Column # 688 29/09/08
The federal election poses some interesting dilemmas for westerners
and farmers in particular. Farmers have little reason to be happy with
the Harper government. The livestock industry has been largely
ignored, despite its wretched state. The Conservative's vaunted new
generation of business risk management programs have turned out to be
warmed over versions of the ones that garnered the Liberals so much
disdain. Changes to the Canadian Grain Commission, though not all
completed in the last parliament, were proposed with little
consultation with farm groups and less support. Even the grain
companies were against the changes enacted to KVD.
Grain transportation continues to be a problem. A long, drawn-out
review is underway but there is no certainty that the structure of
this will bring positive results. Early in their minority government,
the Conservatives gave the hopper cars to the railways and thumbed
their noses at the Farmer Rail Car Coalition. In fact, the government
has thumbed its nose at most major farm organizations, including KAP,
APAS, WRAP and SARM. It prefers to talk to the like-minded.
Farmers who support the CWB have even less reason to like Harper and
his pair of Agriculture Ministers. From unwarranted firings to gagging
to disdainful treatment, the Harper government has thrown it all at
the CWB.
The dilemma for farmers is that they may not have fully recovered from
their anger at decades of being ignored by the Liberals to want to
give them another chance. When last in power, the Liberals didn't show
much interest in agriculture. Nevertheless, there are some Liberal
candidates with excellent credentials in this area. If the Liberals
were to form government, it would be great to have the likes of Bob
Friesen in Manitoba and Rod Flaman and Duane Filson in Saskatchewan in
that parliament. Maverick Liberal David Orchard should be elected just
for the color he would provide in parliament.
Farmers have mostly written off the NDP in federal elections, but
Nettie Wiebe, former president of the National Farmers Union stands a
reasonable chance of taking Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar from the
Conservatives. Wiebe is a veteran of farm politics, and smart as a
whip.
If all the federal parties can be accused of paying too little
attention to agriculture, farmers might be tempted to shrug their
shoulders and vote Conservative out of habit. The consequences of that
may contain some elements farmers haven't thought through.
A majority Conservative government will beyond a doubt move quickly to
eliminate the CWB in all but name. The single desk will be removed,
along with government guarantees. What would remain would be a small
grain broker with a decimated sales force, relying on its competitors
to source and handle grain. Price pooling will also end, as no pool
has survived long without a single desk mandate to back it. Without
price pooling and without the clout of a strong CWB to ensure rail
cars, the use of producer cars will also end. Those who doubt this
could give Pollyanna a run for her money.
Even a minority Conservative government will generate the same
results. The Conservatives came across the strategy of making all
motions confidence motions in the last parliament. Opposition parties
will not risk triggering an election by defeating a motion with
limited relevance in the rest of Canada.
When it comes down to it, farmers who load producer cars or live near
short line railways stand to lose the most. Almost all short lines in
Saskatchewan depend on producer cars for the bulk of their business.
Without the CWB to facilitate these, the small railways and the
communities that benefit from them will have a short future.
If any farmers are happy with the Harper government, it would be the
handful that belongs to the Western Canadian Wheat Growers and the
Western Barley Growers. In addition to harassing the hated CWB, the
government that decried handouts to special interest groups turned
over a cool half-million dollars to the Barley Growers in 2007 to
"facilitate the development of new private sector risk management
solutions". That would come to about 10,000 bucks per Barley Grower. Is
it possible some of this money will end up in CWB candidates' coffers?
By contrast, the Wheat Growers much have felt monumentally slighted.
For them, Harper only managed to cough up a measly $110,000 to
"facilitate the development of new private sector risk management
solutions". A problem like that apparently requires the combined
brains of both groups.
Farmers have some important choices to make in the election. If they
do so without careful consideration of the consequences, they will
have a long time to regret it.
© Paul Beingessner beingessner@sasktel.net
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Civil Servants Are Not the Minister's Flunkies
Column # 687 22/09/08
One of the problems with writing a weekly newspaper column is timing.
If a story occurs just after you've sent in a column, your version,
should you choose to write it, won't appear until about ten days
later. Not so timely in some cases.
So I write about Gerry Ritz's controversial comments about listeriosis
with some trepidation. By the time you read this, Gerry and his
comedic performance will have faded from the news, replaced by the
ongoing stream of promises from the political parties. But this one is
too important to let go just yet. Like editorial writers across
Canada, I want to have my say.
By now everyone has heard the story. Gerry Ritz, failed ostrich farmer
and Agriculture Minister joked that the listeriosis crisis originating
at Maple Leaf Foods was "death by a thousand cold cuts". He further
bleated that he hoped a reported case in PEI was Liberal ag critic
Wayne Easter. Ritz made the remarks on a conference call with an
assortment of ministerial office people and bureaucrats from the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency and other departments.
The content of the call was leaked to the media by an anonymous
participant, drawing a veiled threat from Stephen Harper. Woe to the
fellow if found.
Calls for Ritz to resign or be terminated both as Ag Minister and as
candidate were swift. Most centered on his insensitivity at a time
when people were dying (eighteen to date) from the bacteria, including
ultimately an elderly woman in Ritz's constituency. Ritz issued the
obligatory apology, while Steven Harper focused on the embarrassment
to Ritz, whom he described as the best Ag Minister ever. Secretly,
Harper must have been wishing he had put the gag order on Ritz, rather
than on the CWB.
Unlike those calling for Gerry Ritz to resign due to insensitivity, I
don't think this is reason enough to get rid of the Minister. After
all, Harper can't remove every insensitive clod in his government. The
ranks would be too thin. I suspect Ritz was only practicing for a
second career as stand-up comic after his political life is over. I
mean, there's no future in ostriches to return to.
Don't get me wrong though. I do think Ritz should be removed from the
Ag Minister post. He should be removed for incompetence. He apparently
has no idea how government works, nor of the seriousness of his job.
