Victims
To the Editor:
I have seen many things over the last months that worry me about the continued future of farming as we know it. Farmers now have to deal with more complex issues and decisions than probably what had ever faced our grandfathers and fathers. Yet the things we should have learned from them have been long forgotten. …
I would like to discuss some of the things I have seen, witnessed or been a part of.
The first is Agricore. Many people may not remember that this company started out its life as the Alberta Wheat Pool and the Manitoba Pool. … my grandfather was a charter member of the Alberta Wheat Pool, and delivered to the pool since it’s inception. My father was a member all his life and generally with the exception of a plugged elevator on one occasion hauled all his grain to the Pool. When I took over the farm the first thing I did when I hauled my first load to the Pool was buy a membership. I was brought up on the ideals of co-operatives and I believe that they are very beneficial.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
Well this year my faith in co-operatives was sorely shaken. As a member of the Pool I expected the right to vote on the merger. After all “one member, one vote.” Yet the day I come to vote I find out this isn’t true. To vote you required shares, and as a fairly recent member, my equity had not been converted into shares. No shares no vote. Further, I found that the amount of votes you received was based upon the amount of shares you had. Well this is the way it usually goes at annual shareholders meetings in corporations. Suddenly I’m feeling like I am not a member of a pool any more but a wannabee shareholder of a corporation. …
I’m sure many people know how I feel about Justice Estey. … How does he ever expect there will be fair competition in rail transport when there are only two rail companies who own the lion’s share of the rail bed in this country?…
Next is the fact that we have probably paid for a great deal of the hopper rail cars, tunnels and those pretty and monstrous engines that CP and CN are using “to improve efficiency.” You know as a group we are probably the railroads biggest customers. However they don’t look at us as a group, they look at us as individuals.
They see John Smith farmer and they think, well he doesn’t really ship that much so we have to charge him a very high freight rate. In fact it seemed like Justice Estey bought into this too. Who the heck pays the freight, not Agricore, not Sask Pool, not the UGG, not anyone but us. Yet we have no rights to decide what will happen in the transportation of our grain. …
I’ve read many letters that have cursed the Canadian Wheat Board. Yes maybe the CWB has its faults and yes sometimes some of the things they do upset me too. However, as a family farmer I also realize that if it was incumbent upon me to market my own grain, the net effect would be disastrous. I don’t have the resources to market my own grain….. Sure you might say, oh no problem we can just run it over the border to the states.
True, but how long will it take before American farmers get angry about us plugging their elevators with our grain (and) they lobby their government to stop it. It’s happened before and should we infuriate them more it will happen again. So in this regard I am happy that we have a CWB, that does even out the market so it is fair to all. …
We farmers … produce more grain from the same and in a lot of cases declining land bases. That is the problem, we produce more. For every efficiency we incorporate we produce more and this only adds to the world supply where there is still a limited amount of customers. …
What is truly wrong and where the negligence on our part has come is that we think of ourselves as “me against the rest of the farmers.” So we only think about what is good for our farm and not what is good for the industry as a whole. We are basically loners when we should be united together.
Rather than being reactive, we need to be proactive … . It’s time to stop complaining about the sky falling, because it already has, it’s time to fix it and start winning again. We can, but not as John Smith farmer, but as the Western
Canadian farmers.
– Einar Davison,
Hussar, Alta.
Unfair reps
Letter to the Editor:
Although the federal government, an official from CP Rail and one grain company have all indicated that the working committees of the Kroeger process will have, approximately, or at least half of the representation from producers, this is not the case.
In fact, none of the three working groups have a majority of producer representatives.
The Rates and Revenues working group has 15 members with six being producer representatives, the Commercial Relations working group has 19 members with only six members being producer representatives.
It would appear the federal government is willing to portray the image that producers have control of the process.
However, this is not the case.
It is odd that one group has three members representing it, The Western Grain Elevators Association. If the newly designed system is to benefit producers, why does the WGEA have three members to represent one group’s viewpoint?
