Farm subsidy
To the Editor:
I am writing in response to the article in the March 20 Western Producer entitled “More subsidies must go.” While it is true that there are many farm subsidies in place, I doubt how many of your readers realize that farmers subsidize society at a much greater rate than anyone understands.
For example, the prices of commodities are very low in relationship to the input costs necessary to plant crops. Fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides and farm equipment are all quite costly. To give you a sample of these costs, a used 1994 JD8970 with 1300 horse goes for $159,500 on page 57 of the Producer. This price is greater than the cost of land on which the 8970 is to be used on in many areas of Western Canada (for a quarter of land).
Read Also
Topsy-turvy precipitation this year challenges crop predictions
Rainfall can vary dramatically over a short distance. Precipitation maps can’t catch all the deviations, but they do provide a broad perspective.
I am no agricultural economist, but to me it seems that a farmer would have to own a township of land to make a profit to live on, or own a JD “D” and some old pull-type combine to make a go of it. It seems to me that the farmers of Canada are subsidizing the average consumer at the loss of what should be a profitable business, by all means of decency.
Another way in which farmers subsidize society is the cost of transporting grain to market. My mother owns roughly 160 acres of arable land, which she rents out for one-third share.
Of the 48.824 accountable gross tonnes of grain (ICW Barley) that were delivered on her account, a whopping $2,010.08 was deducted for freight! At least at the time, this grain was delivered Oct. 31, 1996.
The trains were running without many excuses from the government or the railways. However, if we owned the JD8970 that I mentioned earlier (I happen to like JD green!) and the fuel pump went, I would have to pay the freight on shipping the part. … If I needed a new air seeder or combine for that matter, I would have to pay the freight. Even if I ordered a brand new F-250 Ford 4 x 4 with Club Cab (in red of course!), I would have to again pay the freight.
It seems to me that farmers are getting hit from both ends when it comes to freight costs.
Farm subsidies should stay just as they are until this gross injustice of low prices and freight costs is equitably dealt with.
I urge all members of the farming community to pressure politicians at all levels of government, like they have never been pressured, to seek a redress of these serious matters.
Together, with everyone taking a stand, the fight for fairness can be won.
– Darren Kereluk,
Kamsack, Sask.
Late payments
To the Editor:
I get thoroughly disgusted when I see notices from banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions with words like delinquent, in default, or negligent splattered across the front, especially when the payment is only a few weeks late.
Farmers are an intelligent lot. A farmer whose bins are covered with 12 feet of snow should not be labelled delinquent because his payment is late simply due to the fact that he has no possible way of getting his products to market. In many cases, not only are the bins snowed under, but the roads or the rails have been closed due to extreme weather.
If a farmer advises his creditor that he is unable to make payment due to the reasons I have mentioned, that should suffice. It is unfortunate that the federal government and the CWB don’t receive delinquent notices from major creditors for delays in the system. In a country where the national debt averages out at $80,000 per citizen, I would hardly consider late payments on an operating loan a serious offence.
I would truly appreciate hearing from other farmers on this subject.
– John Hamon,
Gravelbourg, Sask.
Free to sell
To the Editor:
So much has been written for and against the Canadian Wheat Board. Many people have come up with some interesting comments. However, the treatment received by some of the free-market people is not acceptable in a free country. It should not be against the law for a farmer to sell his product any way he likes. That is a freedom that we, as farmers, are entitled to.
The Wheat Board through our Federal Government has taken that away from us.
There have been so many changes within the last 10 years, which have made the Wheat Board somewhat outdated.
In my opinion, the Wheat Board should be more accessible to the public. Its employees should not have to be protected by special laws.
In conclusion, why do we need a Wheat Board when we have our Wheat Pools? Are they not capable of handling our grains?
– John Honing,
Dawson Creek, B.C.
Single desk
To the Editor:
Re: Canadian Wheat Board critics, Farmers for Just-us.
As a landed immigrant, may I make some comments.
One of the reasons we left Scotland in 1995 was the fact that after over 50 years of having a single-desk seller of all our milk, Scottish farmers were deprived of this right because the British Government, under pressure from the European Economic Community bureaucrats, decided that it gave us an unfair advantage.
I was sure that this would undermine the security we had enjoyed up to that time.
One of the reasons we decided to come to Canada was the fact that Canadian farmers have a single-desk seller for their grain, and also because I was under the impression that over here people tended to pull together for the benefit of all rather than the individual.