Ritz's lack of understanding of government stems from his belief that
the government of the day can do whatever it pleases. That Stephen
Harper has this attitude is undeniable. Key civil servants, like the
Chief Electoral Office or the head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission or the CEO of the CWB are terminated because they won't do
what the government wants. Ritz blustered and fumed because the CWB
directors and management wouldn't follow his commands. He ordered, as
one example, that he be given the names of organic farmers who
participated in a CWB program. When told that was contrary to privacy
laws, and would not be done, he demanded the list twice more.
The Conservative government seems to believe the job of civil servants
is to carry out the political agenda of the Conservative party. It is
decidedly not. The job of civil servants, like those at the CFIA, is
to follow the laws and regulations that are laid out in statute for
the department. Ritz's ministerial officials, his political hacks, are
there to do his personal bidding, however ludicrous. But there is a
major distinction between his office staff and the Agriculture
department. Civil servants are there to do their jobs, not to protect
the Minister's behind or carry out his political whims. God help us if
a government had no civil service to buffer the idiocies of members
without a grain of common sense.
Not understanding this, Ritz thought he was among friends in his
conference call. When he should have been receiving a briefing on the
state of the listeriosis outbreak, he was obsessed with worry about
the political fallout. The "death by a thousand cold cuts" remark
referred to the damage to the government, which had cut inspection at
meat plants. This was the focus for Ritz, who should have been
concerned with dying Canadians and how to deal with and prevent such
outbreaks.
His failure to understand this, to realize the life-and-death
seriousness of his job is why Gerry Ritz is not fit to be Minister of
Agriculture.
© Paul Beingessner beingessner@sasktel.net
One of the problems with writing a weekly newspaper column is timing.
If a story occurs just after you've sent in a column, your version,
should you choose to write it, won't appear until about ten days
later. Not so timely in some cases.
So I write about Gerry Ritz's controversial comments about listeriosis
with some trepidation. By the time you read this, Gerry and his
comedic performance will have faded from the news, replaced by the
ongoing stream of promises from the political parties. But this one is
too important to let go just yet. Like editorial writers across
Canada, I want to have my say.
By now everyone has heard the story. Gerry Ritz, failed ostrich farmer
and Agriculture Minister joked that the listeriosis crisis originating
at Maple Leaf Foods was "death by a thousand cold cuts". He further
bleated that he hoped a reported case in PEI was Liberal ag critic
Wayne Easter. Ritz made the remarks on a conference call with an
assortment of ministerial office people and bureaucrats from the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency and other departments.
The content of the call was leaked to the media by an anonymous
participant, drawing a veiled threat from Stephen Harper. Woe to the
fellow if found.
Calls for Ritz to resign or be terminated both as Ag Minister and as
candidate were swift. Most centered on his insensitivity at a time
when people were dying (eighteen to date) from the bacteria, including
ultimately an elderly woman in Ritz's constituency. Ritz issued the
obligatory apology, while Steven Harper focused on the embarrassment
to Ritz, whom he described as the best Ag Minister ever. Secretly,
Harper must have been wishing he had put the gag order on Ritz, rather
than on the CWB.
Unlike those calling for Gerry Ritz to resign due to insensitivity, I
don't think this is reason enough to get rid of the Minister. After
all, Harper can't remove every insensitive clod in his government. The
ranks would be too thin. I suspect Ritz was only practicing for a
second career as stand-up comic after his political life is over. I
mean, there's no future in ostriches to return to.
Don't get me wrong though. I do think Ritz should be removed from the
Ag Minister post. He should be removed for incompetence. He apparently
has no idea how government works, nor of the seriousness of his job.
Ritz's lack of understanding of government stems from his belief that
the government of the day can do whatever it pleases. That Stephen
Harper has this attitude is undeniable. Key civil servants, like the
Chief Electoral Office or the head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission or the CEO of the CWB are terminated because they won't do
what the government wants. Ritz blustered and fumed because the CWB
directors and management wouldn't follow his commands. He ordered, as
one example, that he be given the names of organic farmers who
participated in a CWB program. When told that was contrary to privacy
laws, and would not be done, he demanded the list twice more.
The Conservative government seems to believe the job of civil servants
is to carry out the political agenda of the Conservative party. It is
decidedly not. The job of civil servants, like those at the CFIA, is
to follow the laws and regulations that are laid out in statute for
the department. Ritz's ministerial officials, his political hacks, are
there to do his personal bidding, however ludicrous. But there is a
major distinction between his office staff and the Agriculture
department. Civil servants are there to do their jobs, not to protect
the Minister's behind or carry out his political whims. God help us if
a government had no civil service to buffer the idiocies of members
without a grain of common sense.
Not understanding this, Ritz thought he was among friends in his
conference call. When he should have been receiving a briefing on the
state of the listeriosis outbreak, he was obsessed with worry about
the political fallout. The "death by a thousand cold cuts" remark
referred to the damage to the government, which had cut inspection at
meat plants. This was the focus for Ritz, who should have been
concerned with dying Canadians and how to deal with and prevent such
outbreaks.
His failure to understand this, to realize the life-and-death
seriousness of his job is why Gerry Ritz is not fit to be Minister of
Agriculture.
© Paul Beingessner beingessner@sasktel.net
Monday, September 15, 2008
Conservatives Change Regulations, Avoid Parliamentary Scrutiny
Column # 686 15/09/08
Most of us don't pay a lot of attention to laws. I don't mean we don't
obey laws, or that we don't know what they are. We generally have some
idea of the laws that are obvious - like prohibitions against murder,
or parking without plugging the meter. We may be less aware of other
laws. How was I to know that U-turn on Albert Street was illegal?
Laws don't just involve things that we should or shouldn't do. Laws,
or legislation, concern just about every aspect of government's
involvement in our lives. Legislation, for example, defines the
responsibilities of organizations like the PFRA. Legislation
determines the functioning of the Canadian Wheat Board. Legislation
spells out the way elections are run - like legislation setting fixed
election dates.
