Loyal workers
To the Editor:
It would seem that the major concerns of our citizens are health care, education and roads.
A reliable source of food, the most basic need, is rarely a concern, thanks to the efficient steadfast efforts of our prairie farmers. Only in Canada, more particularly here on the Prairies, are these loyal workers held in contempt by a well-fed public, the poor taxpayer to whom we are such an obvious burden.
At best, the attitude is that the farmers will persevere; at worst, that food could easily be imported.
Read Also
Rural emergency room closures continue to be vexing problem
Staffing issues are at the root of disruptions and closures in hospital emergency departments, both in rural and urban Canadian locations.
One would be led to believe, according to the media, that the taxpayers are the workforce of which farmers are not a part, somehow existing in an untaxed state while the real taxpayers have to support us.
In the interest of the future’s children, I must respond to a letter in the Open Forum of April 15, headlined “Bad idea”, in which the writer states that farmers must realize they do not have a God-given right to make a profit, that they should diversify, intensify, hedge, insure, use off-farm ventures.
The writer’s statement might be justified if it were only a few bad managers being weeded out, if we were not providing a worldwide necessary daily product, if 45 out of every 100 jobs were not agriculture related with healthy salaries, if the chemical and grain companies were not making steady profits, if said companies would not inflate their prices in order to finance excessive, expensive, pointless advertising, if we did not have passed down to us every cost and tax along the way, including the EI and CPP premiums of every ag employee, as well as the brunt of education tax on property,… if we did not work hard and long for our living, yearly investing back in agriculture, if grain farming were not the basis of the dairy, poultry, beef and pork industries, indeed the basis of breakfast, dinner and supper as well as the after-work beer.
It would seem that the real problem is that our people have come to believe they have a God-given right to a steady reliable source of food, with many enjoying the fruits of our labor while we must absorb the risks alone.
The writer further states that businesses do not expect the taxpayers to bail them out in bad years. If business provides a necessary product or service, then a profit margin is its due. Workers expect a reasonable salary plus benefits.
We provide both with huge costs to us of time and investments. Would businesses survive if they had to buy retail and sell wholesale, had their markets controlled with uncertain gain, of which part is held back, only to be translated by the taxpayer as a hand-out when the final payments do come through?
It should be noted too that solutions such as diversification are not the answer as long as there is no justification required on input price increases while our returns are sorely controlled.
All the while the misinformed public is eager to believe that farmers work only two weeks in seeding time and two weeks during harvest. Public awareness is badly lacking. Perhaps it is time for the taxpayers to diversify and intensify so they would not need to skimp on the food dollar in order to afford other comforts.
Oh yes, the taxpayers can squawk loudly and meanly. Oddly they did not protest the land bank; they have no objection to unlimited funds being provided for unlimited ducks as long as urban people do not have to share in their feed costs. They believe strikes by ag workers with no investments are justified as long as they don’t have to pay the demurrage. …
They accept that the processors and middlemen make profits on the upswings as well as the downswings…
Finally, the writer states that we need to preserve capitalism. Indeed we need only look to Russia to see that this is true. If the proud independent farmer is squeezed out of business, there is only one alternative. Oh yes, agriculture will survive, but it will be back to the feudal system with large powerful landholders. There will be a difference, however. If these power giants want the same dedication, efficiency and skill from farm workers they will have to pay dearly for it.
The farmers will indeed punch a clock, as the writer suggests, nine to five, rain or shine, 40 hours a week, striking in May and September.
Then the taxpayers can explain to tomorrow’s children why a once proud and efficient nation can no longer feed its people. And when food lines become a reality in Canada, those who had such disdain for the farmers will of course have to go to the back of the line, right behind the environmentalists who will of necessity be behind the plow.
– S. J. Nerbas
Langenburg, Sask.
No joke
To the Editor:
Open Letter to the Right Honorable John Chretien:
I call to your notice the severity of decline and very great hardship placed on Canadian farmers in income losses due to extremely low commodity prices and varied weather extremes throughout.
I urge your Cabinet to debate a complete reform within the agricultural sector before it is too late – this is no joke, be assured.
Good farmers can from time to time take being froze out, hailed out, snowed out, washed out, droughted out, but not priced out.
This agricultural crisis is imminent throughout the industry, please take this letter seriously.
– Nick Parsons,
Farmington, B.C.
Withholding taxes
To the Editor:
Insurrectionists have decided to withhold all tax monies due to government bureaucrats. Why not? It is needed at home, not squandered on some ideological program that has little merit and no benefit to Canadians.