Interestingly enough, a representative for the WGEA is from Louis Dreyfus, a French company, which has only had facilities in Canada for a few years.
So although the press releases imply producers have the majority of representatives, this is false.
The new system will be designed by people in the industry to ensure the railways and grain companies can reduce their costs and increase their profits. Producers will get higher costs.
The government will be praised by the railways and all taxpayers in Canada will pay the bill. … It has become obvious whose interest the federal ministers are really looking out for.
Once again the lack of a federal family farm policy will ensure that some industry players will benefit and the majority of producers will be the losers.
This shouldn’t be a surprise to producers, as we appear unwilling to tackle the government on this issue.
If you didn’t like the result of the loss of the Crow wait till Kroeger finishes round two.
How much longer are we willing to sit on our butts and see our farms destroyed?
– Kyle Korneychuk,
Pelly, Sask.
Losing farmers
To the Editor:
This spring two calves were born here, almost identical, and when they weren’t eating or sleeping they spent their time butting heads. I named them “Ireland” and “The Balkans”, after two parts of the world where there has been manmade trouble, decade after decade, because it seems as though someone there simply must butt heads with someone else and draw others into their conflicts.
As the result of the latest trouble in The Balkans, thousands of people were forced to leave, carrying meager belongings, and suffering from hunger and from the elements, to say nothing of mental stress. One couldn’t help but admire their fortitude and self-control. Would we soft Canadians do as well?
It is the duty of more fortunate countries to help those less fortunate. At one time we would automatically have said our Christian duty, but in this country there are those to whom that means nothing and they seem to think it should mean nothing to all of us.
Nevertheless, we must help others.
Having said that, I shall now play the Devil’s Advocate.
Our governing body in Ottawa says there is no money to help the vanishing species known as The Farmer, yet suddenly, on the world stage, they offer money, they offer refuge. …
We read, or hear, that each Canadian bomb costs anywhere from $5,000 to $25,000 to send on its way to cause death or destruction.
But there’s no money for Canadian farmers.
It costs quite a lot of money to take in refugees from Kosovo – but there are thousands of children living on the streets of Canada’s biggest cities …
But there’s no money for the children and those who try to help them depend upon charity from individuals and from the much-maligned churches.
I heard a member of Parliament say that we should give hockey teams a tax break because “we cannot lose our hockey teams.” But we can lose our farmers; we can lose children. …
– C. Pike,
Waseca, Sask.
Balanced coverage?
To the Editor:
In the May 27 edition of The Western Producer, columnist Barry Wilson titled an article, “CBC asked for more balanced coverage,” but it is Mr. Wilson who is unbalanced in his coverage of biotechnology.
His article on May 27 criticizes the CBC for programs that in Mr. Wilson’s words, ‘have highlighted the dangers and public fears (of biotechnology) without the balance of information about potential benefits.’ Yet a survey of Mr. Wilson’s Western Producer articles reveals his articles only highlight the benefits of biotechnology, without presenting drawbacks or potential dangers.
In the May 13 edition, Mr. Wilson wrote “Dean defends terminator technology,” which presents only positive aspects of terminator seed technology.
In the May 20 edition, Mr. Wilson wrote “Cloned goats make silk,” in which he lists numerous benefits of cloning and genetic modification, without presenting a single potential drawback. He even ends the article with a quote by Reform party agricultural critic, Howard Hilstrom, ‘I see nothing but positives about this,’ in reference to biotechnology.
The very next week, Mr. Wilson criticizes the CBC for unbalanced journalism. In fact, all three articles refer to any negative aspects of biotechnology as ‘scare mongering.’
The CBC program which Mr. Wilson calls scare mongering, is an eight-hour series presenting extensive interviews and scientific research by experts from around the world. The CBC raises valid concerns for everyone regarding biotechnology and its negative effects on human health, agriculture and our planet.
It is irresponsible for Mr. Wilson to only present biased and one-sided views of biotechnology in his articles. It is unfair, however, for him to accuse the CBC of biased journalism, because Mr. Wilson’s article is written only because the CBC program in question holds a view on biotechnology that is different than his.