Now, the part most people may not be aware of is the regulations that
accompany legislation. In many cases, legislation spells out the broad
framework for something. Regulations are then written that fill in the
specifics. For example, in Saskatchewan we have had a railway act that
governs the operations of short line railways since 1989. It
determines, for example, that railways must operate in a safe manner.
The specifics of safety, track maintenance, etc. would normally be
spelled out in regulations. The Saskatchewan government, however, has
never gotten around to writing regulations for the railway act.
The interesting part about regulations is that, unlike the acts they
pertain to, regulations are not vetted by parliament or the
legislature. Changes to regulations can be made by Order-In-Council.
This means that the Cabinet of the government of the day can change
regulations simply by announcing that it is are going to do so, and
publishing that announcement in the Canada Gazette.
This is good news for minority governments. Minority governments can
have problems getting legislation passed. Stephen Harper's
Conservatives ran up against this problem in trying to emasculate the
Canadian Wheat Board. It had legislation to end the single desk of the
CWB, but never tried to pass it, knowing it would not get through
Parliament. Instead, the government tried to do the same by changing
the regulations concerning barley marketing through the CWB. Sadly for
the Conservatives, the federal court declared that this had to be done
through legislation, not through changes to regulations, since it
violated the spirit and intent of the CWB Act.
The Conservatives have used regulation changes, though, in their
ongoing vendetta against the CWB. Recently, Agriculture Minister Gerry
Ritz changed the regulations to the CWB Act to allow any third party
to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence director elections.
Regulation changes are nifty for governments like the Conservatives.
Rather than have to debate the proposed changes in Parliament, they
can simply make them, and ignore all questions about why the heck you
would do this in the first place.
Ritz made another recent change by regulation. This was to the
regulations governing Farm Credit Canada. In considering applications
for FCC loans, lending officers will now be required to assess the
"personal integrity" of the client. The regulation change drew
immediate fire from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Rather
than explain the reason for this odd move, Ritz's office said no
explanation would be forthcoming. It appears the move could be used by
the government to get back at political enemies, or perhaps some
farmers it doesn't like.
Gerry Ritz has a habit of doing things like that. He requested
repeatedly, for example, the CWB's records of dealings with organic
farmers, despite being told the CWB could not legally supply those.
Woe to any foes of the government who request FCC loans. Merely
opposing the Conservative agenda could cast doubt on your personal
integrity.
In addition to changing regulations, the Conservatives had another
successful way to overcome their minority status in the last
Parliament. They simply made every vote they wanted to win a
confidence measure, thus calling the bluff of a Liberal party not
ready to enter an election. Make no mistake about it, if the
Conservatives are elected with another minority, they will use this
mechanism again. And I am willing to bet that one of the first pieces
of legislation they will use it for will be the changes to the CWB Act
that would end the Board's status as single desk seller of wheat and
barley. In this, and in any other matters, a shrewd and conniving
government will find a way to overcome minority status.
© Paul Beingessner beingessner@sasktel.net
Most of us don't pay a lot of attention to laws. I don't mean we don't
obey laws, or that we don't know what they are. We generally have some
idea of the laws that are obvious - like prohibitions against murder,
or parking without plugging the meter. We may be less aware of other
laws. How was I to know that U-turn on Albert Street was illegal?
Laws don't just involve things that we should or shouldn't do. Laws,
or legislation, concern just about every aspect of government's
involvement in our lives. Legislation, for example, defines the
responsibilities of organizations like the PFRA. Legislation
determines the functioning of the Canadian Wheat Board. Legislation
spells out the way elections are run - like legislation setting fixed
election dates.
Now, the part most people may not be aware of is the regulations that
accompany legislation. In many cases, legislation spells out the broad
framework for something. Regulations are then written that fill in the
specifics. For example, in Saskatchewan we have had a railway act that
governs the operations of short line railways since 1989. It
determines, for example, that railways must operate in a safe manner.
The specifics of safety, track maintenance, etc. would normally be
spelled out in regulations. The Saskatchewan government, however, has
never gotten around to writing regulations for the railway act.
The interesting part about regulations is that, unlike the acts they
pertain to, regulations are not vetted by parliament or the
legislature. Changes to regulations can be made by Order-In-Council.
This means that the Cabinet of the government of the day can change
regulations simply by announcing that it is are going to do so, and
publishing that announcement in the Canada Gazette.
This is good news for minority governments. Minority governments can
have problems getting legislation passed. Stephen Harper's
Conservatives ran up against this problem in trying to emasculate the
Canadian Wheat Board. It had legislation to end the single desk of the
CWB, but never tried to pass it, knowing it would not get through
Parliament. Instead, the government tried to do the same by changing
the regulations concerning barley marketing through the CWB. Sadly for
the Conservatives, the federal court declared that this had to be done
through legislation, not through changes to regulations, since it
violated the spirit and intent of the CWB Act.
The Conservatives have used regulation changes, though, in their
ongoing vendetta against the CWB. Recently, Agriculture Minister Gerry
Ritz changed the regulations to the CWB Act to allow any third party
to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence director elections.
Regulation changes are nifty for governments like the Conservatives.
Rather than have to debate the proposed changes in Parliament, they
can simply make them, and ignore all questions about why the heck you
would do this in the first place.
Ritz made another recent change by regulation. This was to the
regulations governing Farm Credit Canada. In considering applications
for FCC loans, lending officers will now be required to assess the
"personal integrity" of the client. The regulation change drew
immediate fire from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Rather
than explain the reason for this odd move, Ritz's office said no
explanation would be forthcoming. It appears the move could be used by
the government to get back at political enemies, or perhaps some
farmers it doesn't like.
