News media accused of bias against Reformers

In the pre-election speculation that is the oxygen of Parliament Hill these days, Reform Party prospects routinely are discounted.

Dreams of expanding the party beyond its western base are seen as fanciful.Letters to the editor

letters

Rail service

To the Editor:

The agitators had their wish and couldn’t rest until we got rid of the Crow. The Crow Benefit would be so much better if it were paid to the farmers instead of the railroad. As long as it was paid to the railroad, we had a little clout for performance.

Read Also

Producers face the reality of shifting grain price expectations

Significant price shifts have occurred in various grains as compared to what was expected at the beginning of the calendar year. Crop insurance prices can be used as a base for the changes.

In order to appease a small minority, we got a once-in-a-lifetime token Crow buyout which must be considered when there is a land transaction. Such a magnificent deal.

And what else did we get? This is the 24th day of 50 loaded grain cars hibernating in Luseland alone. So much for deregulation. Those working for a dual market are really myopic.

I would remind them that anyone who ignores history is doomed to repeat it. When everyone wants to have their own way, anarchy and confusion will result.

– J. W. Zunti,

Luseland, Sask.

Where’s money?

To the Editor:

I am writing in regards to Mr. Martin’s speech on the budget. I did not hear Mr. Martin mention the Crow Rate … We farmers were paid out so much monies in 1996 (summer). We were promised the rest of the monies in the fall of same year. I did not receive my cheque and I wondered why. About two or three weeks ago, I read where the monies were paid out to farmers living outside Canada. I would like to know why this was done. We are still waiting for our monies and I would like to know when we can expect to receive ours. If these farmers can afford to live outside Canada, they are in no more need than we are.

– Gladys A. Hamilton,

Red Deer, Alta.

Older farmers

To the Editor:

I am writing this letter in response to the letter by Rick Coleman of Alexander, Man.

You begin by stating what older farmers say about what happened to grain marketing in pre-wheat board days. I can’t agree with you more on that issue. However, if the grain was sold at a profit by the powers that be, the farmer received none of the profit. Coming back to your line of talk, do you think the multinationals, if they sold your wheat at a profit, that you would receive any of this windfall? Get real! ….

We know if the wheat board sells our wheat at a profit, the producer will receive his dues.

The farmers who want the wheat board dismantled would do well to acquaint themselves of the marketing conditions in pre-board days. Yes, I am a senior citizen; I worked hard. I pride myself that I have kept abreast of the ’90s. I’m not senile! I have a vision! I hope they have.

Your utopian dreams of the marketing of grain without a wheat board is mystifying too. Your idea of moving with the times with computers, advanced communication, (and you dare to list transportation, a commodity fast approaching oblivion) is hard to fathom. Can you picture yourselves after harvest trying to find a market for your grain via expensive computer searches, phone calls, fax inquiries, or exploring the net?

If you are lucky, you will find some interest in a foreign country, but it might be difficult to converse, better still to do business with someone who can’t speak your language, a buyer whose monetary system you cannot understand. This done, an export agent or broker has to be found. His trading company has to hire the shipping charges from the ship line.

Then and only then might your grain be sold and rest assured, you individually will pay all these expenses. This, my friend, is what you can expect in the year 2004 if you get your way. May God help you! Remember, all these transaction costs will have to be paid by you before any sale materializes.

You are not finished yet. You will have to arrange and pay for all the preliminaries – lab charges to test the quality of your grain, making the shiploads, ordering producer cars if there are any or railways, administrative costs, insurance and demurrage costs. Welcome to your world of the year 2000.

Your rewards will be less money for you, longer waits for your payments, creditors on your back, and being at the mercy of what the grain companies want to give you.

The American farmers envy us who have a wheat board. I have relatives farming in the U.S.A. who look longingly at our CWB.

Of course, the multinationals are against the WB because they can’t operate the way they would like and that is a thorn in their side.

Please, Mr. Coleman, would you prove to me that the wheat board is a bad risk, and that you know what a good risk is? In over a period of 18 years excepting last year, the barley sold through the wheat board averaged 31 cents above the barley sold on the open market A bad risk? I don’t think so. Again, get your head out of the sand! Why would you vote to get 31 cents less for your barley?

