Seed review
Lately much has been said about the recently completed seed sector review process and the report that was made available. Unfortunately, most of the public comments and reporting has been inaccurate and biased.
As someone who has been actively involved in this process, I want to clarify the process, explain the report and reassure farmers that their interests are being taken into account in every way.
When the review process began in July 2003, the expectation of the seed industry was that the discussions would lead to an improved and more timely way of making needed changes to the regulations that primarily affected the seed industry and our relationship with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
As our discussions evolved, we began to realize that many issues had direct implications to our customers, the farmers of Canada. The active participation of the Grain Growers of Canada ensured that the farmer’s voice was heard. Throughout our discussions a common theme evolved. Our farmers continually struggle to be competitive on the world market and the seed sector can deliver tools to help farmers be more efficient and more competitive.
Unfortunately, in many cases regulations restrict the ability of plant breeders to make innovative varieties available to farmers. We have identified this as a key area where farmers, regulators and the seed industry need to work together in a reasonable way to reduce the restrictive effect of our regulatory system.
We need to note the SSR was a consultative process whose purpose was to seek consensus on seed issues. There was no authority granted to the group and the report was only a recording of the discussions that took place. The key recommendations were to continue the consultation process and work towards a more responsive regulatory system in Canada. …
The SSR process will shortly begin its second stage. I hope to build on our existing discussions and to formalize our consultation and consensus building process. Invitations have been extended to expand the farmer representation to include the National Farmers Union, the UPA of Quebec and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The process will continue to be open, transparent and inclusive.
I want to assure farmers that the continuing seed sector consultative process is in no way a threat to farmers. Rather it is a tremendous opportunity for all of us to work together and enable Canadian agriculture to prosper in the future. … Our global competition is changing; we must change some things as well. I feel most farmers support us in this direction.
Ñ Barry Reisner,
President, Canadian Seed
Growers Association
Limerick, Sask.
SWP sequoia
The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool at one time was owned and supported by 70 percent of the Saskatchewan farmers. Politicians and the market only dream of having that kind of market share.
Now, it is the eve of the complete turning over to the market the last remnants of what was once a giant as a farmer-owned company. The SWP represented and acted for the benefit of those who owned it.
One has to stop and seriously contemplate the reason for the SWP collapsing inward.
A giant sequoia is not felled with one blow of the axe. It takes careful planning:
First, the leaders frighten the people with doom of their livelihood unless the tree is changed and that we, the leaders, know better than the owners.
Second, life must then be taken from the sequoia so the limbs are pruned, taking care the falling limbs do not hit the planners.
Third, it is topped because unpredictable things can happen if a giant is felled as one.
Fourth, notching takes place to ensure it falls exactly where it is wanted.
Fifth, the sawing begins, which is the final separation of the tree from its roots, and ends when it is lying on the ground with the rest of the debris.
Last, the sawing and planing so the best pieces can be placed in the market.
We have to remind ourselves that the falling of the giant SWP happened under the obligated scrutiny of the management, directors, and delegates.
Did our market oriented managers do a competent job? … Has the CEO been as good for the SWP as the SWP has been for the CEO?
As I look at the value of my equity and services received compared to what I had, the answer is very clear. So much for the win-win hype!
Ñ Paul Harmon,
Consul, Sask.
Sharing water
The letter of Ted Legault in the Jan. 13 issue of WP suggests that we not export or sell water to the United States. I suspect like many other Canadians, Mr. Legault believes that the dark powers of evil to the south are secretly plotting a Hollywood style invasion of our fresh water supplies, much like the blockbuster movie Independence Day.
Like many Western Canadians, the only enemies I fear are the ones who converge on Parliament Hill from time to time. I was raised on a farm six miles west of Gravelbourg, on the dry prairie of southwestern Saskatchewan. I spent most of my life looking over the horizon to the west, hoping that the dark grey clouds would bring a few drops of moisture to save our dying crops and pastures.
No one in Ottawa seemed too concerned about our water shortages, then and now.
As a lad, I watched neighbours filling their tanks with fresh drinking water from our well. Town folks would drive to the farm, fill cream cans and galvanized containers because they couldn’t drink water from the Town of Gravelbourg’s aquifer, which was high in sodium and iron. Never once did my dad charge for water.