Gerry Ritz has a habit of doing things like that. He requested
repeatedly, for example, the CWB's records of dealings with organic
farmers, despite being told the CWB could not legally supply those.
Woe to any foes of the government who request FCC loans. Merely
opposing the Conservative agenda could cast doubt on your personal
integrity.
In addition to changing regulations, the Conservatives had another
successful way to overcome their minority status in the last
Parliament. They simply made every vote they wanted to win a
confidence measure, thus calling the bluff of a Liberal party not
ready to enter an election. Make no mistake about it, if the
Conservatives are elected with another minority, they will use this
mechanism again. And I am willing to bet that one of the first pieces
of legislation they will use it for will be the changes to the CWB Act
that would end the Board's status as single desk seller of wheat and
barley. In this, and in any other matters, a shrewd and conniving
government will find a way to overcome minority status.
© Paul Beingessner beingessner@sasktel.net
Two Elections Bring CWB Issue Into Focus
Column # 685 08/09/08
Farmers in western Canada are currently confronted with not one, but
two elections that could seriously affect their grain marketing
practices and options. The call had scarcely gone out for candidates
to come forward for the Canadian Wheat Board director elections when
Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced he would be ignoring his own
legislation calling for fixed election dates and calling a federal
election.
The importance of the election for CWB directors is obvious. Since the
government appoints five of the fifteen CWB directors, and these are
now all opposed to the single desk for wheat and barley, the ten
farmer-elected directors remain the bulwark against Harper's intent to
dismember the board. Two of these ten are now opposed to the single
desk. A shift that produced one more would likely lead to major
changes in the mandate of the CWB.
Likewise, the federal government had as one of the main planks in its
agriculture platform in the last election that it would end single
desk selling. It has been unable to do so only because it lack a
majority in Parliament. Should that change, the end of the CWB's
single desk would be swift and complete.
Those who oppose the single desk argue that farmers have been
successfully marketing their other crops for decades, and could do the
same for wheat and barley under the CWB jurisdiction. There is no
doubt they could sell their own wheat and barley. And they could
likely do it as successfully as American farmers who last crop year
averaged about $6 per bushel of wheat while the CWB's pooled price was
several dollars better. Still, there is an argument to be made here.
Some would be more successful than others.
There is one area, however, where farmers could not replace the CWB,
even inadequately. This is in the CWB's connection to producer cars.
Without the single desk, the number of producer cars would shrink to
insignificance.
Now, I know this is hard for some people to accept. Even the president
of one of Saskatchewan's largest short line railways can't wrap his
head around it. When I suggested that the demise of the CWB would
deprive his railway of most of its traffic, his response was that
farmers would find a way. Small comfort, that.
I recently heard a neighbour of mine, a stalwart user of producer cars
say the same thing. He had been told by the grain terminal that
handles his grain that it would still be looking for producer cars if
the federal government succeeded in ridding the world of the error of
single desk selling.
This is a fine belief if one thrives on fairy tales and rural legends,
but believing it in the real world just means you don't understand how
grain marketing and transportation work. Producer cars work for two
simple reasons. One is price pooling. The other is the CWB's ability
to secure cars for its movements.
Price pooling would end with the end of the single desk. No one has
ever run a successful price pool outside the single desk, though it
has been tried. Producer car shippers are most able to get cars at two
times: early in the crop year and in June and July. The majority of
elevator grain is gone by late in the year and the railways will more
readily allocate cars for smaller movements at this time. Without the
price pool, farmers will try to price their grain either when they
badly need cash, or into price peaks. This would mean getting producer
cars precisely when they are needed. Any producer car shipper can tell
you this won't happen.
The other issue will be car supply. The CWB has huge clout with the
railways because it ships such a vast amount of grain, but it still
bargains for cars like the grain companies. Part of the allocation it
secures goes to producer cars. Without the CWB, grain companies would
always allocate cars to their large elevators to capture incentive
rates when cars were in short supply. Cars would be in short supply
when prices were high because that is when everyone wants movement.
Producer car shippers would not get cars and would miss these price
peaks. The producer car would soon look very unattractive.
If you still need further convincing, look at producer car movements
for canola, our other large acreage crop. Despite complaints for years
about an unreasonably high basis, canola does not move in producer
cars. Yes, the grain company would take your car of canola, but the
basis would be the same as if you shipped through the elevator. It's
been tried.
Most short line railways in Saskatchewan would fail without producer
cars, so the federal and CWB elections are even more significant in
these areas.
By the way, farmers should soon receive a confirmation that they are
eligible to vote in the CWB election. If you don't get this when your
neighbours do, you should call the election co-ordinator.
© Paul Beingessner beingessner@sasktel.net
Farmers in western Canada are currently confronted with not one, but
two elections that could seriously affect their grain marketing
practices and options. The call had scarcely gone out for candidates
to come forward for the Canadian Wheat Board director elections when
Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced he would be ignoring his own
legislation calling for fixed election dates and calling a federal
election.
The importance of the election for CWB directors is obvious. Since the
government appoints five of the fifteen CWB directors, and these are
now all opposed to the single desk for wheat and barley, the ten
farmer-elected directors remain the bulwark against Harper's intent to
dismember the board. Two of these ten are now opposed to the single
desk. A shift that produced one more would likely lead to major
changes in the mandate of the CWB.
Likewise, the federal government had as one of the main planks in its
agriculture platform in the last election that it would end single
desk selling. It has been unable to do so only because it lack a
majority in Parliament. Should that change, the end of the CWB's
single desk would be swift and complete.
Those who oppose the single desk argue that farmers have been
successfully marketing their other crops for decades, and could do the
same for wheat and barley under the CWB jurisdiction. There is no
doubt they could sell their own wheat and barley. And they could
likely do it as successfully as American farmers who last crop year
averaged about $6 per bushel of wheat while the CWB's pooled price was
several dollars better. Still, there is an argument to be made here.
Some would be more successful than others.
