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

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

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

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 that day, an announcement was again made asking for the “two minutes of silence” to commence. All customers, with the exception of a man who was accompanied by his young child, showed their respect.

Terry’s anger towards the father for trying to engage the store’s clerk in conversation and for setting a bad example for his child was channeled into a beautiful piece of work called, “A Pittance of Time”.

Back to top

Remembering Who's Done What

October 30, 2007 -- October 31 marks another anniversary for producers who that choice is needed in barley and in Western Canada.  We've had farmers who have gone to jail, and a young family who waited for their Dad to come home, because these men stood up for their beliefs.

There have been producers who have been running for "choice" during CWB elections who've changed their mind once they became a director.  (Rod Flaman was as strong a supporter of Farmers for Justice as anyone and ran under that banner, but since elected, Rod is a very strong supporter of maintaining the CWB just the way it is.)

How can a CWB director run in the federal election?  Can a director represent his district fairly?  Is this ethical?

If the CWB does not start to listen to the western producers when they vote with a ballot or vote with farm acres, there will not be many bushels of grain for anyone in the CWB to deal with.

Western Canadian farmers are very hard working, very strong in their beliefs, and most of all, very proud people.

And we remember what Western Canadian producers have done for all us.  We remember what our politicians and elected officials have done for us too.

Back to top

New Thinking on the Value of Wetlands to Producers

October 22, 2007 -- Knowledge of the value of wetlands and overcoming misperceptions surrounding them is key to producers receiving more production benefits from these areas, says a leader in the field of wetlands research.

"Wetlands are the kidneys of the land, purifying its fluids in much the same way kidneys do in the human body," says Lee Foote, an associate professor with the Department of Renewable Resources at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. "In the process, they play critical roles in a number of areas, including human health and food production."

However, Foote says wetlands have historically been thought of by many as detrimental to the landscape. "From a production perspective, they were considered wastelands which take valuable land out of production. But in a broader sense, there has been a fear surrounding wetlands based on mythology and misperception. We tend to fear what we don't understand."

A popular new pilot project has been designed to help dispel these myths by offering producers a sense of the direct, on-the-ground benefits of wetlands and other wildlife habitat areas. Natural Advantage, The On-Farm Wildlife and Biodiversity Planning Service is managed by Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) with funding support provided by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Greencover Canada Program.

"Natural Advantage offers producers access to a team of trained specialists in the field of wildlife habitat assessment who help them identify, map and classify wildlife habitat on the property," says Foote. "But in a larger sense, it's a tool that can prompt farmers to stop and think about not just the production benefits of wetlands, but the overall quality of life wetlands can add."

Wetlands are the "nuts and bolts" of an ecosystem, says Foote. "In addition to their critical role in water quality and groundwater replenishment, they also slow down the flow of water across the surface. This allows more time for moisture to percolate into the soil and benefit plant life."

Wetlands also promote a diversity of life which often carries a strong appeal in terms of property value, he says. "Generally, when you look at pieces of land with high resale value versus those with low resale value, you quickly find that high diversity of plant and animal life is directly related to a property's appeal. People want to live where there is biodiversity."

The high diversity of life that drives so much of the appeal of wetlands has also historically driven a sense of uncertainty bordering on fear, he says. Popular culture has often played on these fears by making wetlands the setting for horror stories, with the ultimate suggestion being that they are places to be avoided or, worse, destroyed altogether.

However, there are signs the tide of public opinion over wetlands is turning, says Foote. Education, he says, continues to be the fundamental driver of this ongoing process. Also, as consumers become more and more demanding of the environmental standards under which the food they eat is grown, wetland health will play an expanded role in their buying decisions.

"I personally know half a dozen people who will go out and look at the farm their food comes from before they buy. Environmental stewardship plays a large role in these consumers' decision to buy," he says.

For the full story, "A new era of value for wetlands," visit the Meristem Land & Science Web site at www.meristem.com. Further information on the Natural Advantage program is available by contacting DUC wildlife biologists Brett Boukall at 403-348-5258 or Jolene Hillson at 780-439-5145.

Back to top

Alberta Continues Fight for Farmers' Rights

Province will also support barley group's court application against CWB case

October 2, 2007 -- The Government of Alberta is taking action to help secure marketing choice for the province's barley producers by applying for intervener status in an upcoming federal court appeal.

"Alberta's barley producers have told us that they want to be able to market their barley to anyone they choose, including the Canadian Wheat Board," said George Groeneveld, Minister of Alberta Agriculture and Food.  "Our government will remain in the fight until this settled."

Producers clearly want more competitive options to maximize their barley marketing opportunities.  "This issue is about a fundamental Canadian right - freedom of choice," Groeneveld added.

The Western Barley Growers Association will also apply for intervention.  The group will receive financial assistance from the Government of Alberta for legal costs - up to $50,000 upon receipt of their invoices.

"On behalf of the members of the Western Barley Growers Association (WBGA) and all barley producers that support choice marketing, I'd like to thank Minister Groeneveld and the Government of Alberta for this tremendous support," said Jeff Nielsen, President WBGA.

On July 31, the Federal Court ruled that the Canadian government could not remove barley and barley products from the single desk marketing authority of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) by regulatory amendments, but would have to go to parliament to do so.  Alberta Agriculture and Food has filed a motion with the Federal Court of Appeal to request intervener status in the federal government's appeal of the Federal Court's ruling.

The Government of Manitoba has filed motions to request intervener status in support of the CWB.

This action supports Premier Ed Stelmach's plan to build a stronger Alberta.  Other priorities for the government are to govern with integrity and transparency, manage growth pressures, improve Albertan's quality of life and promote safe and secure communities.

Back to top

New research project may create BSE-fighting crops

October 11, 2007 -- University of Alberta professors Dr. Michael James and Dr. Nat Kav have received a $130,000 High Impact grant from PrioNet Canada to continue their ground-breaking work in prion structural biology. Prion-related diseases are fatal, infectious diseases caused by a misfolded prion protein. Some examples include bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, commonly known as mad cow disease) or Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans. 

This Alberta-based project could have significant global food safety and health impacts. In collaboration with world-renowned prion biologist Dr. Adriano Aguzzi from the Institute of Neuropathology, University Hospital in Zurich, Drs. James and Kav will have special access to a series of antibodies developed by Dr. Aguzzi, with which they will perform groundbreaking studies on the three- dimensional shape of the prion protein. Their research could also lead to the development of crops that contain antibodies to protect against prion-related diseases, such as BSE.

Through funding like PrioNet Canada's High Impact Fund and the Alberta Prion Research Institute's Proof-of-Principle grants, researchers like Drs. James and Kav, who were previously in other research areas are now dedicating time to instrumental prion research. "The knowledge generated from this new project will lead to a better understanding of the biology of prion diseases and may lead to the development of new technologies to prevent and/or treat these diseases," say Drs. James and Kav, Co-principal Investigators on the PrioNet- funded grant.

"PrioNet is truly delighted to support the work of Drs. James and Kav," remarks Dr. Neil Cashman, Scientific Director of PrioNet Canada. "We believe this project will shed light on the structure of the abnormally folded protein responsible for these diseases, which is one of the major scientific mysteries in the field."

The threat of prion diseases is better understood since the United Kingdom's BSE crisis in the 1990's and the impact from the discovery of a Canadian case of BSE in 2003; however, the unknowns are still vast. Projects like this could provide vital information regarding the structure of the prion protein, which could lead to discoveries in how the diseases are transmitted and prevented. 

About the Alberta Prion Research Institute:

The Alberta Prion Institute is a $35 million initiative that supports research into the prevention and management of prion-related diseases and solutions for the serious economic and social consequences associated with them.

