CAMARA

From Regina

21 Kimball Cariou

Farmers’ union meets

on Western farm crisis

___ Following the demise of the statutory Crow rate
| for moving grain, delegates to the annual meeting
_ Ofthe National Farmers Union, Dec. 5-9 in Regina,
will find themselves looking for solutions to
deepening problems for producers. Bill C-155,
| Which scrapped the Crow, means that the current
| average transport cost of $4.89/tonne will rise to
$5.76 Jan. 1, and is expected to jump to over $25 by
_ 1991, adding a new and serious financial burden to
_ Prairie farmers.
_ Defending the legislation, Transport Minister
Lloyd Axworthy has predicted the bill will create
300,000 jobs through railway expansion and agri-
Cultural diversification. But the NFU, which re-
Mains the most militant defender of family farms,
Criticizes the vagueness of such promises, and
| Points out that these figures do not take into ac-
| ount the massive economic damage rural areas
| will suffer through loss of the Crow.
| _ Farmers across Canada already face an uncer-
| tain future because of a growing financial crisis. On
| the Prairies, farm bankruptcies continue to rise

_ dramatically — from 31 in 1979, to 78 in 1982, and a
| Tecord 121 in the first 10 months of 1983.

Farm Incomes Down
At the heart of the trend is an overall decline in
Teal farm incomes. Figures presented at the
November annual meeting of the Saskatchewan
Wheat Pool (SWP) show that in this province
“since 1981, gross receipts, total expenses, and net
farm incomes have stabilized at about $3.9-billion,
$2.9-billion, and $1-billion respectively ... these
figures do not include the effects of inflation, so real
Net farm incomes have in fact been decreasing.”
Over the past five years Saskatchewan total net
farm income has been $1,033-million (1979),
$979-million (1980), $1,206-million (1981), $875-
Million (1982), and $954-million (1983). This year’s
Marginal recovery, according to the SWP, is
Mainly due to farmers repairing rather than replac-
ing machinery, a trend which has a negative impact
On machinery dealers and manufacturers.
Across the prairies, the United Grain Growers
_ €stimates that cash receipts will drop $227-million
is year, and production expenses will be trimmed
by $308-million, as producers use “‘less fertilizer
and less debt’’. Net cash flow, the money farmers
Ve to retire debt, consume, or re-invest, will
actually drop by $105-million in 1983, the third
Consecutive decline.
~ Prices for many farm products have fallen or
Stagnated, with an uncertain outlook for the near
| future. Wheat prices have dropped about 10% over
the last two years after peaking in 1981. Prices for
Most other grains and oilseeds have also fallen,
although economists expect some recovery in
| 1984. Over the past summer, cattle prices have
| dropped while feed prices increased, resulting in
declining profitability. Hog prices have fallen shar-
Ply, from the area of $80/cwt., early this year to
less than $60 by fall, asituation whichis expected to
Continue in 1984. The Statistics Canada index of
_ Prices of agricultural products showed a decline for
-Allthree Prairie provinces in 1982, most seriously in
| Saskatchewan (from 320.6 to 288.5), a trend which
'S continuing. -
Interest Largest Factor

Interest payments remain the single most serious
3 cial burden on farmers. Speaking at the SWP
| Convention, Farm Credit Corp. chairman Sonny
Anderson pointed out that today’s farmers make
| less than $3 for every dollar of interest they must
| Pay, compared to a $12/$1 ratio in 1961. Interest
€Xpenses have become the largest single input fac-
tor for Canadian farmers in recent years. In
Saskatchewan alone, producer debts rose from
‘less than $1-billion in 1972 to over $3.3-billion by
1982. While current interest rates have dropped
fom record levels, many farmers who had delayed
_ buying new equipment are now faced with the
Necessity of borrowing massively to replace aging
Machinery.

|
lf
i

These general difficulties are exacerbated in
some areas by local problems. Many farmers in the
Carrot River/Hudson Bay areas of Saskatchewan,
for example, have been hit by successive crop
failures due to insect damage and excess rain.
Wheat yields of less than five bushels per acre are
common this year. Local farmers formed commit-
tees in September to demand emergency assis-
tance of $20 per acre. To this point, the provincial
and federal governments are still negotiating cost-
sharing of any such aid.

A revealing indication of the seriousness of the
agricultural situation is the decline in prairie farm-
land prices, beginning this year after a steady rise
since 1971. The drop in cash flow, among other
factors, has reduced farmers’ ability to purchase
land. In this regard, the Saskatchewan Tory
government’s decision to scrap the provincial land
bank is seen by progressive observers as detri-

mental to the long-term interests of most farmers.

Squeezed off Land.

Thousands of small and medium farmers con-
tinue to be squeezed off the land — 4,000 in
Saskatchewan alone from 1976 to 1982. Many
others fear that increased freight rates will speed
up this process. Economist Carl Snavely, who

produced an anti-Crow study during the 1970s, has
agreed that the NFU is correct in drawing this
analysis.

But there is no doubt that big monopoly forces
stand to gain from the process. The investment firm
Wood-Gundy predicted in the Sept. 22 Western
Producer that Canadian Pacific shares would climb
from the present $2.90 to over $10 by 1985, inflated
by the super-profits the railway will reap from Bill
C-155.

