Rail service
To the Editor:
In a recent Western Producer article (“U.S. adviser warns against rail deregulation,” Oct. 30), comparisons are made with the grain transportation situation in the U.S. Great Plain states and how the Canadian system could function if deregulated. The conclusion of the U.S. commentators is that any deregulation in the Canadian system will result in a lack of competitive forces in grain transportation. This conclusion is based on a series of fallacies and misconceptions.
Commentators in the article predict that CN and CPR would simply “carve up their territory” under a deregulated system. This is unfounded and illogical based on what has happened in the U.S. since the Staggers Act of 1980. While the number of U.S. Class 1 railroads did fall from 42 to fewer than 10, there is no logic in extending this prediction to Canada (where only two Class 1 railways exist at present).
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
The type of deregulation brought into the U.S. through the Staggers Act does not resemble the type of deregulation sought in the Canadian system today.
It is a complete fallacy that Canadian railways have no competition. Eighty-seven percent of all producers on a CPR line are within 50 miles of a competing railway (CN or BN/SF). Increased truck sizes and commercial trucking options for producers have introduced an element of fierce competition for the railways (on an uneven playing field, tilted through taxation that favors trucking).
Aside from trucking and competing railways, the competition for grain traffic is heating up across the Prairies as food processing and livestock sectors grow in size. More and more grain is consumed on the Prairies and never sees the inside of a railway hopper car. …
But grain remains only partially deregulated. Freight rates remain based on the average cost for all grain movements. Each shipper pays about the same amount (with adjustments for distance hauled) regardless of the type and cost characteristics of the actual movement. This is the equity approach to setting rates.
Under a deregulated system, freight rates would more accurately reflect the differences in costs and other services among the various grain movements. This is the efficiency approach to setting rates. The CPR is encouraging the development of a grain transportation system where Accountability is the guiding principle, Efficiency the objective, and Commercial Processes the means to get us there.
Farmers make shrewd business decisions based on the prices of their inputs and outputs. A commercial process with flexible grain freight rates will be reflected in the decisions farmers make on how and where they choose to move their grain. Possibly more grain will be consumed on the Prairies. Possibly more livestock will be raised. The railways face stiff competition already, and this competition will only increase under deregulation.
But it is this competition which will ensure Canada can compete in the global marketplace.
– Chris Wendlandt,
Vice President, Public Affairs,
Canadian Pacific Railway,
Calgary, Alta.
Vague premiers
To the Editor:
… Quebecers have voted twice to stay in Canada.
Why are Canadians expected to condone future referendums concerning Quebec rebellion every time some politically motivated demagogue wants one?
Why didn’t those premiers spell out the wording for any future separation referendum so Quebecers wouldn’t think they could separate and still be in Canada? Why didn’t they state that the ex-Canadians would no longer be eligible for Canadian pensions, salaries and subsidies?
Why didn’t they state that Canada and the U.S. would not stand idly by while that international St. Lawrence Seaway fell into the hands of some extreme radicals? Why didn’t they state that the War Measures Act gives the Federal government the power to crush subversiveness?
How can Quebecers vote intelligently if they do not realize the consequences of rebellion? The premiers demonstrated large wishbones and no backbone.
– George S. Snow,
Milk River, Alta.
Money erosion
To the Editor:
Well now, I see as how my friend Eldridge is still armed and crusty as ever! But, probably underneath that abrasive exterior, there lurks a “heart of gold.” Hopefully not along the lines of Bre X gold!
But I won’t elaborate on that, as clearly the wisdom contained in his words is quite apparent.
Instead, I shall direct your attention to the recent furor in the Commons over the proposed increase in CPP premiums, which while a disturbing development, is however in my view, only a symptom of the real problem and that is the constant erosion of our earning power.
A very visible effect of this was highlighted two years ago by the Editor of the Manitoba Co-operator, wherein he noted the euphoria that was building in farm circles because the price of wheat was again approaching $5 a bushel, something it had not been since the mid-1970s.
He also noted that even without considering the dismally low prices for most of the intervening period, this $5 wheat was really nothing to crow about, as for the ’95 bushel to have the same buying power as the ’75 one did, it would need to be $17.
This drastic erosion is constantly seen in the steadily rising amount of the monthly allotments of OAS and CPP payments, which being indexed to the cost of living, serve as an accurate gauge on the extent of this erosion.