No he wasn’t CCF, and he rarely attended church. Dad believed that water was there for the world to share.
Dad was right. At any given moment, 80 percent of the earth’s fresh water supply is stored in the planet’s atmosphere. Where this moisture condenses and whom it falls upon depends greatly on chance and destiny.
To deny our American neighbours a jug of water when they need it, and when they’re willing to pay for it, is just not a neighbourly thing to do.
As a bonus, perhaps our proposed international water treaty could include open borders on lumber, grain, cattle and sporting arms.
In 1966, the Town of Gravelbourg connected its water plant to Thomson Lake. That same year, our well went dry. After 50 years of giving water away, Dad was forced to drop coins in a meter at the town’s treatment plant in order to fill his 300 gallon tank.
When he and other farmers asked town council why they were forced to pay for water when they in turn had given it away for so many years, the town replied: “Times are changing Mr. Hamon.”
Ted Legault later became part of a council that approved hikes in water rates.
The moral of this story is simple. Times are changing, what’s good for the eagle is good for the beaver. God bless our American neighbours.
Ñ John Hamon,
Gravelbourg, Sask.
Telemarket talk
In mid December I had a telephone call from a U.S. telemarketer who has an excellent product. The conversation:
“I’m sorry, I cannot afford to purchase at this time.”
“What’s your occupation?”
“I am a grain farmer.”
“You people in agriculture get subsidized very well.”
“I must remind you that I am on the other side of the 49th, in Canada. We do not get subsidized in the grain industry.”
“What do you grow?”
“Canola, oats, barley, peas and various wheats. In fact, I just got a cheque yesterday for a load of wheat I had delivered to an elevator and I got 75 cents per bushel.”
“Perhaps I had a clitch on the phone. What dollar did you say and 75 cents?”
“Only 75 cents. No dollar amount.”
“That is not very good at all. …” He continued on to explain the U.S. system.
“Why do you subsidize your agriculture so much?”
“I would rather subsidize the agriculture industry a little every year instead of letting that industry collapse and have to spend a huge sum in the future to re-establish agriculture.”
A few weeks later, I got a Canadian telemarketer call. This person just could not understand “no” or “I cannot afford this.”
She only understood when I said, “Canadian society has dictated that I pay 2004 expenses with a 1973 income. Sorry.” Click! She hung up instead of wanting to understand.
What a difference. I’d sooner talk to an American telemarketer.
Ñ Delwyn J. J. Jansen,
LeRoy, Sask.
Biodiesel notes
I read with interest the article in the Jan. 6 edition of the WP concerning biodiesel production. Interest and some apprehension.
The reporter’s take on this seems to suggest that biodiesel production is so simple that it can be accomplished whilst lounging in front of the TV. This would be comparable to saying that if you have a couple of boards and a few nails, you can build a house.
Also the idea of doing it on the kitchen stove is na•ve at best and dangerous at worst. Rudolph Diesel, the inventor of the diesel engine, was almost killed in an explosion that was caused by using improper fuel. At that time he was dealing with new technology and mistakes were inevitable. Now we should know better. Proper manufacturing requires a controlled environment with built-in quality assurance.
A viable biodiesel industry will depend on a number of factors, the first being the ability to produce a quality product. The market, no matter how environmentally friendly it wants to be, will not accept inferior products, just like days of yore when in order to beat the taxman, there were canisters of brew being funnelled down the back roads to waiting customers.
Without proper manufacturing techniques, the ensuing products were illegal and could be very harmful to the health of individuals. Similarly inferior biodiesel can be harmful to the health of your engine.
That is why there are standards set and must be met before the engine manufacturers will honour their warranties.
Another misconception is the statement that half the diesel used in Europe is biodiesel. Half of the diesel may contain biodiesel at blended rate but biodiesel itself likely accounts for five percent or less of the total fuel supply.
Doubling the oil content? Canola already has 40 percent plus oil with some samples coming in at 48 percent. As oil content is increased, high chlorophyll can become an issue.
Not a problem if you are targeting strictly industrial uses, but not desirable in edible oils, which will still be the premium market with the lower grades going into non food uses.
And lastly is the point that really demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge surrounding the amount of research, development and processing of biodiesel that is happening in this province.
