Doug McBain, WBGA past president.  "The CWB is holding our grain trade and domestic malster's hostage by not allowing them to have their customers sign contracts with them for next falls barley crop.  By doing this, the CWB is financially hurting every barley farmer in Western Canada, as these industry partners are loosing sales, thereby farmers are losing any potential gain on these sales."

"Farmers are looking at other crops rather than barley, crops that are showing high farm gate returns for next fall; all we ask is that we get that chance with barley as well," concludes Nielsen.

WBGA thanks Minister Ritz and our government for their commitment to choice.  As stated in last fall's Throne speech, "Our government will recognize the views of farmers, as expressed in the recent plebiscite on barley, by enacting marketing choice."

by Owen Roberts

Negotiators everywhere are trying to pick up the pieces after the most recent round of international trade talks failed again. But maybe the farm industry should be campaigning to pick up the negotiators instead, and throw them out.

The World Trade Organization, which is entrusted globally with trying to promote trade stability in 153 member countries, is proving ineffective. Attempts to be democratic, conciliatory and flexible in this recent "round" of talks — which has gone on for seven years — simply did not work.

Frustration is running high. Even a normally patient country such as Canada, which has long prided itself in being a moderate at these talks (in part, because its pockets weren't deep enough to lead the agenda), dug in its heels at the talks in Geneva and bucked global demands for less trade protectionism. So did India and some developing nations, which want the right to shelter certain agricultural products against cheap imports.

For decades, Canada has protected dairy, poultry and egg farmers by charging huge tariffs against imports of these commodities. Against significant pressure from abroad, Canada pounded the table at the WTO for the right to such protectionism, calling it an entitlement, and a necessity. Without protection, Canada said, these commodities would be buried by unfair competition — even though other farm sectors manage to survive.

Negotiating is tough when all parties are entrenched. As a result, now, there’s no deal. Negotiators may never be able to agree to a meaningful pact that puts all countries on equal footing as far as access to markets is concerned, or support for exports.

Is it really over? This drive toward a negotiated ceasefire in international trade wars began as an attempt to get the world's agricultural superpowers to stop heaping huge subsidies on their farmers. It was treasury versus treasury, not farmer versus farmer. Some countries vowed to change, but their offers were met with suspicion and doubt. Little changed that would lead to trade peace or an equal playing field among all countries.

Through these years, a northern Ontario farmer named Jack Wilkinson kept producers around the world focused on fairness and optimism, as the long-standing president of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers. His tenure has finally ended, but he leaves a legacy of hope that where bureaucrats failed, farmers may succeed.

Globally, farmers want conditions that will enable them to feed their own people, and others. They are united in their pleas for help with huge problems, many of them environmental and social, such as global warming and desertification, as well as rural migration and rural health.

Unfortunately, on a world scale, another battle is also being lost: that is, the fight against poverty. Although those of us in developed countries are well fed, nurturing local food programs and enjoying long lives, overall poverty is escalating.

The Population Reference Bureau (www.prb.org/Home.aspx) issued its annual state of the union report last week, noting a widening in what it calls the demographic divide — the inequality in the population and health profiles of rich and poor countries.

It says two sharply different patterns of population growth are evident: little growth or even decline in most wealthy countries, and continued rapid population growth in the world's poorest countries.

Bob Friesen, former president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, says while farmers devote attention locally to their farms and communities, they must also keep international trade and development in mind.

This is truer now more than ever.

Governments can't figure out how to feed the world. No matter how much we urge them to increase foreign aid, nothing much happens. Global deals can't get done by those we've traditionally entrusted to succeed. Maybe farmers can get it done.

Crop Insurance Set to Change Across Alberta

As Alberta farmers make plans for the growing season ahead, AFSC expects many will be pleased to hear major changes to crop insurance are being unveiled for 2008.

Farmers Asked for Changes
"Over the last few years, farmers have been asking us to change the way their crop insurance coverage is calculated. We've consulted with hundreds of farmers province-wide, and they tell us it's too complicated," says Chris Dyck, Manager of Program Development for Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC), the provincial Crown Corporation that administers crop insurance in Alberta. 

"One of their biggest complaints is that crop production on neighboring farms affects how much insurance coverage they receive. Producers want crop insurance based only on what is produced on their own farm - no one else's," he explains. 