There is one area, however, where farmers could not replace the CWB,
even inadequately. This is in the CWB's connection to producer cars.
Without the single desk, the number of producer cars would shrink to
insignificance.
Now, I know this is hard for some people to accept. Even the president
of one of Saskatchewan's largest short line railways can't wrap his
head around it. When I suggested that the demise of the CWB would
deprive his railway of most of its traffic, his response was that
farmers would find a way. Small comfort, that.
I recently heard a neighbour of mine, a stalwart user of producer cars
say the same thing. He had been told by the grain terminal that
handles his grain that it would still be looking for producer cars if
the federal government succeeded in ridding the world of the error of
single desk selling.
This is a fine belief if one thrives on fairy tales and rural legends,
but believing it in the real world just means you don't understand how
grain marketing and transportation work. Producer cars work for two
simple reasons. One is price pooling. The other is the CWB's ability
to secure cars for its movements.
Price pooling would end with the end of the single desk. No one has
ever run a successful price pool outside the single desk, though it
has been tried. Producer car shippers are most able to get cars at two
times: early in the crop year and in June and July. The majority of
elevator grain is gone by late in the year and the railways will more
readily allocate cars for smaller movements at this time. Without the
price pool, farmers will try to price their grain either when they
badly need cash, or into price peaks. This would mean getting producer
cars precisely when they are needed. Any producer car shipper can tell
you this won't happen.
The other issue will be car supply. The CWB has huge clout with the
railways because it ships such a vast amount of grain, but it still
bargains for cars like the grain companies. Part of the allocation it
secures goes to producer cars. Without the CWB, grain companies would
always allocate cars to their large elevators to capture incentive
rates when cars were in short supply. Cars would be in short supply
when prices were high because that is when everyone wants movement.
Producer car shippers would not get cars and would miss these price
peaks. The producer car would soon look very unattractive.
If you still need further convincing, look at producer car movements
for canola, our other large acreage crop. Despite complaints for years
about an unreasonably high basis, canola does not move in producer
cars. Yes, the grain company would take your car of canola, but the
basis would be the same as if you shipped through the elevator. It's
been tried.
Most short line railways in Saskatchewan would fail without producer
cars, so the federal and CWB elections are even more significant in
these areas.
By the way, farmers should soon receive a confirmation that they are
eligible to vote in the CWB election. If you don't get this when your
neighbours do, you should call the election co-ordinator.
© Paul Beingessner beingessner@sasktel.net
Agriculture Policy Increases Food Insecurity
Column # 684 01/09/08
When I was a kid, the flavor of the day in schoolyard humour was Polish jokes. Though I didn't understand it at the time, these nasty little bits of racism arose from the wave of Polish immigration into Canada that occurred following WWII. Established societies tend to look unfavorably on recent immigrants and target them as scapegoats for society's ills – hence the Polish jokes. No doubt these were prevalent on the prairies because that is where 60 percent of Poles ended up.
Since that time, the idea has always lurked in the back of my head that Poland is something of a backward and pathetic nation. The Poles were slaughtered by Russians and Germans in the big wars, and Poland became a Russian satellite until Lech Walesa and the Solidarity movement rose up. Apparently the Polish government and the European Community also think Poland is backwards, at least the agriculture sector. Poland is undergoing a "modernization" of agriculture, courtesy of its agriculture policies and the EU's wad of cash.
Polish farms are presently small by North American and European standards, at 25 to 50 acres. The EU and Poland's government believe increasing production and hence exports depends on farms being large enough to employ modern technologies. As a result, the EU is offering huge subsidies to farms that expand to larger than 450 acres. Land, machinery and building purchases can receive from 50 to 75 percent subsidy. The results are predictable, and what has happened in Canada over many decades in terms of farm consolidation and migration to the cities will happen in Poland in short order.
International agencies tend to see this as a good thing. Quasi-governmental organizations like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have worked hand in hand with governments in developed countries to change the agriculture policy of nations around the world. For many countries, the result has been increased exports and less food production for local consumption. Honduras is a good example.
In return for loans from the World Bank in the 1990s, Honduras was required to cut tariffs that protected its domestic rice producers. The government was told to abandon grain reserves that were used to stabilize prices. Production of other goods for export was encouraged and reduction of tariffs allowed cheap American rice to displace local rice in Honduras. Once self-sufficient, Honduras now imports a staggering 83 percent of rice consumed. This was a disaster for rice farmers, but in the short run, reduced local prices for consumers. Unfortunately for the many poor in this impoverished country, the recent boom in commodity prices drove up the price of rice to the point where people could no longer afford it. Hunger and malnutrition rose dramatically.
The same scenario has been repeated in many poor countries. To make things worse, some rice producing countries, like Vietnam, China and Cambodia, have stopped exports of rice to stabilize prices at home. Thus, other poor nations that need to import can scarcely find supplies, even at exorbitant prices.
High prices for farm commodities are a boon to Canadian farmers, and not much of a problem for consumers with money to spare. They could be a benefit to farmers in poor countries who have a bit of surplus to sell. But for countries that have lost food self-sufficiency, price increases and especially price instability only benefit the wealthy few, particularly the grain traders, while bringing disaster for the many. The UN estimates these factors have recently added 100 million to the ranks of the hungry. Much of the instability has been caused by speculators playing commodity markets. Speculative money in commodities futures has ballooned from US$5 billion in 2000 to US$175 billion to 2007.
Some countries are rethinking agriculture policy in light of the problems caused by recent price instability. Though we think about exports a lot in Canada, the fact is most food consumed in the world is still produced by small farmers. Policies that reduce the number of small farmers reduce food security. This is coming home with a vengeance in many African, Asian and Central American countries.
The issue is not really the high cost of basic foodstuffs. Small farmers tend to produce for their families and their villages first, with surpluses for sale to the larger community after this. Large farmers focus on the best-priced market. If that is for carnations for export, local food production suffers. As farmers leave and are driven from the land in the millions all over the world, they are added to the ranks for the food-insecure.