About PrioNet Canada:

PrioNet Canada, established by the Networks of Centres of Excellence program, is an innovative, $35 million network that capitalizes on fundamental, applied, and social research to develop strategies to mitigate, and ultimately eradicate, prion diseases.

Back to top

Send 'em the bill!!

Did you lose money when barley prices plummeted after the Hansen ruling? Send the CWB the bill for your losses!

Government will decide this week future of Wheat Board challenge: Minister

August 27, 2007 -- Federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz says the government will decide later this week whether to launch an appeal of a Federal Court ruling on the barley monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board.

A judge ruled last month that the Tory cabinet overstepped its authority when it passed a new regulation allowing farmers to sell their barley independently, and said such a change would have to be made via a law passed by Parliament.

Speaking in Saskatoon today, Ritz says ramming changes to the board's mandate through Parliament is not an option, mainly because the Tories are in a minority government.

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

Ritz says he's spoken to government advisers and key players on the board about a possible legal challenge.

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.

Back to top

Slaughterhouse Closing Blow to Canadian Cattle Industry

August 21, 2007 -- A slaughterhouse near Calgary that opened just over a year ago shut down last week, dealing another blow to the Canadian beef processing industry, according to the Canadian Beef Export Federation.

Ranchers' Beef shut its doors last week, putting 260 employees out of work at the plant, which had capacity to slaughter 800 animals a day.

The plant closure is another setback for Canadian cattle industry and will increase Canadian ranchers' dependence on the U.S. market, Canada Beef Export Federation President Ted Haney told Meatingplace.com.

"The closing of Ranchers' Beef is a sign of the times in Canada," Haney said, noting that a combination of increased operating costs, a tight labor market in Western Canada and restricted international access are all leaning on the Canadian beef-processing sector. He said Canadian beef processors are currently operating at about 60 percent of capacity, well short of the 80 percent needed to remain viable in the long term.

"We are now experiencing a reduction in beef processing capacity, a natural result of low utilization levels in the long term," he said, calling the Ranchers' Beef closing the latest example.

Canada produces about 4.5 million cattle per year, processing about 3.0 million domestically and exporting up to 1.5 million live cattle to the United States, Haney estimated. 

Back to top

Paying for the Wheat Board

August 21, 2007 -- Ever since a federal court judge ruled on July 31 that the federal government's bid to bypass Parliament and remove the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on barley sales was illegal, pundits have been quibbling over the legal merits of the eleventh hour judgment. But whether it constitutes just "one thumbs up" for the democratic process or "two" misses the point. For a country whose politicians can barely decide where dogs can walk off-leash, never mind tackle hugely distortive and outdated policies that hamstring our ability to compete in increasingly cut-throat global markets, it's a huge opportunity lost, for farmers and the future of Canadian agro-industry.

In a recent op-ed piece for the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, Ken Ritter, the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board, argued that a recent rash of foreign takeovers in strategic resource and manufacturing sectors was damning evidence - - of the kind long foretold by the marketing monopoly -- that unless Canada circles the wagons, the very kernel of the country's sovereignty, grain, is at risk of being usurped by a motley crew of multinationals, conglomerates and private interests.

Mr. Ritter has no cause to worry when it comes to the country's agro-industry. Unless foreign raiders plan on replacing Prairie farmers with landless Chinese peasants, there's not much to take over. 

Despite the Prairies' image as breadbasket to the world, there are precious few Canadian companies making bread, or anything else for that matter, and none of a globally relevant size. The pasta companies and maltsers are already under foreign ownership while a small group of American multinationals -- Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Cargill and Monsanto -- retain a steely grip on the processing, handling, seed and fertilizer sectors. Except for a few small holdouts, including the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, (partially owned by ADM), and the Winnipeg-based Richardson family, Canada agro-industry has already been bought up by foreign companies.

How did this happen? Well, you can thank the Canadian Wheat Board.

In the Dirty '30s when farmers first began clamouring for government protection from unremitting market forces, the bogeymen were their fellow Canadians-- traders, merchants and industrialists who made fortunes trucking in "prairie gold." Their commerce and burgeoning dynasties helped turn Winnipeg into a gilded city, it's Grain Exchange, the continent's second largest after Chicago, luring entrepreneurs and adventurers from around the world. Some farmers, however, were convinced the wealth to be had trading in grain futures was being made at their expense and the government, bowing to pressure, created the Board.

Initially the board only provided price protection. During the Second World War it was given a monopoly to trade in wheat and over time various other grains were added and removed from the Board's jurisdiction. Bit-by-bit, private trading disappeared and with it, Winnipeg's fortunes. Onerous government regulation discouraged all but the most diehard entrepreneurs willing to twist and bend to the Board's monopoly diktats. By grinding down any private sector ambition and focusing exclusively on grain in commodity form, the Board left the door wide open to American companies, unhindered by such impediments in their home market, to waltz right in.

Today, the Manitoba government staunchly defends the Board, fearful of losing its Winnipeg-based head office and the 417 civil service jobs that sustain it. It's a sad commentary on the city's once glimmering future and what Canadians could have attained had they not been so opposed to the free market. Just a few hundred kilometres south is Minneapolis, a city similar to Winnipeg, which embraced the free market and is now home to Cargill, a leading global grain marketer and processor with US$75-billion in sales and 153,000 employees in 66 countries. 

Canadians can take consolation in the fact that they control the Wheat Board, even if it has fuelled more animosity and divisiveness within Canada than any foreign multinational operating here. And the Board has succeeded in protecting Canada's sovereignty, as Mr. Ritter claims, if that means Canadians are actually growing the wheat and barley, even if farmers plant less of it all the time. The fact that we don't possess the means to turn the grain into food we can eat, well, that seems to be beside the point.

Andrea Mandel-Campbell is author of Why Mexicans Don't Drink Molsons. 

Rolf Penner is a Manitoba farmer and the Agricultural Policy Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, an independent think-tank based in Winnipeg.

www.fcpp.org 

Back to top

Mineral Development and the Assault on Private Property

August 20, 2007 -- The strength of the rule of law in any state can be most accurately and immediately gauged by observing the security of possession of those with few belongings.  Those who own a substantial amount of property are the ones who can afford to independently defend their right to ownership.  They are the least dependent party of sound legislation.  This truth is illustrated in the current situation between individual land owners, governments and gas and oil companies. The property rights of private landowners are being threatened by poorly thought out legislation, the division of land and mineral rights, and powerful government agencies acting of political incentive.

In the Prairie Provinces, the authority and responsibility to both regulate and promote the oil and gas industry rests with the same government agency. This invariably leads to a conflict of interest when the Crown chooses to favour the industry over regulating its adverse effects (1). For example, in areas where the oil and gas industry is prominent, landowners have complained of contaminated water sources and toxic gas emissions (2). The Government functions best in the role of enforcing legislation to minimize externalities of the industry not reflected in market forces. When they are expected to promote, create, administer, and regulate business, the property rights of landowners are compromised and no one is well served.

When an oil and gas company decides to purchase farmland, the legislation in place makes it very difficult for landowners to ensure they are adequately reimbursed. Because the minerals below the surface of the land usually belong to the crown, if the landowner refuses the offer presented by the oil and gas company, the company can get a court order to secure the right to enter onto the property to extract the minerals.

In Alberta, the Land Agent Licensing Act makes it very difficult for farmers to find land agents who are not employed by the very oil and gas companies who are threatening expropriation. Take Ray Strom, for example. He is the Alberta man who was found guilty of accepting fees for acting on the landowners behalf without a license, because he attempted to negotiate on behalf of farmers in contention with the oil and gas companies (3). 