"We are now announcing a new program for 2008 that answers those concerns for annual crops."

Neighbors' Yields No Longer Affect Coverage
The new program - called Individual Coverage - is quite simple, says Dyck. It takes a producer's average yields for each crop (over a five to 15-year period) and uses that to set their insurance coverage. "If their yield has been 40 bu/acre for the last 15 years, we'll give them coverage based on that number. We no longer factor in yields of other farmers in the area."

The old system - called Indexed Coverage - was much more complicated, says Dyck. It compared a producer's crop yields to the average yields of farmers in their "Risk Area". The province is divided into 22 Risk Areas - each spanning dozens of townships.

"So for example, if a farmer produced 10% more than the average yield in their Risk Area, we gave them an Index number of 1.1. We then used a complex formula to create a "normal" long-term yield for each Risk Area and multiplied that number with each farmer's Index."

Old System was Confusing
"Most farmers find the old Indexing system very confusing and don't understand where their final coverage comes from," explains Dyck. "Many feel the "normal" yield in their Risk Area was too low because it averaged in farmers with poor crop yields. They argue that dragged their coverage levels far below actual production levels on their farm."

At the same time, they complain those below-average farmers received higher coverage than they deserved under Indexing, because the average yields in their Risk Area were propped up by farmers above the curve, says Dyck.

87% of Farmers Want Change
Dyck says 87% of farmers that AFSC consulted with across Alberta requested Individual Coverage because it links more directly to their own production. AFSC expects coverage will increase slightly or stay the same on two-thirds of crops insured under Individual Coverage. No coverage on any crop will drop more than 5% or increase more than 15% during the first year of transition to the new program, says Dyck.

Higher Yields = Higher Coverage
"I think farmers will see this as a good move. By personalizing their coverage and making it more responsive to what each farm produces, it encourages producers to adopt the most advanced farming techniques to increase their yields." They'll be motivated by the fact that higher yields now lead directly to higher coverage, says Risk Management Specialist Ted Darling, with Alberta Agriculture and Food.

Two important features of the old Indexing system will remain under Individual Coverage: cushioning and trending. Cushioning reduces the impact of natural disasters like drought and hail on coverage levels, says Dyck. "If you have a wreck and get a zero yield, we'll replace that zero with 70% of your normal yield to keep your coverage levels stable." Trending means AFSC will boost the older yields in a farmer's average yield records to account for advances in technology and new seed varieties.

Risk Area Boundary Lines
Under Indexing, some farmers had fields in two different Risk Areas and ended up with two different coverage levels for the same crop. "The difference could be 30 bu/acre of coverage on one field, and 40 bu/acre on another field. It all depended on the yields of other farmers in each Risk Area. With Individual Coverage, those boundary lines will no longer be an issue," says Dyck.

Farmers who grow a new crop or buy crop insurance for the first time won't get Individual Coverage right away, he adds. "We don't have yield records for them yet, so we'll start by basing coverage on the normal yields in their township. Each year, we'll blend their new yield records into the formula until we have five years of their records on file. Then we'll set coverage using only their production numbers."

Producer Meetings
AFSC is putting the final touches on the new program and will post more information on its website at www.afsc.ca in January. AFSC will hold informal meetings about Individual Coverage for producers who request it once crop insurance renewal packages are mailed out. Producers can sign up for a meeting by contacting their local AFSC office.

Agriculture Ministers Announce First Stage in Action Plan on Support for Canada's Livestock Sector

December 19, 2007 -- Ministers of Agriculture from federal, provincial and territorial governments have announced the first stage in a national action plan to help with the serious pressures faced by Canada's cattle and hog producers. This first stage was developed after intensive discussions with industry, and is based on support from existing business risk management programs. Ministers committed to accelerate cattle and hog producers' access to these programs and encouraged them to take maximum advantage of the support already available.

Governments are seeking authorities to implement the following programs to
provide significant assistance to producers in the short term:

1. AgriStability, with interim payments and targeted advances available;
2. AgriInvest, including the federal $600 million Kickstart program; and
3. an improved Advance Payments Program (APP) (more information below).