The cost of imported food will only continue to increase as transportation costs rise with oil price increases. Poor countries that have lost self-sufficiency and rely on imports will see increasing costs for food. Poland's agriculture policies might lead to greater exports, but what will the ultimate cost be?
Paul Beingessner beingessner@sasktel.net
When I was a kid, the flavor of the day in schoolyard humour was Polish jokes. Though I didn't understand it at the time, these nasty little bits of racism arose from the wave of Polish immigration into Canada that occurred following WWII. Established societies tend to look unfavorably on recent immigrants and target them as scapegoats for society's ills – hence the Polish jokes. No doubt these were prevalent on the prairies because that is where 60 percent of Poles ended up.
Since that time, the idea has always lurked in the back of my head that Poland is something of a backward and pathetic nation. The Poles were slaughtered by Russians and Germans in the big wars, and Poland became a Russian satellite until Lech Walesa and the Solidarity movement rose up. Apparently the Polish government and the European Community also think Poland is backwards, at least the agriculture sector. Poland is undergoing a "modernization" of agriculture, courtesy of its agriculture policies and the EU's wad of cash.
Polish farms are presently small by North American and European standards, at 25 to 50 acres. The EU and Poland's government believe increasing production and hence exports depends on farms being large enough to employ modern technologies. As a result, the EU is offering huge subsidies to farms that expand to larger than 450 acres. Land, machinery and building purchases can receive from 50 to 75 percent subsidy. The results are predictable, and what has happened in Canada over many decades in terms of farm consolidation and migration to the cities will happen in Poland in short order.
International agencies tend to see this as a good thing. Quasi-governmental organizations like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have worked hand in hand with governments in developed countries to change the agriculture policy of nations around the world. For many countries, the result has been increased exports and less food production for local consumption. Honduras is a good example.
In return for loans from the World Bank in the 1990s, Honduras was required to cut tariffs that protected its domestic rice producers. The government was told to abandon grain reserves that were used to stabilize prices. Production of other goods for export was encouraged and reduction of tariffs allowed cheap American rice to displace local rice in Honduras. Once self-sufficient, Honduras now imports a staggering 83 percent of rice consumed. This was a disaster for rice farmers, but in the short run, reduced local prices for consumers. Unfortunately for the many poor in this impoverished country, the recent boom in commodity prices drove up the price of rice to the point where people could no longer afford it. Hunger and malnutrition rose dramatically.
The same scenario has been repeated in many poor countries. To make things worse, some rice producing countries, like Vietnam, China and Cambodia, have stopped exports of rice to stabilize prices at home. Thus, other poor nations that need to import can scarcely find supplies, even at exorbitant prices.
High prices for farm commodities are a boon to Canadian farmers, and not much of a problem for consumers with money to spare. They could be a benefit to farmers in poor countries who have a bit of surplus to sell. But for countries that have lost food self-sufficiency, price increases and especially price instability only benefit the wealthy few, particularly the grain traders, while bringing disaster for the many. The UN estimates these factors have recently added 100 million to the ranks of the hungry. Much of the instability has been caused by speculators playing commodity markets. Speculative money in commodities futures has ballooned from US$5 billion in 2000 to US$175 billion to 2007.
Some countries are rethinking agriculture policy in light of the problems caused by recent price instability. Though we think about exports a lot in Canada, the fact is most food consumed in the world is still produced by small farmers. Policies that reduce the number of small farmers reduce food security. This is coming home with a vengeance in many African, Asian and Central American countries.
The issue is not really the high cost of basic foodstuffs. Small farmers tend to produce for their families and their villages first, with surpluses for sale to the larger community after this. Large farmers focus on the best-priced market. If that is for carnations for export, local food production suffers. As farmers leave and are driven from the land in the millions all over the world, they are added to the ranks for the food-insecure.
The cost of imported food will only continue to increase as transportation costs rise with oil price increases. Poor countries that have lost self-sufficiency and rely on imports will see increasing costs for food. Poland's agriculture policies might lead to greater exports, but what will the ultimate cost be?
Paul Beingessner beingessner@sasktel.net
Wind Turbines Come Under Fire
Column # 683 25/08/08
The debate over alternative liquid fuels like ethanol is fairly easy to understand. After all, it takes large amounts of fossil fuels to produce the corn or other crop needed to produce the ethanol. Is their really any net benefit from the process, or are biofuels just a sneaky way to get taxpayers to subsidize farmers?
The debate over wind turbines is a little tougher to comprehend. You can't challenge the energy balance of the electricity-producing towers, which have become popular with governments around the globe. You would think environmentalists would be similarly enthralled with the idea of replacing coal or nuclear powered electrical plants with emission-free wind power. Some European countries have done so wholeheartedly, with Germany leading the way. Germany plans to phase out its nuclear power and replace it with renewables. Wind is a major factor in this decision. Germans are not only generating lots of electricity with wind power. They are generating significant numbers of jobs by being one of the largest producers and exporters of turbines.
Some environmentalists, however, are not so happy about wind turbines. A recent editorial on wind power called them an assault on human well being, a threatening monster jammed down the throats of neighbors and localities. The idea seems to be that wind turbines offend the senses by their presence on the skyline, and thereby degrade the human spirit.
The idea is also expressed frequently in environmental circles that the use of renewable energy sources has failed to curb growth in oil and gas consumption. Rather, it has simply been part of a large overall increase in energy consumption globally – an increase that is having serious environmental impacts.
The environmental movement is split on the approach to wind power and other renewables. Some groups endorse these strongly, while a few smaller ones are vocal in their opposition for the reasons given above.
The simple fact is that we are a society hooked on high energy consumption, and our consumption is rising yearly, both for personal and industrial use. The latter is huge in Canada, as vast amounts of energy are consumed in the production of tar sands oil.
