Adding value
To the Editor:
Initial reading of Murray McLaughlin’s vague letter in the April 3 Open Forum, on adding value to agricultural products, suggests ignorance of Saskatchewan’s agricultural history or he fears offending the corporate CEOs in agriculture.
In the past, many small-town creameries churned out volumes of butter. These value-added industries became obsolete after a cheap butter substitute appeared on the market.
Flour and meat, unlike butter, are still very important!
In my farming area of Blaine Lake, two flour mills and a meat processing plant which served the area and beyond with good quality products were squeezed out…
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?
Mr. McLaughlin discounts Ed White’s statement that large hog barns are destroying the morale of small and would-be producers, but ignores the similar detailed account as presented by Jim Morris from SPI.
It is easy to agree with Mr. McLaughlin’s statement, “We need to be working together regardless of size.” This suggests co-operation. If that is to become a reality, then large farm operators could begin by not competing against the small operators. Governments could help by refusing to grant corporate income tax rates to large farm units. Incorporated farm units favored with an income tax structure which allows them to pay lower rates than individuals in effect is subsidy reaped by corporations. A surtax could be levied against equipment developing and requiring at least 150 horsepower, as well as on hog barns exceeding 75-sow farrow to finish hog operations.
The manner in which large farm operators conduct their operations reveals these individuals know the price of everything but disregard human values …
Unintentional abuses happen, but conscientious people always strive to make amends. None have such moves.
What adds to my hurt is that most of these land grabbers profess Christianity.
An example of “sometimes Christianity suffers more from its ‘friends’ than its enemies!”
It is unreasonable to expect farmers to work together as long as large farm operators continue to make life difficult for the small and would-be farmers.
– Stuart Makaroff,
Saskatoon, Sask.
SuperRock?
To the Editor:
What’s going on? Canada already has the premier crime fighter of the world – the absolute Superman of crime fighting and gang busting.
Why doesn’t Allan Rock jump in “Car 54,” race to Quebec, stare down the Hell’s Angels and Rock Machine and force them to register (it’s already “the law”) all of their restricted and prohibited weapons (bombs included)?
Do a “J. Edgar Hoover” on these thugs.
So put on your cape and badge, Mr. G-Man Allan, enlist the assistance of Elliot Ness, Lt. Columbo, Dick Tracy and Sgt. Friday (if need be) and really give it to the bad guys.
Forget about gopher-shooting Saskatchewan farmers. They can’t be “organized” to do anything bad.
Go for the gold, be the heaviest hitter in crime fighting history. Maybe Spielberg will do a movie of this heroic saga, and the CBC a $40-million docudrama.
All of this in an election year too – wow!
-Vern Charnetski,
Prelate, Sask.
Vote left
To the Editor:
This federal election gives us a chance to restore the balance between left and right of politics. We have three political parties working for the corporate rich, for that is where they get most of their funding. Only the NDP gets all of its funding from concerned people.
Since the NDP is the only party to the left in politics, it is reasonable to suggest that they could form the next government, provided all left-wing voters will support it. The NDP has served Saskatchewan well whenever we gave them a chance to govern. They can and will do the same for all of Canada.
– Ernest J. Weser,
Laird, Sask.
Border farmer
To the Editor:
Over the years we have read and heard many pros and cons about the CWB. I’ve been involved in farming all my life, on my own since 1946, and have had some experience in this profession. As a youngster, I can recall how my father was forced to haul his grain, which hadn’t cooled off yet, to the elevator and receiving the lowest cash returns which the multi-national grain sharks dished out at that time while his well-to-do neighbors could wait for higher prices.
With the CWB price pooling system, everyone is treated equally.
Those farmers, as well as some politicians, that oppose the CWB claim that the well educated farmers of today with their modern computers and other marketing knowledge are more capable and have no need for a CWB. How naive can they be?
Do they think that the multi-grain marketing giants are still using the 1920-30 method of manipulating prices?
I’m sure they are very up-to-date and have more shrewd tactics then before of fleecing the individual farmer. Marketing unity is a must.
We farm along the Canada-U.S. border and over the years have heard of a number of people being caught smuggling.
Grain is only one of a farmers’ commodities and any one of these are regulated by Government Customs.
If deliberately breaking the law of the land, one deserves to be punished and should receive no pardon.
We have the opportunity to discuss farming problems with our North Dakota neighbors across three feet of sod separating our countries and they always envy our CWB price-pooling system. We are well aware that these are very up-to-date and clever farmers.
The barley vote we had should settle that problem but to some, the democratic system of majority rules doesn’t count.
I maintain that by having six or more grains on open market and only two on the CWB, we already have a dual marketing system. Surely the CWB rebels should allow the majority to have some say in the matter.