The Licensing Act not only endangers the property rights of landowners, but also restricts the information and council they have access to, leaving them defenseless at the hands of the oil and gas companies.  Without the protection of a just rule of law, political clout rules without check at the expense of the individual.

In the case of the Licensing Act, property rights are not the only liberty at stake. It also infringes on the landowner’s right to fair council and association. Whenever property rights are sacrificed, personal liberties are also harmed. Property rights are often portrayed as adverse to human rights, as if the property itself were the object of discrimination, and not the human that owns it. In reality, individual property rights have proven essential to the preservation and betterment of both property and the individual. Government has a poor track record of protecting private property, opting instead to enlarge its dominion or tax base through expropriation. It is our duty as citizens to remain vigilant to protect our property.

The government needs to start focusing on protecting the property rights of citizens along with facilitating the oil and gas industry. The best way to do this is by giving landowners the freedom to access appropriate council and allowing competitive offers by the oil and gas industry to become the incentive to sell, rather than the threat of expropriation.

(1) Stefania A. Fortugno, When the Oil Patch Comes to Your Saskatchewan Backyard: A Citizen’s Guide to Protecting Your Rights (Saskatchewan Environmental Society, 2004) p. 70

(2) Sheila Pratt Rural Landowners Victimized by lack of provincial action: Framework sorely needed to protect special areas, say farmers and ranchers. (Edmonton Journal, March 3, 2006)

(3) Andrew Nikiforuk Property rights: Holey land (Canadian Business magazine, May 21, 2007).

Back to top

New Agriculture Minister Appointed

August 20, 2007 -- Gerry Ritz received an early birthday present. This week the Prime Minister  appointed him as minister of agriculture and minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. The federal cabinet shuffle saw the previous agriculture minister, Chuck Strahl, become the minister of Indian affairs and northern development.

Ritz was born on Aug. 19, 1951 in Delisle, Sask., just west of Saskatoon. The family moved to the Rosetown area of the province in 1967 and that is where Ritz completed his high school. 

Out of high school, he worked in sales for a few years returning to the family farm in the mid 70s. He concentrated mainly on grain production, but also diversified into raising ostrich in the 90s. He farmed until his election to the House of Commons in 1997 and then contracted out his farming operation.

Ritz is the MP for the Battlefords-Lloydminster constituency in the northwestern corner of the province's grain belt. He was re-elected in 2000, 2004 and 2006.

In opposition, Ritz served as agriculture critic. While in government, he has been chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture.

Gerry and his wife Judy have two grown children.

Back to top

Thank You, Mr. Strahl

August 17, 2007 -- We would like to extend our thanks and appreciation to Chuck Strahl for his service as federal Agriculture Minister.  We wish him well in his new portfolio as Indian Affairs Minister.

Back to top

It's Not Business As Usual

August 17, 2007 -- "Barley Freedom Day" was just what our rural communities needed.  We needed it not just to feel good, but to make our survival possible.  Farmers are leaving the land, and the reason should be obvious.  The income is just not there.

CWB directors and staff have known for over a decade what farmers want.  Surveys done (paid for by the farmer's pool account funds) that mirror what the federal barley vote showed: farmers want freedom.

But the Calgary judgment shows us that what the majority of farmers want, vote or need, does not matter in a democracy.  The Friends of the CWB, and the CWB itself, want to tell us what we can and cannot do.  The barley vote was a vote for CHOICE.  It was not about forcing anyone to use or not use the CWB.

The CWB will not listen to those who have been asking for change and choice, and now we are screaming for it.  The volume of acres have gone down every year, and the CWB still insists they know what is best for us.  So now, after the surveys, after the vote - is there nothing we can do?

There is something we can do.  Do not have any contact with the CWB.  Do not fill out a permit book.  Do not answer a survey.  Keep this up as long as feasible for your operation.  Perhaps the CWB will then understand that it is not "business as usual" anymore.

Back to top

Judges Decision Hardly Democracy

August 8, 2007 -- Fuzzy thinking and heated politics surround the latest near-death experience of the Canadian What Board.

In a Federal Court decision last week, Madame Justice Delores Hansen ruled the government could not exclude barley from CWB control by changing the regulations though it could (and did) include it under board control by regulatory change.  Exclusion, she said, required a legislative amendment to the Wheat Board Act.  At once, August 1 changed from "barley freedom day" into another day of monopoly domination.

Opponents of removing barley from the board monopoly are well known.  First in line are the bureaucrats employed by the CWB whose self-interest is evident.  They were joined by the NDP governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and the Nervous Nellies of the Farmers' Union who have long been afraid to compete.  Filled with nameless fears, they did what such people often do -- projected their own anxieties onto those with whom they disagreed and declared that the Harper government was following an "ideological agenda."

In fact, it was not ideology that inspired the government to liberate the farmers of New Dayton or Kindersley from the bureaucratic serfdom imposed by the CWB, but the sound ethical and political belief that they were grown-up citizens, just like the farmers of Ontario.  The CWB makes as much sense today as a Canadian Lawyers Board (CLB) staffed by plumbers or piano teachers that would set the maximum rates lawyers could charge and how many hours a day they could work.  The CLB would, of course, apply only to the "designated area" east of the Ottawa River.

The effects of the decision were entirely predictable.  Sellers had expected to dispose of around a half-million tonnes of barley on the international market directly, without having their grain handled by the CWB.

Now foreign farmers will supply it, which means a glut on the domestic market and explains why cash prices dropped 70 cents a bushel and futures fell $7.50 a tonne.  One farmer reported he lost $40,000 on August 1.

Another said he would send the board a sample of his fine malting barley along with the shipping receipt of its sale to a feedlot "where it'll be turned into manure."

Responses of the CWB supporters were also predictable.  Board chairman Ken Ritter said the price depression was just "psychological."  No, Ken.  It's supply and demand, the way free markets, not coercive monopolies, work.

One of the silliest comments was by Manitoba Agriculture Minister Rosanne Wowchuk, who declared "democracy has prevailed."  Not to be outdone, a Toronto academic, Grace Skogstad, said that the government effort to free barley-growers "shows a callous disregard for democracy."

What these self-styled defenders of democracy seem to have forgotten is that in a referendum last spring, barley producers voted almost two to one to market their own grain outside CWB tutelage.

In order to reach her decision, Hansen had first to accord great weight to the provision of the Wheat Board Act allowing inclusion of barley by regulation.

Because the Act was silent about excluding barley by regulation, she said this meant parliament must have intended that barley could be excluded only by legislation.  Second, she considered debates recorded in Hansard, which might give clues to the intentions of Parliament, to be unhelpful.  Finally, she gave little weight to the commonsensical provisions of the Interpretation Act that stated that a power to make regulations includes the power to repeal them.

It is probably fair to say that another judge might have come to the exact opposite conclusion and decided that included or excluding barley from CWB control could be done equally by regulation.

There is another curious aspect to the decision.  Hanson also could have given the government time to amend the Wheat Board Act to her satisfaction, as other judges have done with similarly ambiguous and politically controversial legislation.  But this would have meant that, for a while, Canadian farmers could take part in an international barley market.  When that happened in 1993, barley sales surged.  It would have happened again, which might have eventually led to a free market in wheat.

All is not lost.  The government can amend the Wheat Board Act and make it a confidence measure.  At one stroke, it would put the Wheat Board out of its misery, remove the ability of the board to impose misery on others, and show the kind of decisive leadership that is invariable followed by increased popular support.  That is what genuine democracy entails.

