---

---

Nothing frivolous

There is nothing frivolous about farmer control.

There is a very important reason why the CWB recently tried to take a case to the Supreme Court of Canada. It was neither "frivolous" nor driven by politics, as some have alleged.

The reason was this: we believe that prairie farmers should have the right to control and direct their marketing organization through their democratically elected CWB board of directors.

We did not agree with a previous court ruling about the federal government's power to direct the CWB. We believed that sweeping changes to the CWB Act in 1998 were intended to pass control to farmers.

Why else does the CWB board of directors exist?

We believe it is important to respect democracy and the will of farmers as expressed through a democratic process. We sit on the board because farmers voted us here. We are therefore the voice of farmers.

Four federal government appointees bring additional expertise to the board table and share our singular mission: to ensure the CWB maximizes value to producers.

It is no secret that the CWB board of directors and the current federal government do not share the same vision for the future of grain marketing.

But when the government overrides the CWB board of directors, it is overriding the democratic will of farmers.

That is why we wanted the courts to overturn a 2006 government directive (also known as the "gag order") because, as farmers, we have the right to run our own organization.

That is why we applied to the Supreme Court. And that is the principle we will fight to preserve.

Larry Hill

Chair, CWB board of directors,

Swift Current, Sask.

Grand experiment

In your Jan. 21, 2010, edition, a letter from Mr. Murray McMillan appears under the heading "Rebuttal to Lind." It is not a rebuttal. It is a rant.

Mr. McMillan is full of insult and scorn. Unfortunately Mr. McMillan's letter is also filled with statements that are not factual.

Typical is his statement that, "the prairie provinces sequester a million times more carbon than they produce." If only it were true. We farmers could all be rolling in money from carbon credits.

The physical process by which carbon dioxide absorbs energy reflected from the earth has been known for over 100 years.

What is not known is the rate of heating and possible offsets.

The science of measurement of global warming and climate is incredibly complex, and spans a wide range of scientific disciplines. Most of us, even if we are trained in related specialties, aren't in a position to judge the science.

The question of climate change is not settled, and it won't likely be settled for many years.

But surely the least satisfactory way to resolve the scientific question is to continue to dump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and see what happens.

It is a grand experiment with our children and grandchildren on the inside of the test tube.

None of us want to have to deal with global warming; it would be great news to find out it is not a problem. So it is tempting to seize on anything that confirms what we want to hear.

There is no shortage of sources to tell us what we want to hear. It is good that Mr. McMillan is skeptical. But we need to extend that skepticism and look very closely at the credibility of our sources of information.

In the past two months, Mischa Popoff and Dr. Tim Ball have written Opinion columns in this paper challenging man-made global warming.

On the other hand, the following professional organizations have warned that we need to take action:

1) The U.S. National Academy of Science (NAS) founded 1863. Ten percent of its members are Nobel laureates.

2) The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the largest scientific society in the world.

3) The American Physics Society (APS); its newsletter (you can find it at www.aps.org/units/ips/newsletter/200807/hafemeister.cfm) sets out the basic chemistry and physics of warming from greenhouse gases.

We also need to look closely at what our sources are saying. We need to differentiate between those who criticize the measurement techniques or the climate models, and those who tell us that more CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause warming.

Criticism of the techniques or models does not mean the problem of warming does not exist.

But when someone tells us that there is no problem, they need to begin by explaining the chemistry and/or physics of why warming won't happen.

Unless we are assured with reasonable certainty by their explanation, we better start doing something about dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

This isn't a matter of partisan politics or scoring debating points. We are all in this together. We can't vote with our feet on this issue.

Douglas Bigelow,

Coldstream, B.C.

Global warming

It's another winter morning on the Canadian Prairies, time to get to work and feed the cattle. I peek at the digital thermometer on my way out (-32 degrees) and that's on the Fahrenheit scale.

I wince, knowing the more reliable mercury thermometer at the barn will show five degrees colder. But I hook onto the feed wagon and drive past the cows, a brisk wind behind me. The cattle look out from the protection of their shelter. They don't want to leave, but they want the feed more, so they come, stiff-legged, backs arched, some with nosebleeds from breathing the frigid air.

I unload the wagon and turn back to the yard, the icy breeze cutting deep into my cheeks, bringing tears to my eyes. If this is your idea of a chinook, David Suzuki, I'm not impressed.

The chores are finally done and I check the temperature one last time as I walk past the barn. It hasn't budged all morning. But the earth is warming, Al Gore tells us so. We're supposed to ignore the Climategate Scandal and the politicians with their hidden agendas. He must be right, I mean, when has a politician ever lied to us? As I dash for the house to warm up, a comforting thought crosses my mind. Things could be worse, I suppose. If it wasn't for global warming, just think how cold it would be!

Les Zeller,

Golden Prairie, Sask.

CWB court case

I spent Wednesday, Jan. 20, sitting in Federal Court in Winnipeg as a farmer-applicant on behalf of the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Our case is about the voter manipulation by the federal government in 2008 in our farmer-funded Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) director elections.