Farmers generally view the advent of a wind turbine not as some looming monster, but as a welcome addition to the income their land might generate and for the jobs created, albeit few, in the maintenance of the turbines. On a personal level, I polled my rather environmentally conscious family about their feelings toward wind towers. It was quite positive. We tend to see them not as a blight on the horizon, but as an elegant and graceful way to generate electricity.
I am not really clear on the link anti-turbine groups make between the over consumption of energy by our society and the production of energy. It seems to be the belief that the more we produce the more we will consume. Since few of us have any awareness of the amount produced, that seems unlikely. Consumption of power, like consumption of alcohol and tobacco, is directly linked to our ability to pay. Those with more money have bigger houses, drive bigger cars, have more energy consuming toys, take more airplane flights, buy more consumables and so on.
Wind power is expensive – at least in Saskatchewan it is more expensive than throwing another shovel of coal in the power plant. In this regard, using wind power should actually reduce energy consumption since it will make the price of electricity higher.
It is unfortunate that we apparently can't see the real looming monster on the horizon. This is the vast increase in the cost of petroleum products that will take place over the next several decades as demand increases in heavily populated countries like India and China, and as conventional (cheap) supplies of oil decline. As this happens, economics will force some hard choices on us. Energy use will consume a much greater percentage of our personal incomes, leaving lower income people with some hard choices. Even the wealthy will have less money to throw around.
Higher energy costs will hit rural people harder than urbanites. With no access to public transit, and having to travel further for all services, rural folk will spend a greater proportion of their income on energy. At some point, we will have to get really serious about reducing energy use. This will not be as hard as people seem to think. We used far less energy forty years ago, yet our lifestyles were quite similar. We were also healthier and some might even say happier.
But we will still need energy. Those looming monsters on the horizon, the wind turbines, will be part of that mix - a relatively clean, safe part. Get used to it. We should use the interval to make them as safe and efficient as possible.
Paul Beingessner beingessner@sasktel.net
The debate over alternative liquid fuels like ethanol is fairly easy to understand. After all, it takes large amounts of fossil fuels to produce the corn or other crop needed to produce the ethanol. Is their really any net benefit from the process, or are biofuels just a sneaky way to get taxpayers to subsidize farmers?
The debate over wind turbines is a little tougher to comprehend. You can't challenge the energy balance of the electricity-producing towers, which have become popular with governments around the globe. You would think environmentalists would be similarly enthralled with the idea of replacing coal or nuclear powered electrical plants with emission-free wind power. Some European countries have done so wholeheartedly, with Germany leading the way. Germany plans to phase out its nuclear power and replace it with renewables. Wind is a major factor in this decision. Germans are not only generating lots of electricity with wind power. They are generating significant numbers of jobs by being one of the largest producers and exporters of turbines.
Some environmentalists, however, are not so happy about wind turbines. A recent editorial on wind power called them an assault on human well being, a threatening monster jammed down the throats of neighbors and localities. The idea seems to be that wind turbines offend the senses by their presence on the skyline, and thereby degrade the human spirit.
The idea is also expressed frequently in environmental circles that the use of renewable energy sources has failed to curb growth in oil and gas consumption. Rather, it has simply been part of a large overall increase in energy consumption globally – an increase that is having serious environmental impacts.
The environmental movement is split on the approach to wind power and other renewables. Some groups endorse these strongly, while a few smaller ones are vocal in their opposition for the reasons given above.
The simple fact is that we are a society hooked on high energy consumption, and our consumption is rising yearly, both for personal and industrial use. The latter is huge in Canada, as vast amounts of energy are consumed in the production of tar sands oil.
Farmers generally view the advent of a wind turbine not as some looming monster, but as a welcome addition to the income their land might generate and for the jobs created, albeit few, in the maintenance of the turbines. On a personal level, I polled my rather environmentally conscious family about their feelings toward wind towers. It was quite positive. We tend to see them not as a blight on the horizon, but as an elegant and graceful way to generate electricity.
I am not really clear on the link anti-turbine groups make between the over consumption of energy by our society and the production of energy. It seems to be the belief that the more we produce the more we will consume. Since few of us have any awareness of the amount produced, that seems unlikely. Consumption of power, like consumption of alcohol and tobacco, is directly linked to our ability to pay. Those with more money have bigger houses, drive bigger cars, have more energy consuming toys, take more airplane flights, buy more consumables and so on.
Wind power is expensive – at least in Saskatchewan it is more expensive than throwing another shovel of coal in the power plant. In this regard, using wind power should actually reduce energy consumption since it will make the price of electricity higher.
It is unfortunate that we apparently can't see the real looming monster on the horizon. This is the vast increase in the cost of petroleum products that will take place over the next several decades as demand increases in heavily populated countries like India and China, and as conventional (cheap) supplies of oil decline. As this happens, economics will force some hard choices on us. Energy use will consume a much greater percentage of our personal incomes, leaving lower income people with some hard choices. Even the wealthy will have less money to throw around.
Higher energy costs will hit rural people harder than urbanites. With no access to public transit, and having to travel further for all services, rural folk will spend a greater proportion of their income on energy. At some point, we will have to get really serious about reducing energy use. This will not be as hard as people seem to think. We used far less energy forty years ago, yet our lifestyles were quite similar. We were also healthier and some might even say happier.
But we will still need energy. Those looming monsters on the horizon, the wind turbines, will be part of that mix - a relatively clean, safe part. Get used to it. We should use the interval to make them as safe and efficient as possible.
Paul Beingessner beingessner@sasktel.net
Transportation Review Will Be Light on Farmer Input
Column # 682 18/08/08
Farmers on the prairies are beginning a harvest that looks to be above average in many districts. Busy as this season is, they likely have little time to think ahead to the fall, winter and spring when they will attempt to ship that crop to buyers domestically and around the world. But maybe they should, because an above-average crop could bring back the transportation woes that plagued grain shippers and hence farmers in years past.