Back to top

Cabinet shuffle at a glance

The changes:

	New	Old
Peter MacKay	Defence	Foreign Affairs
Maxime Bernier	Foreign Affairs	Industry
Jim Prentice	Industry	Indian affairs and northern development and federal interlocutor for Metis and non-status Indians
Josee Verner	Heritage	Minister responsible for CIDA and la francophonie
Bev Oda	International Cooperation	Canadian heritage and status of women
Gerry Ritz	Agriculture and Canadian Wheat Board	Secretary of state for small business and tourism.
Chuck Strahl	Indian Affairs	Agriculture and minister for the Canadian Wheat Board
Diane Ablonczy	Secretary of State for Tourism and Small Business
Gordon O'Connor	National Revenue	Defence

New cabinet after the shuffle, changes in bold:

• Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
• Robert Nicholson, justice; attorney general.
• David Emerson, international trade; minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics.
• Jean-Pierre Blackburn, labour; minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for Quebec.
• Greg Thompson, veterans affairs.
• Marjory LeBreton, government leader in the Senate; secretary of state for seniors.
• Monte Solberg, human resources and social development.
• Gerry Ritz, agriculture and agri-food; minister for the Canadian Wheat Board.
• Gary Lunn, natural resources.
• Maxime Bernier, foreign affairs.
• Loyola Hearn, fisheries and oceans.
• Stockwell Day, public safety.
• Gordon O'Connor, national revenue.
• Vic Toews, Treasury Board.
• Rona Ambrose, intergovernmental affairs; western economic diversification; president of the Privy Council.
• Diane Finley, citizenship and immigration.
• Peter MacKay, national defence; minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
• Josée Verner, Canadian heritage and status of women; official languages.
• Chuck Strahl, Indian affairs and northern development; federal interlocutor for Métis and non-status Indians.
• John Baird, environment.
• Jim Prentice, industry.
• Lawrence Cannon, transport, infrastructure and communities.
• Tony Clement, health; minister for the federal economic development initiative for northern Ontario.
• Jim Flaherty, finance.
• Bev Oda, international co-operation.
• Michael Fortier, public works and government services.
• Peter Van Loan, government House leader; democratic reform.
• Jay Hill, government whip and secretary of state.
• Jason Kenney, secretary of state for multiculturalism and Canadian identity.
• Diane Ablonczy, secretary of state for small business and tourism.
• Helena Guergis, secretary of state for foreign affairs and international trade; secretary of state for sport.
• Christian Paradis, secretary of state for agriculture.

New faces

	Diane Ablonczy Secretary of state for small business and tourism Calgary-Nose Hill, Alta.
The long-serving politician replaced retiring Saskatchewan MP Carol Skelton as the seventh woman at the cabinet table. A former Reform Party stalwart and long-time Harper loyalist, she was overlooked in previous Harper cabinets, despite strong performances during the party's time in Opposition. Ablonczy was appointed parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance in 2006 and served on the public accounts committee investigating the federal sponsorship scandal. Prior to her 1993 election, Ablonczy taught elementary and junior high school, managed a grain farm operation and had her own law practice.
	Gerry Ritz Minister of agriculture Battlefords-Lloydminster, Alta.
A Saskatchewan grain farmer and strong advocate of dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board, Ritz is the new agriculture minister, taking over from Chuck Strahl. He was promoted from his previous post as secretary of state for small business and tourism. In July 2007, a federal court judge blocked the government's cabinet order to strip the Wheat Board of its monopoly on western barley sales. Federal Court Judge Dolores Hansen said the government overstepped its authority. Ritz will likely be crafting the government's response to that ruling.

Out of cabinet

Carol Skelton is the only minister to be removed from the cabinet. O'Connor takes over her role as minister of national revenue. Skelton had already announced she would not seek re-election.

Back to top

Judge Madam Delores Derails Dual Market

A junior Federal Court ruling takes the Wheat Board monopoly issue back to square one

Talk about deja vu all over again. On Aug. 1 1993 then-agriminister Charlie Mayer tried to create a continental barley market by removing the Canadian Wheat Board's control over barley exports to the U.S., by changing the regulations which authorized the Board to exercise this part of its monopoly by cabinet order-in-council. There was a technical glitch in the way the regulation change was worded, which was enough for the prairie wheat pools to challenge the decision in court. The continental market lasted from Aug. 1 to Sept. 10 before a federal judge in Winnipeg ruled that the change had not been properly made. The government appealed, and meanwhile could have corrected the procedural flaw with a simple amendment. However a federal election intervened which returned the Liberal Chretieniste regime, which sided with the left wing of grain marketing opinion and dropped the appeal. The barley monopoly survived to the present day.

It will continue to survive for a while longer because last week Federal Court judge Delores Hansen accepted the arguments of the Canadian Wheat Board's hot-shot Toronto lawyers to the effect that the barley monopoly cannot be removed by regulation. The decision came at 3:00 PM Calgary time on July 31, a few hours before the start of the 2007-08 crop year, when western barley growers were to finally get the right to sell to their best advantage.

The decision could have gone either way because of sloppy wording of the Wheat Board Act and contradictions created by the 1998 Goodale amendments. The judge decided that while barley can be (as it was in 1943) placed under the monopoly by regulation, legislation is needed to remove it. She also concluded that Parliament, just by passing the amendments, intended that literally any change in the Board's powers required both a vote of farmers and changes to legislation, exactly the position of the Board and its supporters.

The decision prevented the regulation from taking effect. The monopoly powers of the Board remain intact and for the time being the same rules applied on Aug. 1 as on July 31.

This is the beginning of the story, not the end. The Harper government can either forget the whole thing or go to the next level. It is in no position to forget the whole thing. Over time the government, not the Board or its fanatic directors, will prevail. The directors may have won a battle but they have emphatically lost the war, and not just over the monopoly marketing of barley. 

Whatever happens next will take time. The government could appeal the decision, but the outcome could be the same because of the lack of clarity and the internal conflicts in the Wheat Board law. If a government appeal succeeded, the Board's directors would spend whatever is needed from the pool accounts to take this to the Supreme Court. A complete appeal process would take at least three years.

The government could try to order the Board to issue export licenses at no charge to anyone who requests them as it does for everyone except western farmers. It is not certain that the Board would comply, but even if it did only export sales would be freed.

That leaves legislation. Parliament is in recess until after Labor Day, but a comprehensive Wheat Board reform bill could be waiting when the members return. The bill would have to repeal the present procedure, including the farmer vote, changing the Board into a voluntary agency. No court would support a situation in which Parliament cannot amend legislation passed by an earlier parliament.

The Wheat Board was well prepared, probably with a suite of news releases that would have responded to whatever the court decided. The gloating, condescending release that was issued within minutes of the Calgary ruling said that the Board will "accelerate the evolution begun several years ago to transform the corporation into an entity that effectively responds to farmers' business needs", an admission if ever there was one that it previously has not been such an entity.

Back to top

Farmers Should Send Wheat Board The Bill For Losses

The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) must compensate barley producers who suffered from recent sharp drops in barley prices, say representatives of Market Choice Alliance (MCA), a grassroots organization of farmers who support removing barley from the CWB monopoly.

MCA today launched a campaign to encourage farmers to send the CWB an invoice for losses from barley price drops, which were precipitated by the CWB’s moves to use the courts to block producers’ wishes.

“The Canadian Wheat Board and its board of directors have not carried out their fiduciary duty to my business. By using political obstruction and legal roadblocks, the actions of the CWB have caused significant and measurable loss from my business. The level of financial harm is measurable and verifiable through publicly available information sources,” stated MCA spokesman Charles Anderson in an open letter to CWB chair Ken Ritter.