Instead of using the majority of their time to extol the virtues of the minister's letter of instruction, which stripped thousands of farmers of their automatic voting rights, the government used most of their time to argue that farmers like me did not have the right to challenge them in court!

This argument comes from a government that used taxpayer money to directly campaign (campaign is the term used by the RCMP when they looked into the matter) on behalf of their chosen anti-CWB candidates in the farmer elections.

As well, this argument comes from the government that thinks it can override existing legislation and regulations by a simple ministerial letter (decree).

Farmers like me and thousands of others pay all of the costs of running the elections. We also have to live with the outcome of the elections, and the elections directly affect how much money we receive from our grain sales. It is both condescending and insulting for the government to use the majority of its time arguing that we shouldn't be able to challenge them in court. If not us, who? If not the Federal Court, where?

I understand the Harper government's motivation. Through the lens of four years worth of dirty tricks and illegal orders against farmers and the Canadian Wheat Board, manipulation of the voters list is just part of the Harper government's undemocratic action plan.

But here is the question that I can't answer: With the exception of the National Farmers Union and Real Voice for Choice, why is no farm organization willing to speak up for farmers' basic democratic rights?

Stewart Wells,

Farmer-applicant and member of the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board,

Swift Current, Sask.

Undermining wishes

When David Anderson suggests that World Trade talks will do what the Tory minority government could not do, get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board's single desk, grain farmers had better take note.

First, if other countries want to get rid of it, that probably means that having the wheat board is a trade advantage to Canadian farmers.

The single desk does protect farmers from the ravages of a "free market," controlled by international grain companies, whose gouging tactics go unchallenged by the World Trade Organization.

Despite this advantage, by numerous lost trade challenges from American interests, it has been proven that the single desk is not trade distorting.

The pooling system that so many farmers choose, despite the wheat board's many marketing choices, is not available to non-wheat board grains, and no company supports the qualities of Canadian wheat, durum and barley like the wheat board does internationally and internally.

As well, shouldn't western farmers determine the future of the CWB rather than negotiators from foreign countries?

Mr. Anderson's approach may satisfy the aims of a small minority of grain farmers, but a majority of farmers in western Canada understand what the CWB does for them. They trust the CWB to represent them in wheat, durum, malting barley and international feed barley sales.

By taking the stand that the WTO should determine the future of the Canadian Wheat Board, David Anderson is purposely undermining the wishes of a majority of western grain farmers.

We have elected, over and over again, directors to the CWB who support the board's single desk.

If Mr. Anderson cannot understand that, and will not act according to those expressed sentiments, then it might be time to replace him with someone who will.

Duane Filson

Past Liberal Candidate for Cypress Hills-Grasslands,

Woodrow, Sask.

Horse health

Barbara Duckworth writes of Stephanie Valberg's excellent work with Quarter Horse genetic disorders (HyPP and glycogen branding (sic) enzyme deficiency) at the University of Minnesota (WP, Jan. 28/10 "Genetic disorders serious problem in horses"). 

Prairie horse lovers should know that they can also be proud of local efforts in Appaloosa genetics centre in the Western College of Veterinary Medicine in Saskatoon. 

Lynne Sandmeyer in the Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences has confirmed what many knowledgeable Appaloosa owners already suspect. 

Appaloosa horses with the "Snowcap" coat colour pattern have completely normal vision in daylight, but are night-blind. 

Dr. Sandmeyer's colleague, Rebecca Bellone, at the University of Tampa has mapped the night-blindness trait to the TRPM1 genetic locus on equine chromosome 1. 

This discovery has been quickly followed by researchers at Harvard Medical School confirming the same cause for night-blindness in people.

These world-class genetics investigations at the Western College are the work of a larger research group headed by Dr. Bruce Grahn. 

Members of his group are now looking at the possibility of using gene therapy to correct the night-blindness condition in affected horses.

Undergraduate veterinary students Anique McCrea and Kate Lupton have contributed to the development of the TRPM1 gene therapy construct and graduate student Michelle Scott is trying to discover how mutations in the Appaloosa TRPM1 gene prevent production of this important signaling protein. 

Western Producer readers may also be interested to know that this research is not funded by taxpayer dollars.

 Significant potential human health applications could come from basic curiosity-driven animal disease research funded by generous donations from local horse lovers Heather Ryan and L. David Dubé.   

George Forsyth,

Clarkboro, Sask.

WTO position

WTO threatens western farmers — Did you know that at the World Trade Organization (WTO), our federal government negotiators are quietly giving away the only bargaining tool western grain farmers have to sell wheat and barley on the world market?

They have already made a sacrificial offer to give away farmers' financial guarantees that will go "poof" in 2013.

Government guarantees for Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) initial payments, and on CWB borrowings, will no longer protect the farmer, and what's more, farmers themselves will have to pay to set up a fund to cover any deficits that might occur if the bottom fell out of the price of grain, resulting in a price below initial payments.