In his articles, Mr. Wilson calls for balanced public debate on the subject of biotechnology. Hopefully, both he and The Western Producer can begin to do just that.
– Peter Kolla,
Cudworth, Sask.
Try something else
To the Editor:
In response to Avery Sahl’s tirade against the Western Canadian Wheat Growers (April 1 Open Forum), I would gladly give up my share of the Canadian Wheat Board’s (CWB) settlements with CN and CP for a system that doesn’t force me to pay for the mistakes of others. My obligation should end at the elevator pit.
But in the Canadian Wheat Board-administered system farmers carry all the risk and pay the demurrage bills when something goes wrong. Railways and grain have little risk or incentive to perform because they are not bound by commercial contracts.
It’s ironic the Board’s two-year battle with the railways attempted to recover money farmers shouldn’t have lost in the first place. In a commercial, contractual system, those being paid to move our grain would be accountable for their actions. You rarely hear of demurrage being paid on canola because the grain companies are liable if the product fails to reach its destination on time.
So, before Mr. Sahl runs out and spends his windfall on a new rain gauge, he should tally up the losses. The CWB has estimated the 1996-97 grain fiasco cost farmers $50 to $65 million in demurrage and lost sales. Another $2.7 million was paid in legal fees and CWB staff time.
And what did we get in return? A secret agreement with CN and an alleged $15 million settlement with CP that cannot be verified because the terms are, of course, confidential.
The Wheat Board’s record as manager of grain transportation is one of repeated breakdowns, lack of competition, high costs and inefficiency.
Isn’t it about time we tried something else?
And for Mr. Sahl’s further information, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association is supported entirely by member contributions, which allows us to critically analyze all sectors of the grains industry and act in the interests of western Canadian farmers.
– Keith Lewis,
Wawota, Sask.
Chemicals
To the Editor:
There are several areas which our environmentalists choose to ignore. When there is a petroleum or like material spill, the soil around the area is removed to another place to leak out, into the air, soil, or to run off into streams, etc.
Meanwhile, the roads on which they drive, plus many thousands of acres in towns and cities are asphalt, which contains many thousands of gallons of petroleum, is just laid on top of the ground, plus most of our foods today are packed in plastic, another petroleum product. Where is the logic?
A big noise was made about the tie, post, and pole treating plant after it was abandoned … but the treated materials are all over the country, in railroad beds, hydro poles, fence posts etc. either standing in or lying on the earth from coast to coast.
Anhydrous ammonia contains the same deadly materials that was used in war time to make the dreaded poison gas, which killed hundreds, yet it is being allowed, injected into our already contaminated earth, by the tank after tankful, a very dangerous product to the user as well all around it.
Aluminum pots and pans are considered dangerous to health, yet thousands of gallons of soft drinks are sold from machines, which you see in the schools, rinks and most public places, as well as cases from the stores, and aluminum is used many other ways in daily life, and there seems to be no apparent restrictions, from environmental persons.
It is little wonder that they are finally becoming conscious of mercury levels in wildlife and fish etc. when contamination of the air, water, earth and plants are continually being polluted by the use of these many different chemicals.
It is also little wonder that so many birds, plants, other wildlife are becoming endangered, including the ground owl when their home, the earth, polluted beyond their ability to survive. I cannot recall wildlife (groups) doing any protesting in the use of chemicals and the harm it is doing to much of the wildlife, possibly more than illegal use of guns, etc. let alone the damage to the earth, from which we depend on for survival.
The use of these chemicals etc. is only forcing the earth beyond its natural production, which is no different to drugs used in sports to increase the contestant beyond normal output. Except, in Olympic play, it is illegal and forbidden. But not so in the use of chemicals.
Environmentalists close their eyes to many very dangerous practices, perhaps they are being paid off by the big money establishments, just as our governments are at almost all levels.
– Joseph Hagyard,
Glenboro, Man.