In fact we are likely one of the leaders, producing a product that has been cited at a major European conference where it was described as the chardonnay of biodiesel.
Go fishing if you like. The scaling up is already happening.
Ñ Rob R. McGregor,
Milligan Bio-Tech, Plant Manager
Foam Lake, Sask.
BIC needed
Re: Response to Why BIC (Open Forum, Jan. 6.)
We can all relate to Randy Kaiser’s frustration. However, it is misguided to suggest that packers, retailers or any group in the beef supply chain are the appropriate organizations to promote beef.
In his comparisons, the raw products, steel and grain, are an integral part of branded products. Perhaps when all beef is sold under the brand of a national food company such as we see with fully cooked roasts, frozen entrees or a packaged raw producer like ham and bacon, then maybe beef producers can relinquish the role of product promotion.
Until that time, no other group has our vested interest. Retailers would have no problem selling other proteins if beef sales were to decline. Ditto for restaurants Ñ beef is just another choice on the menu. And packers and processors would shift production to match market demands.
BIC’s role is to promote beef’s importance in the diet, its value, ease of preparation and its safety. BIC staff work with supply chain players, encouraging feature activity and demonstrating ways to merchandise beef to better meet customers’ needs ….
In this past year, BIC has spearheaded the Commercial Beef Utilization Strategy looking to increase Canada’s processing capacity to lessen our vulnerability to trade impairments. BIC secured government funding to undertake this massive plan, funding that wouldn’t have been available if it weren’t for BIC’s strong reputation in assisting the industry to effectively and efficiently market beef in Canada.
Ñ John Newman,
Chair, Beef Information Centre
North Gower, Ont.
Big dig
To the Editor:
I am writing in response to the letter from Mr. John J. Hamon, (Open forum, Jan. 20.) Unfortunately, Mr. Hamon has erred a number of times.
The Wascana Lake Urban Revitalization Project (WLURP or big dig as it has become affectionately known) was first contemplated in 1962. In subsequent years, several studies confirmed the need for the project and it became a formal part of Wascana Centre Authority’s 1999 Master Plan.
Subsequently, the authority, its stakeholders and its partners lobbied aggressively to access the resources necessary for this project and were successful in 2003. The project was advanced for extremely sound environmental and pragmatic reasons. This wasn’t something “concocted” for partisan reasons.
While I am not fully aware of all the environmental requirements in rural areas, I can advise Mr. Hamon that there were numerous environmental requirements the WLURP was required to meet.
In fact, we have several binders documenting these requirements and how these were adhered to. Other than individual municipal requirements, I would suspect that similar projects would have largely similar requirements in both rural and urban areas.
While Mr. Hamon is certainly entitled to his own partisan views, it is nonetheless regrettable that he has used erroneous statements to malign projects being celebrated by hundreds of thousands of Saskatchewan citizens.
Ñ S. P. (Van) Isman,
Executive Director, Wascana Centre Authority
Regina, Sask.
CAIS issues
With the many new entrants into the CAIS (Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization) farm support program I am concerned with the lack of understanding of the program administration that is afforded to the producers.
The farm income program directorate has a 23 person staff to work directly with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to obtain tax information directly from CRA. However, they require that we provide our tax information with our application.
According to Rick Lapage of the director’s office of CRA, the Farm Income Protection Act allows Agriculture Canada to directly obtain any person’s tax records from CRA or in the past from CCRA. Apparently this amazing legislation allows (the agriculture department) to have carte blanche in obtaining any information held by CRA….
While the legislation allows the administration to obtain tax records directly without authorization from the producers, the administration has required the producers to provide a copy of their tax records in order to enroll in the programs.
This in many cases causes delays, difficulties or expense for the producers in obtaining this information ….
The administration is on record for rejecting producer’s applications for missing tax records. However, the administration had a comprehensive set of records available but chose not to add them to the producer’s file to process his claim. …
While the administration has access to and holds the tax records and file information in what it considers “a secure document area” the administration … has lost or misplaced tax records …
Appeal or review costs or delays for producers who the administration has lost or misplaced their tax records are appalling. …
Should you have had problems in any of the farm programs relating to your tax information or other information you provided to the administration I suggest the following: Obtain a receipt from the administration for any records you provide. …
I am providing this information from my personal experiences …and would hope the information is of value to you in protecting your participation in the program.