Let me tell you what has happened in Scotland since then, and remember milk is produced in a quota system in Britain so there is no surplus of milk at all.
At the break up of the single-desk selling system, most of the major processors were cherry-picking the milk producers and so farmers’ prices were going up (as we presumed they would) but now only two years later, one of the major retailers has gone bankrupt and the other major retailer is poised to take it over.
Scottish farmers are already being told to be prepared to accept five cents per litre less for their milk.
Farmers in outlying areas are being penalized even more.
Can you imagine a similar scenario here where we have an almost permanent oversupply of grain and also talks of takeover attempts in the big elevator companies?
There’s an old saying back in Scotland that comes to mind.
It was about a very wily cattle dealer. An old farmer, asked what he thought of him, replied “well, he’s not a man for wee boys to be playing with.”
Fundamentally the Wheat Board is of benefit to the majority. It probably needs a bit of tuning up now and again, but don’t throw baby out with the bath water.
Remember there are lots of big grain buyers out there just looking for “wee boys to play with.”
– David Caldwell,
Kenton, Man.
Lost cars
To the Editor:
I read the recent editorial by Joe Pender of Meath Lake relating his experience about losing a partially loaded grain car. Since I am not a railway official I cannot speak to his particular incident. However, as a railroad engineer with a farming background I feel that it may serve some purpose if I were to try and explain in general terms some of the issues that are at play here.
… The train crews do not have much discretion as to what is picked up and where. Computerized instructions are issued to crews from the customer service centre in Winnipeg when they come on duty and these are expected to be carried out to the letter. Quite often these contain the instruction to lift all loads, part loads and empties and apply to elevators as well as producers.
There is very little discretion left to the train crews in most cases because orders are orders.
In Mr. Pender’s case he states that the crew lifted the cars even with his auger set up on them.
Again, I am not familiar with his circumstances, but in most cases where the spout is actually in the car it is a violation of railway regulations to couple on and move. If the spout is simply dangling above the car at a reasonable clearance and the conductor determines that it is safe and all equipment and personnel are clear, then it is possible to remove cars.
It would be my guess that Mr. Pender is far from the only farmer to experience frustration with rail car loading. I suppose that he is simply another victim of the ongoing trend in grain transport towards high-throughput facilities.
Although he may feel that CP was being inefficient with his cars I can assure him that it is quite the reverse when a large terminal orders a unit train.
With regard to Mr. Pender’s contention that the crew hired a limousine to take them from Saskatoon to Nipawin, I think that some clarification is in order. …
Like any other enterprise, even railways do gradually adapt to changing times and the increasing use of taxis reflects that.
On the Manitoba division, train crews are specifically prohibited from contacting taxi companies for company service out of the big-city terminals. In most cases, taxi companies operate under contract and are entirely responsible for providing equipment, be it a car, van or stretch limo.
There is no requirement in any collective agreement demanding the use of “limousines” or buses or aircraft or whatever. They are simply just another tool that the railways use in their daily operations. Indeed, there are locations where the Company has laid off staff and eliminated vehicles simply to use taxis.
I doubt if I’ve done much to alleviate Mr. Pender’s aggravation with CP but hopefully this letter will serve to explain things a bit for him.
– Brion Pollon,
Clanwilliam, Man.
Vote was fair
To the Editor:
The Wheat Board plebiscite was won by those who are committed to the Wheat Board as it was and is as of today.
In my contact in the last few months, I found the 45 and older age group decided in the same ratio as the 45 and younger group – approximately 65 percent to 35 percent or in the same range as the polls and the final vote.
I am sorry that some of the farmers who are against the Wheat Board as it is today do not understand democracy and that they do not understand that they cannot have something both ways when it affects the majority who think otherwise.
I commend our Agriculture Minister for his straightforward approach to the matter.
You may scream, holler and criticize the way Ralph Goodale handled the situation to no avail, for he settled the matter in a democractic way by secret ballot.
By the way, no one knows how I voted in this plebiscite. If they did, there would be something wrong with the system.
– Merle Sparrow,
Vanscoy, Sask.
Central buyer
To the Editor:
I have been reading everything I can get my hands on to try to understand the ag industry in general, and the grain handling system in particular, and so I really appreciate and look forward to my copy of The Western Producer each week.
I was shocked at the quote attributed to Gary Storey in “Authors say board good for farmers” on page 16 of the Feb. 20 edition: “Who wouldn’t want to have a monopoly?”