To anyone who has farmed more than a few years, the story will be familiar. Grain movement starts slowly in Sept and October and gets worse in December and January. Shippers point fingers at the railways, the railways point at the weatherman and farmers point their middle fingers skyward in frustration. Demurrage bills pile up; sales are lost. Seeing a chance for political gain, the Wheat Growers swear it is the CWB's fault.
Around April, farmers start thinking about seeding, and transportation problems fade into the background. A year goes by, and the transportation monitor issues a report saying that the system really hasn't gotten any better than it was when we had umpteen branch lines and small grain elevators. Governments cluck sympathetically and the railways release profit figures that show yet another record has been broken. Their CEOs get hefty pay increases.
As I said in an earlier column, it would be hard to find any grain shippers today who would tell you they are happy with the service the railways provide. Shippers of lots of other products would sing a similar song. That's the reason shippers across Canada have been asking the government for major changes to the transportation act for nearly a decade. What they've received from past and current governments has been tinkering that has done little to improve the situation. When the last transportation act amendments became law, shippers got one small bone from the Conservative government. It promised to conduct a review of railway service.
That review is about to begin – the details have been released. Shippers who hoped it would be a chance to thoroughly air their grievances should take a hard look at them. This review looks nothing like the several that have preceded it.
The structure of the review will go something like this: consultants will be hired to gather statistical data on railway performance, to look at the logistics system overall and to examine railway best practices. This phase is expected to take about six months. Following this, the government will appoint a panel of three "eminent" persons to examine the collected data and draw some conclusions and recommendations. Then, and only then will "interested parties" be invited to comment on these recommendations and give their own input.
It seems a cock-eyed way to conduct a review, unless your goal is to manage the outcome. The data-gathering phase will largely be carried out under the radar with little chance to scrutinize the process or the input. Logically, you'd expect that you would collect public input before writing recommendations. If these are written before small shippers and farmers get to tell their stories, they will frame the discussion that comes after. The recommendations will decide which issues are important and which solutions are possible.
The second problem I have with the structure is the idea of appointing a three-party panel to write recommendations. The government announcement says that "ideally" it would have someone with a railway background, someone with a shipper background and a "neutral" third party. Tri-partite panels, especially where worldviews might conflict substantially, tend to produce timid and tepid solutions. Better to have a single independent person writing a report. Solutions will be more imaginative and less subject to pallid compromise.
We have already tried enough half-measures to correct the power imbalance between the two large railways and Canadian shippers. They haven't worked. They weren't really designed to work because Transport Canada's bureaucracy has had a decades-long love affair with the railways. The government's design of this inquiry holds only faint promise for real reform.
Paul Beingessner beingessner@sasktel.net
Farmers on the prairies are beginning a harvest that looks to be above average in many districts. Busy as this season is, they likely have little time to think ahead to the fall, winter and spring when they will attempt to ship that crop to buyers domestically and around the world. But maybe they should, because an above-average crop could bring back the transportation woes that plagued grain shippers and hence farmers in years past.
To anyone who has farmed more than a few years, the story will be familiar. Grain movement starts slowly in Sept and October and gets worse in December and January. Shippers point fingers at the railways, the railways point at the weatherman and farmers point their middle fingers skyward in frustration. Demurrage bills pile up; sales are lost. Seeing a chance for political gain, the Wheat Growers swear it is the CWB's fault.
Around April, farmers start thinking about seeding, and transportation problems fade into the background. A year goes by, and the transportation monitor issues a report saying that the system really hasn't gotten any better than it was when we had umpteen branch lines and small grain elevators. Governments cluck sympathetically and the railways release profit figures that show yet another record has been broken. Their CEOs get hefty pay increases.
As I said in an earlier column, it would be hard to find any grain shippers today who would tell you they are happy with the service the railways provide. Shippers of lots of other products would sing a similar song. That's the reason shippers across Canada have been asking the government for major changes to the transportation act for nearly a decade. What they've received from past and current governments has been tinkering that has done little to improve the situation. When the last transportation act amendments became law, shippers got one small bone from the Conservative government. It promised to conduct a review of railway service.
That review is about to begin – the details have been released. Shippers who hoped it would be a chance to thoroughly air their grievances should take a hard look at them. This review looks nothing like the several that have preceded it.
The structure of the review will go something like this: consultants will be hired to gather statistical data on railway performance, to look at the logistics system overall and to examine railway best practices. This phase is expected to take about six months. Following this, the government will appoint a panel of three "eminent" persons to examine the collected data and draw some conclusions and recommendations. Then, and only then will "interested parties" be invited to comment on these recommendations and give their own input.
It seems a cock-eyed way to conduct a review, unless your goal is to manage the outcome. The data-gathering phase will largely be carried out under the radar with little chance to scrutinize the process or the input. Logically, you'd expect that you would collect public input before writing recommendations. If these are written before small shippers and farmers get to tell their stories, they will frame the discussion that comes after. The recommendations will decide which issues are important and which solutions are possible.
The second problem I have with the structure is the idea of appointing a three-party panel to write recommendations. The government announcement says that "ideally" it would have someone with a railway background, someone with a shipper background and a "neutral" third party. Tri-partite panels, especially where worldviews might conflict substantially, tend to produce timid and tepid solutions. Better to have a single independent person writing a report. Solutions will be more imaginative and less subject to pallid compromise.
We have already tried enough half-measures to correct the power imbalance between the two large railways and Canadian shippers. They haven't worked. They weren't really designed to work because Transport Canada's bureaucracy has had a decades-long love affair with the railways. The government's design of this inquiry holds only faint promise for real reform.
Paul Beingessner beingessner@sasktel.net
Apology for interupted posting
My apologies for the delay in posting Paul Beingesner's column. Due to a computer glitch.
Little Muddy
Little Muddy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