Ñ John H. Morrison,
Winnipeg, Man.
Part-time work
Boy, this relatively minor issue about part-time employees is sure generating its share of heat.
Why would a business that already has part-time employees want to hire more part-timers, rather than give more hours to those already on the payroll?
A friend has suggested to me it may be because part-time employees as a rule do not receive some eligible benefits. So maybe more part-time employees really do put more money in the employers’ pocket. That’s understandable. That’s why they are in business.
Groups like the Chamber of Commerce are in full support of the business owners. No surprise there. After all, they are the paid mouthpiece for the business union.
What does surprise me is Brad Wall and the Saskatchewan Party taking such a strident stand that more part-time work is a good thing.
For many families on part-time employment, the Saskatchewan Party position must be somewhat of a betrayal. My guess is even low income families must have voted for the Saskatchewan Party.
I am starting to wonder if maybe in three years time we will see history repeating itself. Who does not remember when the Devine Tories, upon taking power, immediately attacked the working poor by canceling a promised increase in the minimum wage. I suppose that also would put a few more dollars in the business owners’ pockets.
But, the stance of the Saskatchewan Party should surprise no one. Opposition leader Brad Wall and some others in the ranks cut their teeth in the Devine administration. They learned their lessons well.
Ñ Henry Neufeld,
Waldeck, Sask.
Family wages
Labour is very short in the farm community. Although we often jokingly call it child abuse, some of us do have children who actually want to farm and actually chose as a career to work on the farm.
Tell me why with CAIS (Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization) we cannot include the wages we pay to family members as an eligible expense.
If I hired the neighbour it would be a deductible expense, but if I hire a family member it is not.
While we understand that CAIS may have to cap wages paid to family members Ñ and CAIS does cap other expenses so it has the criteria to do this Ñ to be sure they are reasonable, it seems to me that to eliminate family members as an eligible expense almost insures the fact that the family farm operation with children planning to farm is being penalized for their choice to stay on the farm.
The farm that has family working on it gets less eligible expenses than the farm who hires outside of the family? Yes, and in another breath some altruistic minister will say “we are dedicated to supporting the family farm.”
Not (according to) the CAIS formula, anyway.
So, when we take a look at our industry we can see the issues of the chronic labour shortage. We also know that farming is a highly nepotistic industry. I haven’t had a line up of city kids listing farming as a career option.
We might therefore expect the only new entrants into the industry will be, by a high degree of probability, a farmer’s son or daughter. And we have a government program which thinks their work is of zero value in the costing of farm margins today. Go figure.
At some point in time, we may begin to recognize that an aging farm population is yet another problem of our industry. In addition to penalizing the farm where the family works together to get the job done, we do seem to be penalizing any possibility of succession with the CAIS eligible expenses.
Ñ Vicki Dutton,
Paynton, Sask.
AWB promo
Our Alberta government seems to be at a stall in developing a dual wheat marketing system like in Ontario. The Alberta wheat producers will have to develop our own Alberta Wheat Board with open books.
Perhaps we could start with a $10 charter membership and volunteer directors. …
Ñ Robert Snider,
New Norway, Alta.
ACRE questions
With the recent public consultations held by ACRE (Action Committee on the Rural Economy) in a few locations around the province, we can now connect the dots to complete the picture of the provincial government’s well-orchestrated, three-legged scheme to revitalize Saskatchewan’s economy.
In a March 11, 2004, press release, Neil Hardy, president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, indicated that they had been working to standardize rules and regulations, such as those for intensive livestock operations. …
He went on to say, “this would tie into what the ACRE and Saskatchewan Agrivision Corporation are doing. We want to clear the path for them.”
So, over the summer, SARM’s Clearing the Path committee met quietly with Saskatchewan stakeholders: folks from the oil and gas industry, industrial livestock production, forestry, mining, transportation, etc….
There apparently was no input into this process from small family farmers, educators, health workers, youth, seniors, religious or environmental groups.
There also were no public meetings held to give ordinary folks, all equal stakeholders in this province, the opportunity to participate.
SARM’s final recommendations for clearing the path for ACRE and SAC will be presented to government in March 2005….