I’m relatively new to Western Canada, but I think there is something wrong with this picture. Anybody who has taken a basic economics class or paid a utility bill knows that a monopoly is only good if you own it.
A monopoly is a bad thing if you are stuck doing business with it, which is the position of the Western Canadian grain farmer. (Getting arrested for trying to drive a truckload of the stuff across the border yourself is, I think, a good definition of “stuck.”)
The CWB only has a monopoly as a buyer of grain … The CWB does not have a monopoly as a seller, the underlying basis for the quote attributed to Gary.
As a seller in global markets, the CWB has to compete with sellers from other countries, whether they be other governments or private sector sellers.
The CWB does not have a monopoly as a seller of grain, which would benefit western grain farmers, only as a buyer of grain, to the disadvantage of western grain farmers.
Traditionally, when governments set up monopolies, such as utilities, with which their citizens are forced to do business, they also set up independent rate-review boards to oversee the operations and ensure that management operates efficiently and in the public interest. When utilities want to increase rates, the rate review commission holds public hearings, and the utility’s financial statements and cost structure become part of the public record.
That doesn’t seem to happen with the CWB. There seems to be some secrecy surrounding the operations of the CWB. …
It doesn’t appear that they are required to operate like other public monopolies in dealing with affected citizens and taxpayers. There must be a reason.
If the CWB is operating so efficiently, and if it had a monopoly as a seller, then it should not be scared of a little competition, especially from a handful of hayseeds out on the frozen prairie.
Truth is, the CWB is not a single-desk seller, it’s a single-desk buyer. And, I suspect, the truth is that it needs to be a single-desk buyer because it’s not operating as efficiently as it might if it had to account to shareholders through public disclosure or the public through public hearings.
If it were, why are producers’ profits and taxpayers’ dollars being spent on pro-CWB propaganda and self-serving “independent” research? If the CWB is as efficient as it says, why are there 41 ships waiting in English Bay to load grain? Those demurrage charges (which were about $15 million a couple of weeks ago), out of whose pocket will those be paid? The producers? Canadian taxpayers? Management’s paycheques?
– Elizabeth M. Nash,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Farm costs
To the Editor:
I can’t understand how farmers can keep going at the prices of our grains, as the Saskatchewan farmers would grow spring wheat and durum.
Now they have to go into speciality crops, and if everyone went into these crops, what would eventually happen with these prices?
Now the farmers are having to pay for the ships in harbor waiting to be loaded. What’s the problem with our railroads? We’ve already paid for our freight rates when we delivered our grain to the elevators and we dearly paid for this service now that the Crow rate is abolished.
The farmers pay at least $12 an acre for fertilizer, $10 an acre for herbicide, and of course this year with all the tough grain, it cost 25 cents a bushel to dry. The CWB set our prices high at the beginning of the crop year but by the time we harvested, #2RSW was worth $3.52 a bushel and #3 durum $2.78.
You tell me how the farmers can make any money to pay for increases in fuel, SGI, Energy, parts and now the assessment. No wonder we have so many bankruptcies and the farmers are still wanting to pay 20 times the assessment for land.
Maybe if the CWB Chief Commissioner tried to live on a farmer’s salary, as he’s receiving between $115,500 and $144,200 a year to sell our grain. Is there anyone worth this kind of money? What is he doing for us farmers?
There is something drastically wrong here, as the farmers get such a little portion for the work and expense he puts out to produce these crops. I don’t know what the solution is, but the Federal and Provincial Governments better take another look at what’s happening in our farming community.
– Elaine Cozart,
Brownlee, Sask.
Rail promise
To the Editor:
1) Goodale assures Japan grain is moving again. This was not the first stoppage. We can guarantee more bad winters on the prairies and more snow-slides in the mountains.
We should not guarantee demurrage for idle grain boats. Farmers have no such guarantees against the vagaries of nature and with around-the-globe communications, the boats can come when they are needed. Another thing, why reward the railways for bum performance? Do they also want pay for stand-by time?
With 40 grain boats waiting to be loaded, there is something very wrong with communications. The railways promised better service for a free hand to charge more to the shippers. They just meant more money in their own pockets! Gullible Government was hood-winked. So much for privatizing.
2) Jobs, jobs and more jobs. Government wants the private sector to create the jobs. At the same time, they are taxing the private sector out of existence.
Now that their support is mostly in the cities, rural Canada is neglected! It was rural Canada that built the cities!
Neglect rural Canada and the cities will fall into decay. It is already happening!
– Paul Kuric,
Vega, Alta.