Banking that another step in the process will be
the gradual erosion of orderly marketing of Wheat
Board grains, big speculators have raised the price
of seats at the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange
from $3-4,000 to over $6,500 and rising. The NFU
has pointed out that coal and other resource com-
panies will be major beneficiaries of the changes.
Their analysis has been amply confirmed, for
example by Arthur Le Neveu, director general of
the coal branch of the federal Department of Ener-
gy, who says that coal will supply up to 50% of a
considerable rise in rail freight traffic westward by
the year 2000.

Clearly, prairie grain farmers and other working
people in the West are the target of a major assault

by such monopolies. But although the Crow has
been killed, an essential part of this assault, history
shows that political struggle could reverse the tide,
as in the 1920s when the Crow was re-instated
under massive pressure from Western Canada.

UA -2. 92

IN BUSINESS FOR ITSELF.

Silence won't
stop the bomb

By KERRY McCUAIG

A few weeks ago TV cameras went into the classrooms of my
daughter Amy’s school to ask kids what they thought about
nuclear war. Later, when Amy and I listened to her school chums
on Frazer’s Report, a local TV commentary show, we felt sad. It
didn’t seem fair that young children should be so frightened, feel
so powerless and hopeless. The children were also angry; angry
that their whole destiny was held for ransom by a handful of
individuals who have the power to blot out all their tomorrows.

It would have been a gloomy evening for us if turtle-necked,
grey bearded Joe Vise had not appeared on the screen following
the school footage. He provided an alternative. There is some-
thing you can do about nuclear war, you can talk about it, and
talking is a first step to stopping it.

Vise is a nuclear astro-physicist at the University of Toronto
and a parent who belongs to Parents for Peace. “‘Children are
quite aware that the world is not working right. They are over-
whelmed. If no one will talk to them about it, anxiety sets in.”

I had a chance to talk to Vise about Parents for Peace, a new
community-based group designed to help parents discuss the
unthinkable with their children.

For most of us it’s difficult even to think about nuclear war, let
alone talk to our children about it. In fact studies show that
parents are more likely to talk to their kids about sex than war.
But as with sex, if parents refuse to talk, the kids will go around
them and get their information and misinformation elsewhere.

It is also a question of bringing up a responsible new gen-
eration, motivated to take part in society; assured that their input
does make a difference.

Children With Nightmares

‘“‘Parents come to us”, says Vise, because they are having
problems. ‘‘Their kids are waking up screaming from nightmares.
They want to know how to handle it.”’

This doesn’t mean suddenly raising over the family dinner
table ‘“‘now we’re going to talk about ‘the bomb’. It’s the parents
themselves becoming involved. Their involvement, their new
outlook, feeds back into the family,’’ says Vise.

Before the peace issue, Vise and his wife had been active in the
anti-apartheid movement. We’d tell our children we have a meet-
ing. They would ask why. We’d discuss it.”’

Step one shouldn’t be dragging an unwilling child out to a
demonstration. ‘‘There was a period when our daughter refused
to go to anything. We didn’t force it. Now she’s after us because
we’re not doing enough,”’ he recounts.

But what about little kids. Does my five-year-old really need to
know about nuclear war?

‘You're not introducing the subject’’, he says. ‘‘Children are
aware ofit. It is in the media, on TV, radio.’’ He cites a number of
studies, including one by U.S. child psychologist Robert Lifton,
which documents children as young as four, experiencing ner-
vous disorders, even ulcers, from worrying.

Talking about nuclear war with children doesn’t mean you
downplay the effects. If conventional war is hell, atomic warfare
can only be worse. The damage is already taking place. Billions
are poured into the arms race, as hundreds die by the minute from
starvation. Every dollar that goes into our burgeoning “‘defence
budget”’, is paid for in poverty, unemployment, less than
adequate education, health care, etc.

No Uniforms or Parades

This is one war we won't be able to stop by refusing to go.
There won’t be the excitement of donning uniforms and ticker
tape parades. In nuclear war there are only minutes to Ar-
mageddon.

Our only defence is to say “‘no’’, by demonstrating, writing
letters, holding meetings, signing petitions. For our children, it
means letting them know we are doing everything we can to make
sure they will have all their tomorrows.

That is the best role model we can provide. During the
disarmament week demonstrations having children participate
gave them a whole new perspective. ‘“They heard the messages,
saw the festivities. They were part of something big and

important, the powerlessness faded,’’ reports Vise.

Children find their own ways of dealing with the warmongers.
Amy finds satisfaction in saying Ronald Reagan looks like
Frankenstein. A friend’s four-year-old offers a unique solution —
‘*Let’s turn Reagan into a bus — without wheels!”’ _

Parents for Peace have taken nuclear disarmament into the
schools, working through the local boards they have used speak-
ers, information kits, films and pamphlets to make speaking
about the unspeakable easier.

But you don’t have to start there. Peace is a justifiable topic to
have on the agenda of parent-teacher meetings, in children-based
community and library programs, even daycares. Some Parents
for Peace have organized pot-luck dinners in their neighborhoods
where parents and older children get together and discuss the
issue. :

If you need help getting started contact Parents for Peace, P.O.
Box 611, Station P, Toronto MSS 2Y4, 531-8101.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—DECEMBER 7, 1983—Page 7