RAIL REVIEW CONCERNS
To the Editor:
The Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association is calling for a review of the railway revenue cap increase of 9.5 percent.
Many times, the WCWGA has sided with the railways. In one notable example, during the Crow debate, that organization said the railways needed more revenue to haul our grain. The recent strike at Canadian Pacific Railway would indicate the railway is short of operating capital. They need more revenue.
One factor the railways consider is their client’s ability to pay. When they see farmers operating big machinery, they assume farmers can well afford the increase in the revenue cap.
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?
To ask the government to do a review is interesting. We had a Canadian Wheat Board, which many times took the railways to task over service and costs. One must remember the current government is business friendly.
It seems having the CWB, a government agency, criticizing a business pal was so embarrassing to Stephen Harper he had the CWB dismantled. What kind of a review can you expect from this government?
One should be surprised by the WCWGA complaint about the revenue cap increase when considering their past record on transportation. For that organization to ask the government to do a review is like asking a fox to guard the chicken house.
Lorne Jackson,
Riverhurst, Sask.
BIG AND GREEDY
To the Editor:
I truly feel for the people with regards to your letter to the editor, Problem Ditching, in the May 24 issue.
The very basic reason for all the disregard for the neighbour is greed. It seems the bigger they get, the less care occurs as they have the attitude, “We got to go and get it done” because they are too large and reasonably good weather is limited.
In our rural municipality, there are only three farmers who went through all the legal hoops to drain water. All the remainder are illegal. Do not waste your time complaining. Nine times out of 10 nothing gets done to correct all the wrongs.
None of my illegal ditching neighbours even made an attempt to approach me with regards to end results before draining upon me. A neighbour even went so far as to come upon my land and continue his ditch.
But from that point, I cannot remove my water plus his additional water due to elevation difficulties.
Illegal non-regard to end results ditching is not only the only results of larger farms.
I have had a neighbour spray his crop and destroy, via spray drift, up to 100 feet of crop out into mine for a whole half mile with not even an apology.
Try a neighbour who seeds his crop 12 feet across the line into your I.P. crop and also turns his equipment around for every round on your same crop.
I found a neighbour who moved a legal survey marker. Another large neighbour dumps his leftover treated seed on the line between us. Firstly, I do not want it on my side of the line, plus it was left lying open to the wildlife and the environment.
It is a never-ending cycle. Bigger, greedier and even bigger so no one dares touch me.
Delwyn J. J. Jansen,
LeRoy, Sask.
DAM SHAME
To the Editor:
Recently it has been written that some crown corporations in Saskatchewan are healthy because they are generating large sums of money: SaskPower $240 million, for example, and SaskWater $3.5 million dollars from selling water and filling Gardiner Dam for generating hydroelectricity.
The Saskatchewan Watershed Authority is responsible for the operation of most dams in Saskatchewan. Crown corporations’ earnings are attributed to them, but the costs of their decisions are passed on to the taxpayers in damages paid out.
Further, in April 2011, the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority filled both the Rafferty and Alameda reservoirs not only to the full supply level but up to the maximum flood elevation.
In both dams, there was no possibility for flood control downstream. On the U.S. side of the Souris River, Lake Darling was also filled to the top. Maximum revenue would now be available from electricity production and water sales.
What could possibly happen that would require space left in any of these three dams?
When the snow melted and the rains came at the usual time of the year, there was no space in the dams for any flood control.
Community after community was flooded as water coming into the Alameda and the Rafferty had to go downstream.
The water from the Rafferty and Alameda headed south to Lake Darling flooding communities in Saskatchewan. As Lake Darling was also full, water had to go to Minot, North Dakota.
After flooding Minot (luckily for SWA Lake Darling operators helped in this task), the Souris River turns north into Manitoba. Here the water that could in no way be reduced by a full Rafferty, Alameda and Lake Darling flooded communities in Manitoba. The water from the Souris joined the water from the Qu’Appelle River in the Assiniboine River in Manitoba.
Discussing “healthy crowns” is meaningless. Revenue is attributed to them but costs of their actions are divided among the taxpayers of the province.
It is my firm belief that Saskatchewan cannot afford to retain its crown corporations, not if they operate in the current manner — the liability to the taxpayer is too high.
William Lemisko,
Saskatoon, Sask.
LICENCES MANDATORY
To the Editor:
Most gun owners in Canada believe that once the long gun registry is revoked by C-19, everything will return to normal to pre-C-68 days.
How wrong it is to think this way. Killing the long gun registry has really not changed much in terms of controlling the people who own and use firearms in a peaceful manner.
There are an estimated 396,000 possession licences that will expire between now and May of 2013 (there are more than 300,000 already expired).
These 396,000 firearm owners will become criminals in the eyes of the law as written in C-68.
Let’s remember that C-68 has not been repealed in its entirety, a promise that (Stephen) Harper made over and over again before he became the prime minister.
In other words, if you own a long gun (registered or unregistered), you must prove that you also have a valid possession licence (PAL or POL), or you have broken the law and could face a fine or jail time for illegal possession of a weapon. The long gun no longer needs to be registered, but the firearm user must be registered.
In Canada, firearm owners are seen as potential criminals and therefore all must be registered, so that the police know where all these potential criminals live. The Harper government will not waive the licence fee as they have in the past. Because of budget shortfall, the Harper government wants to start collecting the $80 fee starting this September, estimated to be more than $20 million.
Some provinces continue to keep back door registry information on lawful long gun owners despite calls from the feds to stop this activity.
This mandatory possession licence will impact the purchase of ammunition, firearms, hunting licences, transportation, storage, etc.
So what has changed? Lawful firearm owners continue to be treated worse than criminals.
In my opinion, all firearms laws should be removed from the criminal code. Please call your member of Parliament and let him or her know how you feel about this matter.
Inky Mark,
Dauphin, Man.