Frankly the exuberance may be intensified owing to the fact that many owing taxes simply cannot pay. The white collared gentry in Ottawa have no remorse reading of growing poverty or the formidable national debt.
Familiarity breeds contempt, truer words were never spoken.
– H.W. Jackson,
Falher, Alta.
No Xmas present?
To the Editor:
So much for the bankable AIDA plan announced in late ’98.
Our application was mailed April 15. As beginning farmers with no1995 income, we have no idea if we qualify. As of Aug. 4, AIDA still had no idea either.
I phoned in again Aug. 9 and was told they finally figured out how to calculate beginning farmers.
At this rate I doubt Santa will be able to put AIDA under the Christmas tree in ’99. Good luck to all those farmers who mailed it in later.
– Jane Sprangers,
Sylvania, Sask.
Nothing from AIDA
To the Editor:
Reference to your July 29 issue Aid program called a joke. I believe you should start taking a poll on how many farmers get nothing from the AIDA program.
I filled out my application with my accountant only to find out that because I went into a deficit on the farm last year, I do not qualify for any assistance.
My accountant was good to me and only charged $200 to fill out the form, so now I’m in a deeper deficit. Forms like mine, which never get sent in, are not even mentioned. We’re out of the program before it gets started.
AIDA will not pay on farms with a deficit.
I farm in the Liebenthal, Sask., area where crops have been good to us but prices have slowly drained our incomes and savings. I’m looking for off-farm work.
– Gerald Wagner,
Liebenthal, Sask.
Skim milk
To the Editor:
Our accountants were kind enough to calculate a preliminary AIDA return. They determined it would not be feasible to file a return based on the information they had on hand, previous NISA returns, after deducting their fee of $500. We appreciated their honesty.
As cash flow is kind of tight, I was curious to know how much we might have coming if we did file a return. After filling out the various AIDA schedules and worksheets, I phoned to confirm that the schedules were filled out right.
The person in Winnipeg said not to worry, when the returns come in they access the NISA information and use the correct numbers. They just require certain information from the producer, namely inventories, deferred sales, payables and receivables – the accrual method of accounting.
So fellow farmers, we have again been exploited by the bureaucrats in Ottawa.
Not only did we not have to fill out all the schedules, just certain information was required, (but) we have been led to believe that we could not do it ourselves because the forms were so complicated. We are also being set up to file our tax returns on the accrual system.
Let me submit to you that Ottawa is giving the accountants the cream of AIDA. The farmers get the skim milk. The trend needs to be reversed.
– Calven Johnson,
Estevan, Sask.
Biased process
To the Editor:
Let me see if I have this Estey/Kroeger business straight. Kroeger recommends killing the Crow. It goes, and the railways increase grain freight rates by 700 percent.
This still doesn’t satisfy the railways, so the Liberals appoint Estey to write a report. Estey is supposed to be impartial; yet the law firm he works for has handled millions of dollars of securities transactions for Cargill and Canadian Pacific amongst others.
Estey’s report then endorses the position taken by Canadian Pacific. Does this appear impartial and even handed?
Estey’s report is roundly condemned as unworkable and damaging to farmers. Yet the Liberals haul Kroeger out of mothballs to carry out the “spirit of Estey.”
In this spirit, Kroeger appoints working group chairs, at least one of whom has testified for the railways in their losing case against a bad service complaint.
I wonder how impartial the report from that group will be?
In the meantime, farmers are blockading highways. We’ve survived low grain prices before, but the high freight rates are killing us.
And what are our farm organizations doing? They are still taking part in the Kroeger process to let the railways and grain companies have an even bigger part of the grain producer’s cheque.
Isn’t it obvious that the whole Estey/Kroeger process is hopelessly biased against grain producers? Isn’t it about time our farm organizations showed they are partial to grain producers and exit from Kroeger’s road show?
– Ken Larsen,
Benalto, Alta.
Sobering action
To the Editor:
The farm crisis calls for some sobering action.
Pulling equipment out on Saskatchewan highways is I think misdirecting energy. You’ve got to hit them where it hurts.
The biggest rip-off in agriculture today is the liquor industry. Farmers supply the liquor industry with the raw materials and receive very little in return from the massive profits and government taxes generated.
I think the government of Canada as well as the general public would sit up and really pay attention if farmers across Canada were to picket Liquor Board stores….
Save your fuel, fellas. You get more attention by disrupting the liquor business. The highways would be a whole lot safer all around. Saskatchewan highways aren’t fit to move equipment on anyway.
– Miles Moore,
Outlook, Sask.
