EXERCISE IN FUTILITY
Re: “Ag investment needed to fight hunger” op-ed (WP, April 2)
I am a refugee in Canada from Sub-Saharan Africa, where I worked as a business journalist in seven countries for more than 30 years, so I feel qualified to respond to this submission from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) — which is so unenlightened and inappropriate as to be hilarious, were it not so tragic.
One of the many obstacles to food production in Africa is tribalism, the system of government practised in most of the continent. The land is effectively “owned” by the tribal chiefs, of which there are many. They grant the use of that land to favored tribesmen, but not title — which is a cornerstone of the capitalist system alien in Africa. Thus it has no value as collateral recognized by the banks, and so the tribesman/farmer has no access to capital.
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?
It’s that simple. Countless international economists have pointed it out. Meanwhile, Canadian taxpayers will, I assume, as part of, or in addition to the billions a year they already contribute in aid to the Third World, help fund the US$83 billion the FAO estimates will be needed as an “additional” investment in agriculture in Africa. Much of this will be used to pay generous salaries to those on the gravy train implementing the “activities” the FAO describes in so many words, but which in total will be a futile exercise.
Richard Groves,
North Battleford, Sask.
LET’S TALK ABOUT IT
The revenue cap (a federal policy that limits rail profits on grain shipments) is under study by the Canada Transportation Act review panel.
In their letter, both the Canola and the Grain Growers Associations claim that until the review panel’s report issues in December, speculation or discussion on the topic should not take place. Except by their groups, it would seem, for following their call for silence, the associations launch into a defense of the revenue cap.
Their defense claims a wide base of support for the policy — including “the vast majority of grain interests” and “western provincial governments.” Further, they claim, the revenue cap addresses the lack of market forces.
If it’s correct that those interests now support the revenue cap, then their backing is clearly moveable. In 1999, those same groups claimed a preference for commercial, contract-based grain freighting recognizing that railways will invest in a healthy grain transportation system if grain provides returns commensurate with other commodities.
The associations’ argument of a “lack of market forces” is hard to square with the fact that Canadian railways provide the lowest rates in the world.
But importantly, the revenue cap hampers an efficient supply chain and is responsible for stalling innovation and investment. The purchase of larger hopper cars, capable of carrying 25 percent more grain and speeding deliveries, would be tricky given the base year inputs to the revenue cap. And acquiring the cars would not be without investor risk given the claim by shipper groups to railway efficiency gains. These facts alone mean it’s time for a better system. And we should talk about it.
Mary-Jane Bennett,
IMPORTANCE OF BYLAWS
We are pleased that you posted on March 20 (“SARM delegate critical of leader ‘bowing down’ to province,” WP online) about the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities convention and the problems in that organization.
We have been to past SARM conventions and witnessed what Reno rural municipality councillor Paul Heglund expressed. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration resolution has only been one of many where directors only forwarded the resolution to the appropriate minister then posted the minister’s reply as to action taken.
Most of the time the resolution calls for more direct action than forwarding a resolution.
If what former SARM’s president David Marit said is true regarding a good working relationship with the province, they would have had one with the NDP when they governed.
We were there when the directors met the last NDP minister coldly. The next year, when the Saskatchewan Party formed the government, the directors could not applaud loud or long enough.
The principle is that all of SARM representatives must be non-partisan at all times.
Marit quoted in his statement that he was doing “everything according to the constitution of the organization.” This statement is incorrect. In fact, the bylaws (not constitution) of the SARM organization clearly state in Bylaw No. 2 section 3(f), “A Director or other official of this Association shall resign from his office in the Association prior to; (a) him seeking nomination as a candidate for a political party to run as a member of the Legislature or Parliament…”
SARM President Ray Orb is not correct either; they do have ties to the provincial government — they administer five programs for them. How can one work for two different parties without it being in conflict, especially when they have to represent grievances to the same party they administer programs for?
To us, the answer is clear, but we don’t deny the obvious.
The conflict of interest portion of the resolution was removed but the overwhelming majority of delegates agreed that the partisanship was obvious and needs to end. We believe that most delegates, like us and obviously the directors, are not informed about or familiar with the bylaws as they have never been in the convention kit and rarely discussed or amended.
Kim Lacelle, Administrator,
No. 51 Council
Consul, Sask.
BREAKDOWN COMING
Re: “Breaking down nitrogen prices” (WP Mar.19)
Don Pottinger (former president of Saskferco) is trying to explain the fertilizer price situation by comparing it to the price of a pizza versus the price of the ingredients to make the pizza. In my opinion, he should have explained it like this: Someone decided to open a pizza joint in this particular town and his business plan was to threaten and bully all the other pizza restaurants so that they decided to leave and before you knew it, that person was charging $20 for a $5 pizza, and people were paying it because he was the only joint in town.
Pottinger goes on saying, “the market is the market.” That is a joke. In a lot of cases the market is the market as the fertilizer manufacturer dictates it. When a price is set by market manipulation and price-fixing it becomes an artificial market, where supply can be kept low in places where “the market can bear a higher price.”
As a farmer, I totally understand that you like to maximize your returns, but it should be done in a fair supply-and-demand scenario, and try to maximize your returns by volume especially when the main input (natural gas) is very cheap.
I also realize that the local retailers are caught in the middle, taking the brunt of the complaints, while they simply have to pass on the high fertilizer costs.
Maybe I am getting to old and grumpy to deal with all this (even though I am only 54) and I am sure I will be OK for the duration of my career, but I am very concerned about the next generation, and the agriculture industry as a whole.
Even though I singled out the fertilizer industry, there are numerous companies that do the exact same thing with diesel prices, electrical transmission and distribution charges and on and on. At one point in time the camel’s back will break.
Casey Koomen,
Taber, Alta.