Overall, from late 2007 through 2008, nearly $1.5 billion in cash payments will flow to cattle and hog producers through existing programs. In addition, as a result of the changes being introduced by the federal government to the APP, up to $1 billion in additional loans will be available to the livestock sector, bringing the total loans available for the sector through the APP up to $2.3 billion. This enhancement will be particularly helpful to livestock producers who have had low income in recent years. Governments are now working with the producer organizations that deliver the program to ensure these loans are available early in the new year.

Ministers also supported the federal government's plan to defer the collection of interest on Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) program overpayments until December 31, 2008. This is being done in response to industry requests and applies where the Government of Canada delivers the program, as well as in Alberta¸ Ontario, and Prince Edward Island. 

Ministers also committed that their governments and industry will continue to work together to examine the parameters of existing programs to ensure they continue to work for all stakeholders. In addition to these short term measures, governments are working with industry representatives to find ways of helping industry position itself to be competitive in the long term. These measures include enhancing market access efforts, reducing the regulatory burden, and examining means to reduce the cost of the feed ban implementation.

Ministers will be meeting early in 2008.

BACKGROUNDER

Business Risk Management Programs Available to Assist Livestock Producers in the Short-term

The new Business Risk Management suite has programs that are simple, responsive, predictable and bankable for producers across Canada's agriculture sector. In keeping with Canada's trade obligations they are designed as whole- farm programs that offer producers of various commodities support and assistance when they confront difficult circumstances. Producers in the livestock sector, whether hogs or cattle, can benefit from participating in these programs and are encouraged to contact their administrations to discuss their individual business situations in more detail.

AgriStability

Governments are seeking the authorities to implement AgriStability, which helps producers protect their margins from larger declines. AgriStability replaces the coverage previously available under the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) program for margin declines of more than 15 per cent. Producers will receive program payments under AgriStability should their production margins fall below 85 per cent of their reference margins in a given year. 

Changes such as enhanced negative margin coverage and inventory valuation were requested by industry and brought about in the transition from CAIS to AgriStability. These changes are helping to ensure programs respond to the situation in the cattle and hog sectors.

How to apply

Producers who participated in CAIS for 2006 should have received an enrolment notice for AgriStability outlining the fee they must pay to participate. To participate, these producers must submit the fee before the December 31, 2007 deadline.

Producers who did not participate in CAIS 2006 can also apply to the new AgriStability program and must submit the fee before the December 31, 2007 deadline.

See the contact information below:

For more information on AgriStability, interim payments and target advances:

1.  In British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador and the Yukon Territory, call 1-866-367-8506.
2. In Alberta, call 1-877-744-7900.
3. In Ontario, call 1-877-838-5144.
4. In Quebec, call 1-800-749-3646.
5. In Prince Edward Island, call 902-620-3091.

Interim Payments

Interim Payments provide producers with earlier access to a portion of their 2007 final payment. Interim Payments provide 50 per cent of a participant's estimated final payment, based on information they provide.

How to apply

The 2007 Interim Application is a simple two-page form, which can be requested by calling one of the numbers above. More information is also available at www.agr.gc.ca and an online calculator is available to help producers determine how much they may be eligible to receive.

Targeted Advance Payments

Manitoba, Nova Scotia¸ New Brunswick, and Alberta have targeted advances available to hog producers. Saskatchewan is also in the process of putting them in place. Through targeted advances, provincial governments proactively offer advances using benchmarks to determine the impact of a situation on an individual's farm. The advances provide producers with a portion of their estimated 2007 AgriStability benefit.

How to apply

The targeted advance is simple and quick. Producers in participating provinces are informed by letter of the estimated 2007 advance to which they are entitled. To receive a payment, they simply have to sign and return the letter. More information is also available by calling one of the numbers above.

The Advance Payments Program

The Advance Payments Program (APP) is a financial loan guarantee program that gives producers easier access to credit through cash advances which means improved cash flow throughout the year and better opportunities for marketing their agricultural products. The limit on cash advances is $400,000, with the first $100,000 being interest free. Producers have up to 18 months to repay the advances. In response to the need for more credit under the APP, changes will be implemented in early 2008 to add negative margin coverage under AgriStability as security for the APP. This will make additional loans available to producers - particularly those who have experienced back to back losses over the past few years. 