Following the producer plebiscite calling for barley to be removed from the CWB, barley prices had risen consistently as buyers prepared to compete for the business of individual farmers. In the aftermath of Judge Hansen’s ruling striking down the results of the plebiscite, barley prices have plummeted by as much as $32.50 per tonne.

Anderson noted that, when barley prices were rising, the CWB and maltsters sought to have the federal government compensate them for their losses on sales contracts.

“What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If the CWB thinks the federal government was legally responsible for rising barley prices, then by the same logic the CWB must be legally responsible for falling prices,” Anderson said.

MCA has posted a form letter and standard invoice on its website at www.barleyvote.ca . The forms allow farmers to document their losses and demand payment from the CWB.

Back to top

How would you vote today?

Back to top

Benefit for Manitoba Farmers

For those of you unaware the July 3 weekend saw a tornado hit Norm & Clayton Desrosiers farm near Cartright, MB, leaving not one building standing, including the house.

Norman, his wife, daughter-in-law and 2 year old grandson made it to safety in the basement when the worst of the storm hit.  Not 30 seconds into the basement and the house above was gone.

The large treed yard is ruined, the big equipment and vehicles are all damaged.  One set of grain trailers ended up on top of the other, flung into a nearby field.

We all thank God no one was hurt (though they did lose the family dog).  How does a family take this kind of hit?

There is a benefit for the Desrosiers on August 3 at the Baldur Community Centre starting at 9 pm.  If you would like to help with a donation, there is a fund set up at the Baldur, MB Credit Union at Baldur, MB.

Volunteers have started coming to start building a new house on the old basement where Norman is living.  There has been great support from the farming community and we urge everyone to lend a hand where possible.

Back to top

Emotions run high for farmers over fate of wheat board

August 1, 2007 -- While staid procedural arguments about the future of barley sales under the Canadian Wheat Board were presented in Calgary yesterday, grain farmers outside the Federal Court erupted in an emotional debate about their own futures with or without the long-standing monopoly, which Ottawa is keen to dismantle.

Art Mainil, a pensioner who farms the same property that his grandfather homesteaded near Estevan, Sask., said the single-desk system of handling grain sales for farmers served a purpose at one time. But now, he said, there are opportunities for farmers to market their own products better than the wheat board.

"Competition is the healthiest thing there is. There's nothing that beats competition," said Mr. Mainil, who travelled from the southeast corner of Saskatchewan to take in the start of the three-day-long hearing.

Since Prime Minister Stephen Harper won a minority government in 2006, his Conservatives have made it clear they want fundamental changes to the structure of the board to give western farmers choice in marketing their own wheat and barley. Right now, Prairie farmers must go through the board to sell their products, while farmers in such places as Ontario and Quebec do not.

But if the court approves changes ordered by Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl, western producers will be able to market barley on their own by Aug. 1 - a day some producers are calling "barley freedom day."

The wheat board, which is hoping the court will declare the move unlawful and not within Ottawa's jurisdiction, argued that the government ignored sections of the Wheat Board Act that require legislative change and a vote in Parliament to implement its policy.

"Mr. Strahl has plumb wrong got it wrong," wheat board lawyer John McDougall told the court. "The board is not responsible to reflect government policy."

The monopoly, he said, is designed to handle the orderly marketing of grain, and amendments to the governing act in 1998 gave control of the board to farmers.

Ottawa argues that no vote is required by the House of Commons since the change to barley sales is merely regulatory.

Ken Larsen, a 52-year-old grain farmer drove down from Benalto in central Alberta to throw his support behind the monopoly, which is the largest wheat and barley marketer in the world. The board offers international buyers "consistency and reliability" of a quality product, which is the kind of clout that individual farmers don't have internationally, he said.

He worries that if membership in the board is made voluntary, a dual system where farmers could sell to either the wheat board or another buyer would crush producers.

Last fall, Mr. Strahl banned the wheat board from lobbying for its continued existence. Then, during elections for the producer-elected board, his ministry removed thousands of voters from lists. By December, Mr. Strahl fired the board's chief executive officer who publicly opposed the government's plan to dismantle the organization. In March, some farmers criticized as unfair a plebiscite on whether barley should remain under the auspices of the board.

No timetable has been set on removing wheat from the grip of the board, but that is expected to be a much more emotional issue that may be decided by Canadian voters.

"If Harper gets us a majority then this [the wheat board] will be done," Brad McKay, a 39-year-old grain farmer from Vulcan, Alta., shouted to a wheat board supporter outside the court.

"Enjoy the next couple of years."

Mr. McKay said western Canadian farmers deserve the sort of choice in marketing barley and wheat that he has with canola and peas.

Back to top

Court slams Ottawa over attempt to break up Wheat Board monopoly

August 1, 2007 -- A court has issued a strong rebuke to the federal government, which is aiming to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on grain sales, on the eve of what was supposed to be the Conservative's first step in opening the market on barley.

Federal Court Judge Dolores Hansen, who last night rushed out her decision on the future of barley sales, ruled that Ottawa overstepped its power when it pledged to remove the crop sales from the single-desk marketing system as of today.

In her 20-page ruling, Judge Hansen concluded that Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl was wrong to simply introduce a regulation that would allow Western Canadian farmers to market barley to any customer they choose.

Instead, she found, the federal act that governs the wheat board requires a vote in Parliament.

The board successfully argued that farmers, not the government, were given control of the board when Parliament amended the Canadian Wheat Board Act in 1998.

Board chairman Ken Ritter was pleased with the decision, but said the organization is not going to carry on as if it is "business as usual."

"We will work hard to find new ways to create marketing choices for farmers without stripping away the marketing power of their single desk," he said in a statement.

Indeed, this may just be a temporary victory for the board, which is the largest marketer of wheat and barley in the world, but it is on the federal government's hit list for change.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has long promised to allow Western farmers more choice in marketing. Some farmers have become increasingly agitated by being forced to market their wheat and barley through the board when their counterparts in Eastern Canada have the luxury of finding their own buyers.

Some producers were calling August 1 "barley freedom day" in anticipation of the opportunity to handle their own sales.

Emotions ran high outside the court proceedings in Calgary last week as farmers both for and against the continued existence of a single-desk system voiced their views.  Some farmers believe they could get higher prices for their crops if they found their own customers. Others are worried that the creation of a dual-marketing system would doom all farmers because customers may not believe that they are receiving the same quality of product.

Mr. Strahl said he is "disappointed" and "surprised" by the decision.

"Barley freedom day isn't going to happen" as scheduled, he said.

Mr. Strahl said he will ask the government's legal team to look at the ruling and decide "as quickly as possible" what steps to take, including whether to file an appeal or put the issue to a vote in Parliament.

Back to top

Fights flare over subsidies in Farm Bill

July 3, 2007 -- The Bush administration has provided Congress with its ideas for national farm policy over the next five years.

So far, lawmakers have basically ignored the president and his policymakers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

And last week, a U.S. House agriculture subcommittee left wheat growers groaning and the USDA disappointed.

"We think our proposals are forward-thinking," said Mark Rey, USDA undersecretary for natural resources and environment.

A focus of the Bush proposals is to make U.S. farm law and agricultural subsidies immune to challenge by other members of the World Trade Organization.

"We don't want to get taken down one (commodity) at a time, like cotton," Rey said, referring to Brazil's successful WTO challenge to U.S. subsidy payments to cotton farmers.

Congress has generally disregarded foreign criticism of U.S. farm subsidies, arguing that unless or until there is a world agreement on agriculture trade, U.S. farmers would not be unilaterally weaned off their subsidies.