It is the U.S. that has constantly attacked the benefits and security the western grain farmer has through the CWB, and it is Harper and his government that is so willingly giving away these concessions, with more on the table today as the WTO negotiations quietly continue.

The benefits to western Canadian farmers through the CWB are not trade distorting benefits.

Fourteen times in recent years, the U.S. has challenged the CWB (and why do think that is?), and 14 times it has been decided by trade authorities, the CWB does not distort international trade.

At the same time, the U.S. and EU continue to pay outright subsidies to their farmers, which directly causes international trade distortions.

What it amounts to is U.S. and EU governments go to bat for their farmers, while our federal government is throwing our grain farmers out to the wolves.

Prime Minister Harper, his min-ister(s) of Agriculture, and our own MP(s), are quietly sitting back and saying nothing in hopes the WTO will bit by bit cause the destruction of the CWB.

After all, farmers only make up a small portion of the voting population today compared to days gone by, because so many have left the farm in total frustration.

Is our grain marketing and handling system complex? You bet it is! The CWB and the Canada Grain Commission have kept us in the world market for grain because it co-ordinates the total movement of grain for export, right from the farm to port.

We can get the right product at the right place at the right time, to satisfy our global customers. They know they will get the quality product they ordered.

In spite of huge subsidies to U.S. and EU farmers, the western Canadian grain producers have held their position in the world market, because of our complex, but orderly system.

Australia crumbled under the same pressure and did away with their grain marketing arm similar to our CWB. Today their grain handling system is a dogs breakfast. Every state in Australia has access to ports and should be the envy of grain producing countries.

Yet their system is becoming clogged with unwanted grades of grain caused by mis-shipments and not having the right type or grade to load ships for export. That will be Canada, in post CWB times.

Let me clarify the two scenarios. Under CWB monopoly, our global customers have to come to the CWB to buy wheat and barley.

If you have a dozen countries competing to buy the wheat, does that not put the seller at an advantage?

On the other hand, without the single desk seller (the CWB), you now have a global customer able to negotiate with multiple sellers to get the cheapest price.

If you have multiple suppliers competing for the same market, does that not make it a buyers market?

Top that off with the fact we will have lost the co-ordinated ability to get the right product at the right place at the right time. We end up with a chaotic system like Australia has evolved to.

To the so called modern, large, entrepreneur type farmers thinking they can survive in that type of a system, I say good luck. You may be able to hit on a high price or two (and good for you), but if the system is clogged with unwanted grain, how are you going to move it?

Can you, on your own, handle the demurrage at port if a ship is waiting for your grain?

In closing, let me acknowledge those who think we can have a dual system of marketing grain.

Have you ever heard of someone being a little bit pregnant? Either we have an orderly system of marketing western grain, or we don't — there is nothing in between.

If you think the big grain companies (most have head offices in the U.S.) will be looking out for your best interests in a post CWB regime, I'd like to know what kind of tobacco you are smoking so I can get me some.

Allen Watson,

Dawson Creek, B.C.

Bread & health

I just wanted to comment on the article in Farm Living (Jan. 21) entitled "Best breads for the body."

Mr. Graham, like most nutritionists, is many years behind on nutritional facts regarding breads and the flours they're made from.

Most nutritionists still tell people to eat whole wheat bread and pasta. I believe this is what they were taught in university and never looked into what whole wheat flour is.

Mr. Graham still believes that they take white flour and add back a bit of germ and bran.

The millers actually take white flour and add back approximately 17 percent of the bran and none of the germ. If any germ was put back in, the flour could not sit on the shelf for months. Both flours are nutrient deficient.

The researchers thought whole wheat bread would be a "shining star" in regard to slow metabolization. Most diabetics could tell you whole wheat products affect their system just like white flour products.

The nutritionists and public should also be made aware of the fact that many so called whole grain products on store shelves have whole wheat as the first ingredient, buyer beware.

I liked Mr. Graham's information on how the sourdough gets digested.

A wonderful book has been written by Julia Ross regarding foods and our moods called The Mood Cure.

Julia runs a clinic in California for people with eating disorders, anxiety, depression and just plain burnout. She writes at length that many of the foods we eat are robbing our brains of the nutrients that are required for the brain to function properly.

Everyone in the health care system should read it. I believe many of your readers would benefit from this book as stats show that approximately 70 percent of the population suffers from anxiety, anger, depression and stress.

The information in this book could be the answer to halting the dramatic rise in the use of antidepressants.

Clifford Wolfe,

Saskatoon, Sask.

In the bedroom

Re: letter about smoking in the car in Saskatchewan ("Nanny state", WP, Jan. 7/10) — bedroom next?

The town of Mayerthorpe, Alta., inspected my bedroom and premises for over three hours to check for a violation of the town's bylaws.

My bedroom has a sign eight inches by 30 inches, red on white, which says PRIVATE.

So your bedroom could be next.

Ed Ens,

Mayerthorpe, Alta.