How to apply

Cash advances are issued by producer organizations on behalf of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. A list of these organizations is available at www.agr.gc.ca/app or by calling 1-888-346-2511.

AgriInvest

Governments are seeking authorities to implement AgriInvest, which replaces the coverage previously available under CAIS for margin declines of 15 per cent or less.

Each year, producers who make a deposit into an AgriInvest account will receive matching contributions from federal and provincial governments. Producers will have the flexibility to use the funds to cover small margin declines, for risk mitigation or other investments.

More details on how AgriInvest will be delivered will be available once authorities are in place.

Kickstart

To assist producers in the transition to the new suite of business risk management programs, the Government of Canada has announced a $600 million investment to kickstart the AgriInvest accounts.

Once AgriInvest authorities are in place, producers will receive a letter informing them of the amount of their Kickstart benefit. In all provinces and territories except Quebec, the $600 million is being delivered by the federal government.

To be eligible, producers must have farmed in 2007 and must commit to participating in AgriInvest for the 2007 program year. Producers do not have to make a deposit to their AgriInvest accounts to withdraw their Kickstart funds. 

Further details on Kickstart will be available once AgriInvest authorities are in place.

Other Measures - Deferral of Interest on CAIS Overpayments

To help address the issues facing the livestock sector and in response to requests from industry, collection of interest on CAIS overpayments will continue to be deferred until December 31, 2008. This applies in provinces and territories where Canada delivers the program (British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador).

Province Applauds U.S. Decision to End Last Livestock Border Barrier

Market opportunities expand for ranchers and processors
November 19, 2007 -- The Alberta government is pleased that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has eliminated the final border barrier on the import of older cattle, bison and their meat products nearly five years after the discovery of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in a Canadian herd.

“We supported our producers through the largest livestock disaster in their history, and we continue to support them today,” said Premier Ed Stelmach. “As the largest cattle-producing province in Canada, we’re hopeful these changes will mean more market opportunities south of the border for our ranchers and processors.”

Under the final rule, live cattle and bison as well as meat products from animals born on or after March 1, 1999 are now eligible for export. Previously only cattle and meat products from animals under 30 months were eligible.

The Premier commended Alberta ranchers and processors for their resiliency as the province worked hand-in-hand with industry as well as federal and provincial governments on the issue.

“It has been a long time coming, but our restored trade with the U.S. is recognition of the effectiveness of Canada’s BSE safeguards,” said George Groeneveld, Minister of Agriculture and Food. “The requirements to export live cattle to the U.S. emphasize the importance of age-verification and we are continuing to work closely with industry and producers to promote and encourage traceability initiatives.”

Under the final rule, cattle must be certified by a Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) accredited veterinarian, a process that includes an animal health inspection, age verification and permanent identification requirements. The March 1, 1999 eligibility date for older animals is the date the U.S. recognizes as the effective date of Canada’s feed ban. More information on the final rule and shipping requirements is available from CFIA district offices or on the CFIA website at: http://www.inspection.gc.ca

The U.S. border originally closed to all Canadian cattle and beef in May of 2003 with the discovery of BSE. In August of 2003 it opened to beef products from animals under 30 months of age and to live cattle under 30 months of age in March of 2005.

Continued support for the provinces livestock industry and agriculture sector is part of Premier Ed Stelmach’s plan to secure Alberta’s future by building communities, greening our growth and creating opportunity.

Back to top

Appeal of ruling upholding wheat board's barley monopoly to be heard Feb. 26

December 11, 2007 -- The Federal Court of Appeal has scheduled a one-day hearing in February to consider the federal government's case against a ruling that upheld the Canadian Wheat Board's barley monopoly.

A spokesperson at the Canadian Wheat Board confirmed Tuesday that the hearing will take place in Winnipeg Feb. 26.

A judge ruled in July that the Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government overstepped its authority with its plans to strip the wheat board of its monopoly on barley sales.

The court ruling said the government overstepped by trying to eliminate the board's monopoly by a simple cabinet order, instead of legislation that would have to be debated in the House of Commons and Senate.

The Harper government said in late August it would appeal that decision.

The Opposition Liberals and the NDP both support leaving the board's monopoly intact.