Efforts to negotiate changes in world trade treaties on agriculture products have failed for more than 20 years. The so-called Doha round of negotiations fizzled for the fourth time last week. There has been no progress on a multilateral ag trade pact since the WTO meetings in Seattle in 1999. 

The House Agriculture subcommittee that deals with commodities has renewed the language of the 2002 Farm Bill, which wheat growers in Montana and Wyoming argue puts them at a disadvantage compared with other grains, including corn, soybeans and rice.

"We need equity with the other grains," said Darin Arganbright, a producer at Carter. That is why wheat growers are asking for a higher direct payment of $1.19 a bushel versus 52 cents under the 2002 bill.

"That is bankable income," Arganbright said, and it helps cover the cost of production.

Arganbright will present the Montana Grain Growers Association's viewpoint at a U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee field hearing in Great Falls on Monday.

"Wheat growers remain convinced that farm programs need to be rebalanced," said John Thaemert, president of the National Association of Wheat Growers. 

Rey said the administration's proposals fall into five broad categories and would cost approximately $10 billion less than the cost of the 2002 Farm Bill over the past five years (excluding ad-hoc disaster aid).

"We want to bring greater equity to a broader range of producers," Rey said. Also in the outline are programs that are resistant to WTO challenge, an increase in spending on more conservation programs, a greater emphasis on renewable energy fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel, incentive assistance to individuals who want to enter agriculture, he said.

Rey said the subcommittee's action means that members are still targeting commodity prices rather than on production. 

"Farmers told us, 'You give us money when we don't need it and don't give us money when we do,' " Rey said, referring to the meetings around the country USDA hosted last year in anticipation of the 2007 Farm Bill. 

"They want us to help them when they need it, when they have a crop loss," he said. "If we base farm programs on production versus price we also remove the WTO vulnerability."

Wheat farmers don't buy that argument.

"We hope that Congress will remember that even if a Doha round WTO agreement is not achieved, it is important that we use the most WTO-compliant mechanism to provide farm support," Thaemert said. "That mechanism is the direct payment.

"(It) is the only mechanism ... that works when there are crop shortages due to drought and other weather disasters."

Two other proposals to limit the amount of money a farmer gets from the government are being proposed and neither is popular, although it appears that Congress is ready to cap the amount an individual farmer can collect in a single year.

Again, these proposals will get the money where it is needed, said Rey, rather than to farmers who have graduated from the need.

The Bush administration would limit farm payments to those farmers who have a gross adjusted income of less than $200,000.

Those individuals in the United States who have an adjusted income greater than $200,000 are in the top 2 percent of the U.S. population, Rey said.

He emphasized that the proposal was for gross adjusted income, not gross income.

The adjusted income is after farm expenses and depreciation and other deductions allowed, Rey said. He referred to Schedule F on the income tax form.

The second limit would be that payments to individual farmers for farm programs would be capped at $340,000 a year. 

Rey said that would save $5 billion a year that would be targeted to specialty crops, fruits, nuts and vegetables that are not now in the Farm Bill.

He said the USDA wants to reduce WTO vulnerability, get farm payments to where they are needed and invest in nutritional programs.

Rey argued that trade disputes with the WTO have to be addressed.

"The status quo is not a sustainable position," he said. "We can be taken down one (commodity) at a time or not play by the WTO rules.

"That would cut us off from export markets."

The United States "must break down barriers in foreign markets because agricultural consumption in this country is increasing by half the rate of increased production," he said.

Some programs under the 2002 Farm Bill expire Sept. 30, and Congress intends to complete its work this year, but some senators and representatives are calling for an extension of current law if the 2007 version is not completed. That happened in 1995.

Back to top

G-10 food importers call for wider farm trade WTO talks

July 2, 2007 -- The World Trade Organization's ( WTO) Group of Ten food importing countries, including Japan, called late Monday for wider participation in the stalled Doha Round of trade liberalization talks on agricultural issues.

The G-10 countries want the (WTO) to open up current negotiations to a wider range of member countries and oppose moves by the Group of Four (G-4) to draft an outline agreement by themselves.

Negotiations between the G-4 -- the United States, the European Union, Brazil and India -- broke up last month on disagreement over agriculture and market access, issues that have dogged the negotiations for years.

A communiqué issued Monday after conversations between Japanese Agriculture Minister Norihiko Akagi and his G-10 counterparts, said the multilateral process in the WTO 'needs to be intensified to allow for a successful conclusion' of the Doha Round.

It said the talks should give consideration to farm products that importing countries want to protect with high tariffs, such as Japan's rice. 

'All sensitivities have to be taken into account, as well as various levels of development, in line with the development dimension of the Doha Development Agenda,' it said.

The G-10 members hope their position will be reflected in a draft accord on farm trade which is expected to be presented in mid-July by the chairman overseeing the agriculture negotiations.

Following the release of the communiqué, Akagi told reporters that he plans to visit Europe to explain the G-10 stance to WTO Director General Pascal Lamy and other key officials.

Japan strongly opposes the capping of tariffs on farm imports, saying it could ruin its agriculture sector.

Japan imposes tariffs of 778 percent on rice, arguing that the crop requires special protection as it is crucial for the livelihood of small communities in rural areas and for flood control.

The G-10 currently comprises Iceland, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Liechtenstein, Mauritius, Norway, Switzerland and Taiwan. Bulgaria withdraw from the G-1O before it joined the European Union. 

Back to top

CAIS Gone -- 4 New Program Names

July 1, 2007 -- Agriculture Ministers have agreed to start 4 modified programs - aimed at helping producers through tough times.

Federal Minister Chuck Strahl says the 4 of them will replace CAIS.

One will be called AgriInvest -- and will look similar to the NISA accounts.

Strahl says it will be meant to help a producer through small changes in income -- and will require little paper work while being very bankable.

He says they will work quickly to get that money out the door -- with final details being ratified at the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Agriculture Ministers September meeting.

As for the other 3...

AgriStability -- will be the margin based program.

AgriInsurance -- covering current production insurance, while expanding to include things like horticulture and livestock.

AgriRecovery -- will cover diasters the other programs don't.

But during their annual meeting last week -- agriculture ministers also covered a number of subjects including future agriculture policy.

One component that Ontario's Agriculture Minister wanted to see was flexible dollars -- so that province could use them in programs like Risk Management Program.

Leona Dombrowsky says progress was made with new wording in the next Agriculture Policy Framework dealing with that flexibility.

However she says more needs to be done to ensure Ontario gets the best deal.

Back to top

Tax Freedom Day Arrives Earlier than Last Year

June 20, 2007 -- Canadians start working for themselves today after having paid off their government tax bills, according to the Fraser Institute's annual Tax Freedom Day calculations.

This year the day arrives four days earlier than last year, partly because of the federal government's one-cent reduction of the Goods and Services Tax that took effect halfway through 2006.

"If you look at the average Canadian family's total tax bill, each and every dollar they earn before June 20 would be required to pay the taxes owing to all levels of government," the Fraser Institute's Niels Veldhuis, director of the centre for tax studies, said in a release.

"It takes until June 20 before they begin earning money for themselves."

The conservative think tank has been calculating Tax Freedom Day since 1977.

The earlier date can also be attributed to several provincial governments reducing their taxes this year, Veldhuis said.

The latest Tax Freedom Day was in 2000, when it fell on June 25. Tax Freedom Day moved forward to June 17 in 2001 before steadily retreating to June 24 in 2005 and 2006.

"Even with the recent improvements, Tax Freedom Day still falls almost two months later than in 1961, the earliest year for which we have calculations," Veldhuis said.