I recall in 1980 when I first became eligible for OAS and CPP, my OAS cheque was $178. A friend of mine some six years older than I, revealed that his first cheque was in the order of some $130 or about one third of the current $405.
Of course, Eldridge will shout (probably from the house top) that it is those “greedy labor unions” that are driving prices up! But wait a minute, could this perhaps be a case of the “chicken and the egg”? Which came first?
If we are going to point fingers, maybe we should look a little higher. Not so very long ago the differential between ordinary workers’ wages and top level executives was in the order of about 30 to one (and that is still the case in some countries such as Britain), but here today it is in excess of a hundred to one!
Mathew Barret, for example, CEO of the Bank of Montreal, drags home some $3.9 million, which represents 117 times the $33,300 wage of average bank employees, and his is not the worst on record.
Laurent Beaudin of Bombardier last year toddled home with $19 million, and Frank Stronack of Magna Corp. did even better at $26 million.
And the year before he raked in an astounding $49 million, which even at the generous assumption that he might pay his workers $49,000 a year would still be a thousand times that salary.
Small wonder that concern is appearing in the upper circles, as noted in the recent conversation by Hanna Gartner of CBC, with the President of Noranda who said “this is becoming an unhealthy situation.” It is indeed and recalling history, we had better pay heed. Right, Eldridge?
– Philip Lindenback,
Weekes, Sask.
Scrap Ottawa?
To the Editor:
Since our federal government has only a single province to thank for its second term, it cannot be commended for past performance. We could actually class our federal government as a detriment to Canadian people.
Unity no longer exists except at provincial levels. Why then not discard the federal government entirely?
Provincial governments are already equipped to conduct the provincial business without Ottawa’s help.
Supporting federalism does not justify the small return Canadians receive. Our national debt could be removed with no problem and Canadians could enjoy true democracy.
– H. W. Jackson,
Falher, Alta.
Hog wild
To the Editor:
It appears the Saskatchewan NDP party may be prepared to commit political Hari-Kari in the rural areas of the province, thanks to the pig-headed arrogance of Agriculture Minister Eric Upshall.
As we know, the Minister has zealously promoted the ambitions of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool’s Heartland Livestock division in the development of 26 pig factories throughout the province. Environmental concerns expressed by rural residents destined to live adjacent to such facilities have essentially been held in contempt by the Minister. He apparently believes, when measured against the greater picture of jobs, trade and corporate bottom lines, the carping concerns of rural fresh-air enthusiasts over potential air and water pollution issues are expendable.
Farm families are no match against corporate goals.
The Minister has now sharply escalated the debate through arbitrarily suspending the one-desk selling operations of the SPI.
He has apparently forgotten that SPI was created through a democratic vote of hog producers who supported the principles of orderly marketing in preference to the chaos of an open market system. SPI has served them well, but the large integrators wanted out.
The Minister has chosen to serve the interests of the corporations. He has revoked the democratic rights of hog producers to decide for themselves the future of their marketing choices.
Upshall’s actions speak loudly and clearly about his attitude towards orderly marketing principles. He clearly supports dual marketing which is compatible with right wing philosophy. He supports corporate interests over those of farm families. He has demonstrated he is prepared to run roughshod over democratic principles and rights in order to meet his self-serving objectives.
He has revealed how principled and accommodating he can be when large corporations come knocking on his door.
With the prairie grain handling system increasingly falling under the influence of U.S. corporate interests, we must question this minister’s commitment to continued support for Canadian Wheat Board one-desk selling of export wheat and barley.
It’s a scary thought.
– Stuart A. Thiesson,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Cash barley?
To the Editor:
I am responding to Adrian Ewin’s article about the CWB again facing the task of nabbing export feed barley. You referred to an Alberta farmgate price of $120 to $125 a tonne, which is incorrect. I am receiving $136 a tonne for my barley at the farm gate and I am sure that some producers are getting more. As you can see the CWB PRO is a non-issue. Why could not the CWB buy our barley for a cash price and then sell into the domestic market?
If the agency’s mandate is to sell our grain for the best possible return, then why don’t they do this? …
– Glenn Sawyer,
Director, WCWGA,
Acme, Alta.