The issue has divided grain producers, some of whom say the board ensures higher prices, while others say they would get more cash selling their grain on the open market.

North Dakota Requiring Canadian Cattle Test for TB and Burcellosis

In advance of new U.S. rules allowing more Canadian cattle imports, the North Dakota State Board of Animal Health (BOAH) said it would require cattle and bison entering the state from Canada be tested for tuberculosis and brucellosis, as well as meeting other import requirements.

The board said all Canadian female cattle over 12 months of age must be vaccinated for brucellosis and all test-eligible cattle and bison (18 months of age and older) must test negative for brucellosis within 30 days before importation.

All animals 60 days of age and older require a negative test for tuberculosis within 60 days prior to entry. Nursing calves accompanying negative-tested dam are exempt.

All animals must also have a BOAH importation permit number and a certificate of veterinary inspection with an individual official identification prior to entering North Dakota. In addition, all animals must continue to have a CAN hot iron or freeze brand on the right hip.

The board's action relates to the federal government's Nov. 19 implementation of the rule to allow Canadian breeding cattle imports. When that rule takes effect, all Canadian cattle, born after March 1, 1999, can be imported into the U.S.

North Dakota State Veterinarian Susan Keller said these test requirements are similar to those required in the past when Canadian breeding cattle imports were allowed. 

Back to top

Biosecurity Information Sheet

Please find attached a biosecurity information sheet developed for producers who were asking "what the heck in biosecurity?"  CLICK HERE.

VBP auditors will have these on hand when producers ask, because a biosecurity protocol for on-farm auditors is required and we find that producers ask about practices at that time.  This in no way means that biosecurity practices are mandatory or required within the VBP program.    The sheet simply serves to educate when we were being asked.

The producer advisory board for the VBP program suggested we forward the info sheet to you, so you are aware it exists and also for optional printing in your provincial newsletters or magazines.  Feel free to use. 

Australian Cattlemen are Suffering from Same Big Packer/Retailer Monopoly and Checkoff Rip Off

Australian cattlemen are taking a bloodbath with the trade steer dropping over 20% in three months. Mainstream rural media is saying little or nothing as the effect of Government actions over the US Free Trade Agreement and inaction over our two supermarket " duopoly collusion" bites deeper.

We are constantly told that we are in a global market. Fine. Let someone step forward and explain the following?

1.  We are down to 53% of the US cattleman's 274 cents /kg. live price.
2. Australian consumers are paying prices greater than US consumers.
3. We are still to fill 30% of the US quota with only a few weeks left.
4. Brazilian prices are at record levels with Angus steers selling up to 240 cents/kg. Live. 

Reasons given by some
Losing some of the Japan/Korea market back to the US-despite our NLIS.  It detailed the amazing "side letter" to the US Free Trade Agreement, which Minister Vaile signed. In it, he pledged, through the OIE (World Authority on Animal Health), to help the US get back into a BSE free Korea and to Japan. This soon damaged our prices here and this intensified as Canadian beef began to flood back into the USA due to the USDA abandoning its role as guardian of US cattle health and caving into processor / political pressure.

We now have the results of the UK Government's trial and cost benefit analysis of the use of RFID tags in sheep. It strongly recommends against its adoption as it " will make the UK industry uncompetitive in the EU" -and not improves animal health trace-back.

Australia, the most disease free country in the world, is pricing itself out of the world market to please some bureaucrats, idiot ministers, their selected producer puppets and greedy tag / reader manufacturers. 

The "high dollar"
I have written for some 8 years about Australia's galloping external debt. We have now reached $542 billion-nearly $30,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia. The trade figures for the last five years have been abysmal-in the midst of a mineral export boom we have had big deficits for each of the past 65 months.

The only way to keep international investors sending money to Australia to keep us solvent is by raising our interest rate. With New Zealand we now have the highest interest rates in the OECD and are closing in on Argentina. A high interest rate means a high $Aus. Exporters are now in a catch 22 situation. As our debt increases, our interest rate must increase to attract lenders to carry our debt and our exporters become less competitive.

The drought
This is a fair explanation for a drop in the price of light store cattle where feedlots are finding the price of grain too high and feedlot occupancy has dropped 25%. However for finished cattle it is a real furphy-supermarkets are claiming that the drought is forcing the cost of their supplies UP -as they push finished beef prices DOWN.