The taxes used for calculation include income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, profit taxes, license fees, alcohol and tobacco taxes, and health, social security and employment taxes. Numerous other levies are also analyzed.

The institute's annual report has come under fire by at least one group, which calls it a misleading gimmick that underestimates Canadians' incomes and overstates their taxes.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has said the institute's method of calculating the date each year is based on average family income, rather than median income.

The Fraser Institute says the average Canadian family (with two or more individuals) in 2007 will earn $83,775 and pay a total of $38,992 in taxes, for a total tax bill amounting to 46.5 per cent of its income.

Tax Freedom Day varies from province to province, depending on the taxation levels of each provincial government. Alberta enjoys the earliest Tax Freedom Day on June 1, followed by New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island (June 14), British Columbia and Manitoba (June 16), Ontario and Nova Scotia (June 19), and Saskatchewan (June 22).

Quebec has the second-latest Tax Freedom Day, on June 26, while Newfoundland and Labrador wait the longest, until July 1.

Back to top

Marketing Choice for Barley to Start August 1, 2007

June 11, 2007 -- The Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, today announced that the Canadian Wheat Board Regulations have been amended to remove the Board's monopoly on barley and the Western Canadian farmers will have the freedom to choose how they market their barley beginning August 1, 2007.

"We committed to Western Canadian farmers that Canada's New Government would give them the right to market their own barley. Promise made, promise kept," said Minister Strahl. "I am very pleased that the new regulations are now in place and that as of August 1 of this year, barley farmers will have the freedom to choose to who they sell their grain."

In a plebiscite held earlier this year, 62 percent of barley producers voted to remove the CWB's monopoly on barley sales. The Government published draft regulations to amend the monopoly powers of the CWB in the April 21 edition of the Canada Gazette. Following a careful review of public comments on the draft regulations, the Government has now made a final regulation.

The amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Regulations will be published in the Canada Gazette Part II on June 27, 2007. They remove barley and barley products from the CWB's single-desk authority and permit farmers to sell their barley to any domestic or foreign buyer, including the CWB. The CWB will continue to pool barley and be a viable option for farmers, and the Government will continue to guarantee the initial payments to producers for those who want to continue to sell through the CWB.

The amendments to Canadian Wheat Board Regulations will be available at www.pco.gc.ca as of June 12, 2007.

BACKGROUNDER

The Implementation of Marketing Choice

A majority of barley producers in Western Canada expressed a clear preference - 62 percent - for marketing choice in the plebiscite on barley held earlier this year.

Minister Strahl proposed amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Regulations to remove barley from the Board's single desk authority. These amendments were approved by the Governor-in-Council on June 7 and will come into force on August 1, 2007 - in time for the 2007-08 crop year.

The regulations that have been put into place will permit producers to make the economic and marketing decisions that are right for their particular operation and to allow them to maximize returns from the sale of their barley.

For many farmers, there will be little change. Most barley producers already grow and sell crops other than the ones under the single desk authority of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) and will have a good idea of what to do with their barley. Some may make direct sales to maltsters and other processors. Others will deliver their barley to a local grain elevator just as they do now. However, under the new regulations, they will be able to choose between selling it to the company operating the elevator or selling it through the CWB.

Barley producers will be able to price their product on the spot market by calling around to different local elevators just as producers of other crops do now. They will also be able to manage price risk by entering into revised barley futures contracts on the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange.

There is a strong demand for barley in Canada and abroad. Under the new regulations, Western Canadian producers will have the choice of selling to the buyer of their choice, including the CWB. The CWB has a base of producers, who will be able to provide it with a large volume of barley to sell on their behalf, and who will want to continue to market their grain collectively through a producer-controlled marketer.

The Government will continue to guarantee the CWB's borrowings and initial payments under the conditions set out in the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The proposed change in the Canadian Wheat Board Regulations will not alter the federal export credit guarantee programs.

Cash advances are currently provided to farmers under the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act (AMPA). It is available to a wide range of producers, and barley producers will continue to be eligible for cash advances in the marketing choice environment.

Back to top

Fed Ag Minister not Happy with SM5 Group

Crawford Falconer, chair of the WTO Agriculture committee has put forward a paper that entirely disregards Canada's stated position on sensitive products. If Falconer's ideas are approved in their current form in the final round, Canadian agricultural officials say the outcome would be devastating for Canada's supply managed industries.

I asked Federal Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl why would Falconer do what he did.  Strahl replied it was, in his opinion, because Canada was not in there negotiating. "Our (the federal government's) position, which the supply managed sector has insisted on, is that we don't talk about any changes. 

"I keep telling them (SM5), why don't we get in there and make sure our interests are defended. They keep coming back with 'don't even talk about changes'. "We have the best negotiator in the world in Steve Verheul, (other countries) are talking about changes, and they (SM5) don't even want us to be in the room talking about changes. It is the stupidest tactic I can think of.

"So instead of Steve being in there and going to bat for them, he sits outside the room because all he can say is that we refuse to have any changes because our supply managed sectors can't live with any changes."

"It's crazy! The supply managed guys are shooting themselves in the foot over this. All of us want to save the supply managed industries and even I can save the core of the supply managed system, but not by sitting on the outside looking in."

Minister Strahl says he has told SM5 they should be urging the government to get in there and defend supply management at every opportunity. Instead, they assisted with the passing of a House of Commons motion not to talk about changes.

Steve Verheul, Canada's chief negotiator says the position of no changes for the Supply Managed sector does create challenges. "If another country wants to talk to me, and is interested in discussing changes to existing import rules, or tariff regulations in exchange for consideration of improved access to their market, I have to decline as my instructions are not to negotiate any changes to Canada's supply managed system."

However Mr. Verheul continues to negotiate for the non- supply managed commodities and expects the negotiations will be broadened soon to include a wider range of issues most of which are the responsibility of Canada's International Trade Minister David Emerson. 

Mr. Verheul noted that the pace of the talks has quickened in the last month with four power talks now underway involving the U.S., Europe, Brazil, and India.  "They have held several technical and ministerial meetings in recent weeks, and plan to accelerate their talks in the coming weeks," stated Mr. Verheul.

When asked if there was any possibility that the U.S. and Europe could again approve a unilateral agreement similar to what they did in 1995 to the detriment of all other countries, Mr. Verheul said he doubted that could happen again. He is of the opinion that there are many more countries taking an active role in the talks, emerging countries in particular, and that means a two- country agreement would be unlikely.

Back to top

Proposed Amendments for Barley

The amendments to the Regulations would implement marketing choice for
barley effective August 1, 2007.

Click here to view.

Back to top

Deadline for 2007 CAIS sign-up extended

April 18, 2007 -- The deadline for producers to join the 2007 Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) program and pay their 2007 nationally mandated fee has been extended to November 30, 2007, while proposed changes to business risk management programs are under discussion.

The 2006 program deadlines have not changed. Producers are still required to pay their fee by April 30, 2007 to be eligible for the 2006 program.

Currently the CAIS program requires participants to elect a level of protection at the beginning of their fiscal year and pay a program fee of $4.50 per $1,000 of reference margin protected. The final deadline for new participants to sign up for the CAIS 2007 program year was April 30, 2007. Existing participants are automatically deemed to be participating at the level chosen the previous program year. Due to proposed changes, the election deadline for new participants has been extended to November 30, 2007. The deadline for payment of the 2007 fee has also been extended due to the proposed program changes to November 30, 2007.

The CAIS program fee was introduced in the 2006 program year as a replacement for the producer deposit. 2006 program year participants are still required to pay the program fee for the 2006 program year. The final deadline for payment for the 2006 program fee is April 30, 2007. Participants are required to complete the program forms to be eligible for program benefits for 2006. The deadline to submit 2006 program forms is September 30, 2007. Producers are encouraged to submit their application early for a quicker turnaround.