On Nov. 4, Agrivision held their Droughtproofing the Economy meeting in Regina, at which the Water Wealth Report, a 50-year water plan authored by Clifton Associates, was launched.
This report … sets out a scheme which would create economic wealth by, as Mr. Clifton described it, using all the “Saskatchewan water that flows past and makes no contribution to our well being.” …
There was nothing in their various presentations about how their scheme calls for conservation or protection of our precious water sources through any precautionary considerations.
We did learn, however, that they have no recent data on the location of our underground aquifers, which supply many of us with our precious drinking water…
In December 2004, rural residents were invited to five ACRE public consultations held around the province to learn about, among other things, its crown land subcommittee’s recommendations “that crown land that is not held for important policy reasons be sold, or treated as a commercial asset” and, about its infrastructure subcommittee’s recommendations calling for the Saskatchewan government to “commit to a co-ordinated strategy of guaranteeing infrastructure in a limited number of regional centres, thereby providing the certainty that those centres will thrive, and will be able to provide support to the surrounding region.” …
Based on this report then, we’ll all get to put our tax money into the provincial hands, but only the chosen communities or regions will be supported.
Are these the same clusters that are referred to Agrivision’s 50-year water scheme Ñ chosen communities near the reservoirs created by the dams?
Could those living beyond the cluster boundaries be left to fend for themselves as they spend their own money to try to keep their schools open, highways in good repair, their ‘not-chosen’ towns from dying, and driving to the cluster for medical services? …
In March 2005, SARM and ACRE are to present their recommendations to government; recommendations which appear to be remarkably in harmony with Agrivision’s 50-year water plan. …
Those of us in the ‘without-much-potential’ communities will be especially interested in how the recommendations from these three Department of Rural Revitalization work parties will improve the economic well being of all of Saskatchewan’s current and future residents.
Who was it that said, “beware the Ides of March”?
Ñ Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, Sask.
Bee buzz
To the Editor:
Goodness gracious, where do I start? I guess the best place to start is to say that I am a beekeeper, not a honey producer. There is a difference.
I must have touched a nerve. I now find myself being attacked by three prominent honey producers who obviously have a huge stake in the commission.
Yves Garez (Open Forum, Jan. 20) points out that he is more important because he is richer than I. Where these guys get their information, I don’t know.
The only person I have ever reported the numbers to is John Gruska. He is with the government and surely would not divulge those numbers to anyone.
Besides, “irrelevant” scum like myself would probably lie about the numbers, you know, to save a few bucks.
Wink Howland (Open Forum, Jan. 20) uses words like “completely insignificant” and “one small voice” to describe me. He points out that in his mail-out, only three respondents out of 116 were not in favour.
He conveniently forgot to mention the vote in November was over 20 percent, and had the debate been allowed to go on longer, it may well have gone on to the 30 percent needed to quash the commission.
I find it curious that whenever someone’s opinion does not line up with that of the oligarchy, that opinion becomes “negative.”
He ends his letter by attacking the editor of the Western Producer. … Well, I’ll tell you what, the Saskatchewan Beekeepers Association has done perilous little to improve my lot.
It has been somewhat of a debate club, and Lord knows I love a good debate. But now that the big dogs are out, I’ll likely just go home and lick my wounds.
I don’t know, perhaps the whole concept of the commission is to supply a certain elite with a cozy, paying winter job.
Possibly some of these “big” honey producers should run their outfits a little better, take the winter off and holiday in Cancun instead of wasting their valuable time going to meetings and conventions during the brutal prairie winter.
Ñ David Sawkiw,
Preeceville, Sask.
Pay costs
The column of Ms. Verna Thompson in the Jan. 27 Western Producer contends that many people feel their rights and freedoms are being trampled by enacted or contemplated legislations of governments, such as controls on smoking.
There is an easy and tax-saving way to erase or drop any existing or contemplated types of legislation that are so angering or exciting those who fear their rights will be adversely affected by any such legislation.
Simply pass laws that will require those who smoke or become drug addicts or alcoholics or fat slobs to themselves pay all of their own medical costs: i.e. health systems would bear none of their medical expenses.
Think of the billions of tax dollars that would be saved.
They could be available to enable Canada to regain its United Nations rating of having the world’s best quality of life and living.
Ñ C. F. Bentley,
Edmonton, Alta.