I agree every system, including the CWB, can be improved by a few changes and adjustments but for goodness sake, don’t kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
I can remember when farming was a way of life but since it has been changed to Big Business, it’s become a dog-eat-dog attitude between farmers. Is this progress?
However, I would like to see the CWB personnel and government financially accountable for all the millions of dollars of demurrage charges. The farmer is doing a good job of taking all the risks nature dishes out, delivers the grain and pays the freight. How can they justify passing this unfair charge onto the innocent farmer when it is obviously the fault of others. …
– Charles Hildebrand,
Morden, Man.
L’ouest libre?
To the Editor:
Vive le Quebec libre? That’s not what de Gaulle should have said or what the French should put on their stamps, instead they should put vive le Canada libre!
I’m saying that because I was disappointed to see the outcome of the vote on dual marketing of western barley.
Now the government knows that he can treat prairie farmers even more like “slaves.”
Now he knows that he’s got support.
I think that our government likes to make us believe that we own something until it’s time to sell that something no matter what it is.
If you’re selling a property, you’re paying capital gains’ tax; if you’re selling produce, you’re paying income tax on your profit and labor, and in the case of your barley and wheat farmers in western Canada, you’re paying for the wheat board because he’s not giving you the fair market price for your grain, even with his supposedly strong marketing power….
So if we as proud Canadians want to be free, we can’t let the government control us or let him impose his laws. What Farmers for Justice should do is imitate the P.Q. government … vote again until you win.
Seriously, you cannot show any support in the government anymore because the more you support him, the more he will squeeze and finally take away all your freedom.
To conclude, I’d like to know why were the ballots numbered in the last vote? Is it to know who they can squeeze harder? I guess that’s modern democracy!
– Rupert Theverer,
Henryville, Quebec
Wage subsidies
To the Editor:
Re: More subsidies must go says environment watchdog. I would like to point out to Mr. Maurice Strong that subsidies come in a lot more ways then income for farmers.
Let’s look at one family living on $6 an hour wage compared to another family living on $24 an hour wage,which is a subsidized wage ordered by the labor union and driving up costs for the low-income families. Do not kid yourself, high union wages will drive up the cost of living also.
Let’s look at a family car; the cost of this car has gone up from $2,200 to $23,000; wages in the auto plant have gone up from 78 cents an hour to $24 an hour ; wheat has gone from $1.54 to $3.40 a bushel.
Guess what, the family living on $5 or $6 an hour is living in subsidized housing and may be depending on food banks. These are hidden subsidies.
Guess what, the high-wage workers are the ones that will be most likely to strike, not the low-paid ones. Why is it that one can hire 20 Polish workers for the cost of one worker in Canada and they can afford to buy our farm produce?
You may also note, farmers get the same pay if they have farmed four years or 40 years.
– John Pokorney,
Tilley, Alta.
CWB changes
To the Editor:
The article by David Suderman in the March 6 issue of The Western Producer has prompted me to write this letter. …
(1) Since we as producers and supporters of the CWB marketing concept stand to benefit from Government-guaranteed initial prices, as well as Government-guaranteed credit sales to foreign customers, and cash advances facilitated by the Federal Government through the CWB, I therefore believe that Government has a legitimate reason to name CWB Commissioners/Directors, call them what you will.
(2) The cost of a 15-member board and its associated travelling costs would be quite considerable. These costs plus others to be incurred as a result of other proposed reforms to the CWB re-organization will of necessity come from one place and one place alone; namely the “Pool Accounts,” thus reducing the funds for distribution to producers in the form of final payments.
Producers in general would not tolerate this to any great extent before abandoning support for the CWB.
(3) We as producers already have a democratically elected Producer Advisory Committee. This done, I might add at minimal expense. By legislation, broaden the powers of this group who are grass roots representatives of producers.
(4) Allow the Federal Government to appoint sufficient Commissioners/Directors, with expertise in grain marketing, equal to or broader than our present CWB commissioners.
(5) These appointments would be subject to approval of a two-thirds majority of the elected Advisory Committee.
(6) Conversely, should the Advisory Committee by a two-thirds majority decide that any or all Commissioners/Directors should be removed, that the Minister of the Federal Government would be obliged to remove and replace said officials, again approved by a two-thirds majority of the Advisory Committee.
This proposal, I feel would be the fairest of all methods of election/appointment. I also believe that this form of governance would be the least subject to intense lobbying by special interest groups, and for that reason alone, should be quite attractive.
If this reasoning appeals to you as producers, send another letter to the Hon. Minister indicating your support for it.
– Charlie Hopkins,
Melfort, Sask.