Unfinished cattle with some frame are ideal for the US market, which we can't fill despite their cattlemen's prices being almost twice ours! Give us a break!

Share of the Australian domestic consumer dollar NOT going to producers.
The feeder steer is the first price benchmark in the industry chain. US consumers have a graded product available, they pay LESS than Australian consumers and their consumption is HIGHER. The US has a Packers and Stockyards Act with rules for sale yards and for price transparency-Australia has a "rip off" rat race. MLA altered their measure of promotional success some years ago when they moved from the domestic consumption figure to an in house figure on " money spent on red meat". How this figure is arrived at is anybody's guess but their claim that more money is spent on meat meals each year is valid. 

The problem is that the people paying for the promotion - the producers - are actually getting less for their product.  The retailers are getting a bigger share of the consumer dollar with the producers paying for that share three times: with cheaper cattle, with promotion dollars and then if they purchase as a consumer!

So-What lies ahead?

1. The herd will not be rebuilt to 30 million. There may be small increases in the environmentally sensitive and widely indigenously held Gulf and Kimberleys.  However this will be more than offset by native vegetation laws reducing development in Queensland and by permanent depletion in the south as the traditionally richer, safer, areas go under forestry, houses and alternate lifestyle blocks-as is happening in Europe and the US. Cows don't survive on a ration of tiled roofs or pine trees! Australia reached its highest stocking rate in animals in 1977 and has been falling as humans have multiplied and replaced them ever since.
    
2. Feedlots face a frightening future with the drought and possible ethanol subsidies keeping grain prices at prohibitive levels. This applies, even more severely, to our main competitors for the consumer dollar-pork and chicken. However, chicken has a production line that can pass on costs to the consumer better than the fragmented beef line. Imports may render Australian pork production a terminal industry.
    
3. World cattle numbers must fall as humans increase. More Chinese can afford beef but their Government is subsidising and protecting their industry and they are actually exporting more beef than they import.
    
4. The Australian dollar will be held at artificial levels with our very high interest rates necessary to attract capital to service our huge external debt.

Back to top

Ridiculous Happenings at the ITC Hearing

November 19, 2007 -- On November 15th Eric Nelson, chairman of R-CALF USA's Trade Committee testified before the International Trade Commission (ITC) an agency of our federal government. The topic of discussion was our beef and cattle exports, a subject that certainly deserves attention.

Astoundingly, a representative of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association (CCA) was also invited to testify. This was more than curious since our greatest export concerns involve Korea and Japan, not Canada. Even worse, the CCA representative not only was invited to testify but was given preferential treatment at the hearing. All other invitees were told to give ten minutes of testimony concerning their organization's positions on export matters and to provide written testimony to that effect. The CCA representative was given the opportunity to testify last and immediately dove into a rebuttal of testimony given by others and lambasted the US for its ill treatment of Canadian cattlemen in the manner in which we have treated imports from Canada. The ITC commissioners did not stop his off-topic rant.

The hearing also produced some other outrageous gems. Both the CCA and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) referred to the "North American beef herd" as if the despicable idea of a North American Union were already a reality. 

On the topic of allowing private BSE testing of beef by companies such as Creekstone Farms to improve our export tonnage, the organizations testifying (AMI, NMA, NCBA) claimed that "sound science" ought to rule, and that such BSE testing has no basis in sound science. On the other hand, when asked about providing hormone free beef for European customers, the same crowd said we should "give the customers what they want." 

We can't decide which is the most ridiculous, the preference the ITC gave to the CCA, the ITC's apparent drive to encourage trade at any cost, the concessions to the North American Union, or the hypocrisy of "sound science" versus "give the customer what he wants."

A Pittance of Time

On November 11, 1999 Terry Kelly was in a drug store in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. At 10:55 AM an announcement came over the store’s PA asking customers who would still be on the premises at 11:00 AM to give two minutes of silence in respect to the veterans who have sacrificed so much for us.

Terry was impressed with the store’s leadership role in adopting the Legion’s “two minutes of silence” initiative. He felt that the store’s contribution of educating the public to the importance of remembering was commendable.

When eleven o’clock arrived on t