Back to top

Thank You

The 90th anniversary of Vimy Ridge is an opportunity to again realize what we received from the bravery of the people living during those days.  How lucky we are to live in Canada and have a democratic country that allows us freedom & choice!!

One of the reasons we are lucky is that the barley vote gave us CHOICE - not to be forced against our will.

Thank you to those who gave us our freedoms.

What follows is the text from Prime Minister Stephen Harper's speech at Vimy Ridge.

Back to top

Vimy Ridge 2007

VIMY, France (CP) - The text of a speech given by Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the rededication Monday of the restored Vimy Memorial in France:

Your Majesty, Mr. Prime Minister of the Republic of France, distinguished guests, veterans, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you all for honouring us with your presence today.

We Canadians here today are a long way from home but there may be no place on Earth that makes us feel more Canadian, because we sense all around us the presence of our ancestors.

If we close our eyes we can see them, dressed in their olive khaki uniforms, rifles slung over their shoulders, the distinct wide-brimmed helmet perched on their heads.

They are emerging from their filthy trenches, trudging through the boot-sucking mud, passing the skeletons of trees and the shell holes of blood, surrounded by the horrible noises of war.

Overhead, the Canadian Red Ensign is fluttering through the smoke.

One hundred thousand brave Canadians fought here 90 years ago today. Three thousand five hundred and ninety-eight died.

Every nation has a creation story to tell.

The First World War and the battle of Vimy Ridge are central to the story of our country.

The names of all the great battles are well known to Canadians and Newfoundlanders, but we know the name of Vimy best of all, because it was here for the first time that our entire army fought together on the battlefield and the result was a spectacular victory, a stunning breakthrough that helped turn the war in the allies favour.

Often, the importance of historical events is only understood with the benefit of hindsight but at Vimy everybody immediately realized the enormity of the achievement.

Brig-Gen. Alexander Ross famously said that when he looked out across the battlefield he saw, and I quote, "Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific on parade," and that he felt he was witnessing the birth of a nation.

The year after the war ended the brilliant Canadian commander at Vimy, Sir Arthur Currie, put it another way in a speech at Toronto's Empire Club.

Canada was a nation of immigrants before 1914, he said. Now these men who have come back are your very own.

Nothing tells our story of the First World War as eloquently or as powerfully as this extraordinary monument. It reminds us of the enormity of their sacrifice and the enormity of our duty to follow their example and to love our country and defend its freedom for ever.

The veterans of Vimy passed their stories to their children, who passed it to theirs, who passed it to us, who are passing it to our children.

Thousands of them are with us today. And some of them will return here someday with their own children, and their grandchildren.

Because nothing tells our story of the First World War as eloquently or as powerfully as Walter Allward's extraordinary monument to the 11, 285 Canadians who fell in France with no known resting place.

Allward said he was inspired by a dream. He saw thousands of Canadians fighting and dying in the vast battlefield. Then, through an avenue of giant poplars, a mighty army came marching to their rescue. They were the dead, Allward said. They rose in masses and entered to fight and aid the living: I have tried to show this in this monument to Canada's fallen, what we owed them, and will owe them forever.

Back to top

Farmers Vote to End Canadian Wheat Board Barley Monopoly

Click here for the barley vote results

OTTAWA (CP) - Western Canadian farmers have voted to end the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on barley sales.

A total of 62 per cent of just over 29,000 farmers who cast eligible ballots said they wanted the board out of the barley market altogether, or for the board to be maintained in a competitive market.

Another 38 per cent said they wanted to maintain the status quo.

A government spokesman said federal Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl will now take steps to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act to remove the barley monopoly.

Its directors have said the wheat board will have to get out of the market because it won't be able to compete without government funding to buy ports and grain elevators.

Supporters of the government say they've waited for years for the right to decide how to market their own grain.

Back to top

Forum on Agriculture on CPAC

Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative Member of Parliament for Yorkton - Melville, Saskatchewan, organized this forum in Yorkton on March 23, 2007.

Monday, April 2^nd at 1:30PM ET / 10:30AM PT to be repeated later during the day in the Public Record portion.

This session includes an introduction by Breitkreuz, followed by a speech from federal Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl.

Back to top

WBGA Calls for Immediate Action

Government must take action as soon as the results of the barley plebiscite are
made public.

The government needs to move fast towards removing barley from the monopoly as soon as possible.

Following is a copy of WBGA's letter stressing this point once again.

What is needed is support letters of the same nature. WBGA is encouraging our
members to review and write their own as well. We must make Ottawa aware that change is needed now. Our malting industries are stating that they need to know what is happening before April 1, we need change to come into effect as of August 1.

We are aware of a possible election call this spring, yet the government can
through an order in council make the necessary changes.

March 7, 2007
 
Honourable Chuck Strahl, PC, MP
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and
Minister Responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A6

Minister Stahl:

As we close in on the end of the barley plebiscite and await its results I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and our government for the work done in working towards an environment where choice for barley producers can be realized. As you stated very clearly at the joint convention of the WBGA/WCWGA in mid February, it is a key objective of you, and our government is to provide choice.

Yet as we approach spring we, as producers, must know where the government intends to go with this file. We need barley free from the monopoly powers by August 1/07. It must be stressed that we fully expect the CWB to remain a choice when it comes to marketing barley - with out the monopoly.  Fast transition is needed not only for producers but our industry partners as well. At our convention, Rahr Malting stated it wants to work with producers, and needs to know if it can as soon as possible. With this, they are going out on a limb, and offering contracts to producers that offer very attractive prices for malt barley this harvest. I believe other Maltsters are ready to follow suit.

Our grain handling industry and the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange have also stated that they are ready to work with barley free of the monopoly. As you know many of our grain handling companies have strong international relations with foreign buyers and have developed markets with them. There will be push back, we have seen this all along during the plebiscite, and the debate of the survival of the CWB will not end if barley is removed.  You and your government must continue to show its strength and leadership and move forward. 

If a clear majority of producers want choice we (WBGA) will be calling upon the CWB board of directors to make the necessary changes themselves.

Yet I encourage you and our government to move forward with the necessary changes as well. Barley producers are ready for change, we won't go backwards, we need change to survive and obtain the many opportunities we see out there. Be it building on our livestock-feeding sector or new value added sectors such as bio-fuels or food fractionation. Our producers are ready, and are ready to move/market their barley, where ever and whenever.  Even if it means breaking the law once again - just to survive!

Sincere regards
Jeff Nielsen
President ~ WBGA
Olds, AB
Phone: (403) 556-0408
jeffniel@platinum.ca

cc: 
Mr. David Anderson, MP
Mark Cameron, Director, Policy and Research, Office of the Prime Minister

Back to top

2007 Official Barley Plebiscite Information Centre

The Federal Government is committed to moving forward in providing marketing choice to Western Barley Farmers, allowing them to maximize their returns, while continuing to preserve a strong Canadian Wheat Board. This website has been developed to provide up to date vote information for Western Canadian Barley producers.

This site is managed by KPMG, LLP an independent accounting firm that has been selected as the Vote Administrator and Chief Returning Officer for the 2007 Barley Plebiscite.

If you believe you are an eligible producer entitled to a vote and have not received your ballot and declaration by February 15, 2007 please call our toll free number at 1-888-322-7539 (1-888-3BARLEY) or e-mail your name and address to 2007barleyvote@kpmg.ca after February 15, 2007 and a ballot and declaration will be mailed to you.

Click here to ensure that your voice is heard!!

Back to top