No doubt there is room for improvement in the wheat board, but where is there not room for improvement?

I would like you to know that I am a farmer who knows what it was like to farm without a wheat board, and should you return to this scenario the future will be grim.

– Harry Froyman,

Vanguard, Sask.

Domestic barley

To the Editor:

I attended a Grain Days Meeting in Arrowwood, Alta., put on by the Canadian Wheat Board. The main speaker was Lorne Hehn. Mr. Hehn did a very good job of explaining the Board’s position on all the recent changes the Wheat Board Advisory Committee suggested.

But the hot topic of the day was the CWB’s position on barley marketing. Mr. Hehn explained that the Board usually markets the premium barley as malt, which is usually 10 to 15 percent of the total crop. Then the domestic market must be looked after and the remaining would then be exported. One farmer suggested to the CWB that we market more of our barley crop into the export market, because in the last few years, the price has been better there than in the domestic market. Mr. Hehn said that this farmer was “very narrow minded” and that the domestic market must be looked after before we even think of exporting any barley.

What grain marketing company in Canada would supply the domestic market at the expense of a higher export market? Not the company marketing my grain, I thought. I was wrong.

At this point, I lost all faith in the CWB’s ability to market my barley. All I want is to get the best price for my barley. I don’t care if that is the CWB, a grain company or a local feedlot.

I believe Mr. Hehn is very narrow-minded in his approach to marketing my barley. I want this policy of supplying the domestic market over a higher-priced export market changed. If the CWB won’t do this, then I don’t want them to market my barley crop. Why must the western barley growers continue to provide cheap barley to the domestic market?

Is this a plan of the Federal Government to provide value-added products in Canada at the expense of the Western grower?

Maybe we should ask GATT for a ruling on this marketing scheme of the Federal Government. Is this trade-neutral?

– Ron Markert,

Vulcan, Alta.

Malnutrition

To the Editor:

It is truly remarkable how our 290 MPs in Ottawa expound their great accomplishments, but … we find that our children are suffering from malnutrition. It has been said that none are so blind as those that will not see. We are well aware that we are overtaxed in proportion to our income, but Canadians are entitled to incomes sufficient to feed their families proper food. Complacency leads to rebellion; we hope our MPs are aware of this.

– H. W. Jackson,

Falher, Alta.

Board pays

To the Editor:

From 1936 to 1965, I was a grain buyer (now called manager) in a village in Saskatchewan. One year in the ’40s, we had both wheat board and open market.

When the open market went half a cent a bushel over the board price, several farmers left the board.

When the price went one cent over, they all left but one.

The price shifted back and forth, for a while it went to two cents but my one farmer still stuck with the board.

When the final payment came out, it was six cents, so the one faithful was vindicated.

I am no longer in the grain business, but have not lost interest in the grain business and feel that loyalty to the board will always pay.

– E. C. Mortin,

Bethune, Sask.

Deer policies

To the Editor:

For the last three years, hungry deer have been feeding on my bale stacks. These deer are in need of food and the smaller, younger ones will starve to death. This government in all its wisdom has no feeding program to protect this very important natural resource.

However, they have raised the price of a hunting licence so high that fewer hunters can afford to hunt because of what they get for the expense.

I’m sure there could be money for a feeding program or else pay compensation to the people who are feeding these deer (at no cost to the taxpayer).

All the government has to do is cut some of its unnecessary spending re trips to Asia and Africa (trips always taken in the winter time). Also, the recent pay increases to Sask Power’s higher managers; the President got a raise of $12,558 bringing his salary to $166,338 …

Come on, get real. When is this going to stop? Every time a person turns around, there’s another rate increase, wage increase, fuel increase, name it. My other increases were in freight, fuel, fertilizer, and machinery. Last May I sold wheat for $6 per bushel, now I am getting $3.43 per bushel. This is no increase in pay.

