Hand that feeds
I agree fully with Harry Beskorovayny’s article “Stark reality,” WP, July 7.
There are many leaders who do not know the hand that feeds, nor do they know where new wealth comes from. I’ve read articles in papers how the Chamber of Commerce supports the family farm and wants to open up our farmland to foreign ownership as a solution. They also want the raising of minimum wage to be reviewed as they feel it will be detrimental to low wage earners.
Wow. Who do they think buys their product derived from raw materials through processing? People don’t buy steaks at present day minimum wages, nor can they pay taxes to run the country.
Read Also
Worrisome drop in grain prices
Prices had been softening for most of the previous month, but heading into the Labour Day long weekend, the price drops were startling.
Foreign ownership is just that. The owner would no longer be in the community spending his profits. How will that help? … The problem today is too much foreign ownership. …
The problem with our economy is not lack of foreign ownership. It’s failure to pay the family farmer at cost of production plus profit price. That would be called parity. Parity did exist for farmers in 1950. It also existed for minimum wage earners and business. …
Minimum wages today are about one third what par should be and farmers are much worse off than minimum wage earners …
Let’s take a box of Shredded Wheat and see if the economy can’t not afford to enact parity. Cost of one 1.32 lb. box of Shredded Wheat is $5.06 US. There are 44 boxes of Shredded Wheat in one 60 lb. bushel of wheat, priced at $3.31 per bu. US.
The farmer’s share in one box is seven and one half cents per box. Farmer’s share if parity existed at $22.50 per bu. US would be 50 cents, an increase of 42.5 cents per box of Shredded Wheat.
That translates into a whopping 8.39 percent increase in the price to the consumer …
We are in our present fool’s paradise – a debt economy – because of lack of knowledge and human greed. Why are we doing this to our youth?
– R. E. Kennedy,
Simpson, Sask.
Canadian qualities
My sister-in-law and I got into a discussion the other day that briefly turned into a rather heated argument. I started it by saying that I find it disgusting how the mainstream media says Canadians are quieter, more polite, less prone to violence than the people of the United States.
She said that when they were on holidays in Mexico, the Americans treated the locals with disdain. I am not sure how she knew they were all Americans, however.
I said that may well be, however I think it is a pile of BS that all 35 million North American people that live north of the 49th parallel are quiet and polite and all 350 million North American people that live south of the border are rude, obnoxious bullies. And if Canadians are so passive, why do we need hate laws and a draconian gun registry?
Also whenever there is a crisis in the world, who is the first to respond? When the tsunami hit earlier this year, the Americans were in with personnel, food and helicopters for weeks while Mr. Dithers and his crew squabbled about what kind of aid Canada should offer. …
The Canadian press and our politicians portray Canada as a spoiled, jealous child that, rather than earn her place in the world, tries to ride on the coattails of her bigger, braver brother. Then whenever there is a crisis, she can whimper and whine and point fingers instead of standing up to be counted. History shows this was not always the case.
– E. Roth,
Edmonton, Alta.
Road damage
Recently I received a letter from SGI, as I am sure all farmers did, indicating that “registration fees for heavy farm trucks are being rebalanced,” aka registration fees are going up in general for farm trucks.
To most people the idea that heavy trucks travelling on roads will cause more damage as their frequency increases would not be news. However, when I think back just a few short years ago to rail line abandonment and elevator consolidation, farmers raised this issue and they were dismissed as not willing to change and were told that the new efficiencies in the system would compensate them for farther travel distances.
Some farm lobby groups, like the Western Canadian Wheat Growers (Association), even supported the consolidation. Politicians fought among themselves to see which one of them would attend the official opening of concrete elevators, which were signalling the “new efficient system.”…
As former chair of the Prairie Alliance for the Future, a group that wanted to keep grain traffic on the rail rather than the road, we had to argue with highway bureaucrats that the increased road traffic would actually cause road damage.
So if the efficiencies in the system are there, why do farmers have to pick up an additional expense? Is it maybe that there were no overall savings in the systems that were being promoted?
If some bureaucrat suggests that multiple car loading rebates passed onto the farmers is the efficiency, I would like to show them my fuel, tire, maintenance and labour costs for moving the grain the extra distances and ask them to explain the efficiency benefit.
Tell us who it is that has captured these efficiency margins. Who is it that has been paying the increased costs?
It sure would be nice for once, if someone could be held accountable for the increased costs, especially those who promoted them in the name of increased efficiency. As I have stated at many public meetings as a producer, I cannot afford the increased costs of these efficiency changes.
– Kyle Korneychuk,
Pelly, Sask.
CWB & CFA
Rebuttal of Aug. 18 story, “Wheat Board adds clout to farm lobby, says CFA,” by Ed White.
I am a prairie grain farmer who went to Geneva for the World Trade Organization public symposium in April and I am not applauding the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board has joined the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
Farmers were not part of the decision-making, it was purely a political manoeuvre. The CWB is a state trading enterprise that is accountable to the government of Canada. Make no mistake, the CWB does not operate like any other corporation. Participation is not voluntary, it is mandatory.
The statutory objective of the CWB is marketing in an orderly manner, in interprovincial and export trade, of grain grown in the “designated area” of Canada. This objective does not include formally aligning themselves with an organization that promotes policy interests that could negatively affect our trading stand with the international communities.
According to the WTO, Canada is the world’s third largest agri-food exporter behind the United States and the European Union. Remember that 90 percent of agriculture in Canada depends on trade or is directly associated with the export side.
This means that the CFA’s policy on the market access issue in Canada has the potential to impact negatively on 90 percent of this industry’s bottom line.
Both the Liberal government and the CFA support protection for “sensitive products,” which consist of dairy, eggs and poultry meat. This has been a major stumbling block in WTO negotiations.
Canada can’t promote liberalization of agriculture while aggressively protecting the supply-managed sector of our industry. The international communities see this refusal of Canada to move on substantially reducing tariffs for their sensitive products as a rejection of the spirit of the WTO talks, and Canada has lost a great deal of its credibility because of this. …
For the CWB to put western Canadian grain farmers in this situation is incomprehensible and irresponsible. This move was not in the best interest of Canada’s farmers.
– Lynda Swanson,
Elnora, Alta.
No to WTO
I applaud Mrs. Griffith for speaking out for the family farmer (Ont. egg producer turns back on WTO, WP, Aug. 4). We in agriculture have much to lose if the lessening of tariffs is allowed. All farmers anywhere want is to produce food, sell it in a marketplace and receive a reasonable price.
As a farmer and a mother, I want to pass this life on to my children, that they could take pride in the good job they as farmers do to provide a basic need to the people. WTO is not about farmers or even consumers. It is all about corporate profit.
Let’s stand together and not let them win this one.
– Dianne McComb,
Denfield, Ont.