Any government and the politicians who are elected to govern, if they want to retain any credibility or maybe get it back, will have to quit this complete disregard and arrogant approach to govern their way.

If they think not feeding a natural resource like deer, elk or moose saves money, then there is no credibility.

I know if I didn’t feed my cows, the SPCA would come down on me like a ton of bricks. Why can’t the government be held responsible?

I know I’m not the only one having a wildlife problem. If you don’t have this problem, then count yourself lucky. The deer get quite bold, do considerable damage and eat a lot of feed.

– Stuart Onrait,

Balcarres, Sask.

Rail delays

To the Editor:

I am writing to you in hope that you will see fit to do something about grain movement in Canada. It is deplorable how the railways are holding us up for ransom by not performing as we all know they can.

Excuses, excuses, excuses, they have got them all, the latest being the lack of power units.

Bull!

On Dec. 18th, there were 14 cars loaded at my local elevator point, Meota, Sask. We have eight-hour loading on our line, and if the grain cars are not loaded within eight hours, the grain elevator point is penalized next time cars are spotted there.

The next train came two weeks later with two engines on it, but didn’t pick up our loaded cars. Two engines could very well have moved these cars on the train that was going to North Battleford, which is on the secondary main line to the west coast.

The train crew probably couldn’t spare the extra 10 minutes to pick up these cars.

The cars sat at Meota till Jan. 15, almost a month from when they were loaded.

This is only one instance when poor performance has happened on our branch line, North Battleford to St. Walburg, 72 miles. This is one of the best branch lines in Saskatchewan, with one of the highest tonnes per mile of all branch lines.

We have lost $65 million already this year according to the CWB. Are Governments going to make this up?

Why are farmers always asked to pay for problems that Government could solve if they really wanted to?

Agriculture plays a large role in the economy of this country. It’s about time Government looked into maximizing the returns from agriculture products. Farmers are sick and tired of being scapegoats for poor decisions and lack of action by Governments.

If branch lines are abandoned and grain has to move by truck, who pays for the road damage and upkeep? Farmers will pay 100 percent for our municipal roads and our share of highway costs. This, farmers cannot afford, when it’s far cheaper to move grain by rail.

Most of these branch lines have been upgraded to haul hopper cars fully loaded. This we have already paid for.

Will the rest of the taxpayers in Canada like to pay higher taxes because of branch-line abandonment?

They too have already put millions of dollars into branch-line rehabilitation.

The taxpayers of Canada are also tired of being shafted.

So let’s keep grain on the rails where it belongs. The cheapest way to go! Also, far less dangerous. We don’t need thousands more semis on our poor highway system.

Each and every MP has the responsibility to their constituents to see that grain moves when it’s needed and the cheapest way possible.

Members of Parliament, let’s get responsible and get the kinks out of our grain transportation system and save millions of dollars for the people of Canada, and maybe then we can get the deficit paid down sooner than expected.

Canada’s reliability as a grain supplier is threatened by poor performance by our two major railways. Governments can do something if they want to. Saskatchewan farmers especially are held captive to the railways because we are so far from ports of export. Do taxpayers want to pay the extra cost of moving grain by truck? I don’t think so.

Some MPs should stop acting like spoiled kids in the House of Commons and do something productive for farmers and Canadian taxpayers.

– Robert J. Iverson,

Meota, Sask.

Oinkless load

To the Editor:

My brother calls himself a “pig person,” referring of course to his profession.

One day he was at a neighboring farm to load a huge sow he had just purchased from them. No matter what he tried, she refused to get into the trailer. After chasing, pushing, prodding and swearing, he was still no closer to loading her then he had been an hour before.

Annie, the farmer’s wife, came outside just in time to see him lose the hammerlock grip he had on the pig’s neck and sprawl rather embarrassingly in the mud at her feet.

Laughing, she told him, “Get out of the way and let me show you how it’s done.”

He watched in amazement as she talked soothingly to the pig, rubbing its head and saying what a nice home it was going to.

With not a single “oink” of protest, the sow walked beside her and scrambled into the trailer.

Now whenever he has trouble loading pigs, our standard response is “call Annie.”