Farm worker dangers
June 18 will mark four years since the needless death of beloved husband, father and farm worker Kevan Chandler at a High River feedlot.Since that fateful Father’s Day, no changes have been made to prevent this tragedy from happening to another Alberta farm worker.If Kevan worked in any other dangerous industry in Alberta or in any other province, standards would have been in place to prevent his death.Alberta has laws to protect our cows, pigs, horses, dogs, cats etc. No such laws for the men, women and children who work as Alberta’s farm workers. No laws for you, says the Conservative government of Alberta. Since 2001, five employment ministers (Dunford, Cardinal, Evans, Goudreau, Lukazuk) have refused to provide Alberta’s farm workers with government services or health and safety protections, insisting they are “striking a balance” between worker and producer rights.That is some scale of injustice they are using. In Alberta, the right to make a profit trumps the rights of these workers.In 2001, minister Dunford said he must consult with farmers. We got the Marz committee. Fast forward eight years. In 2009, after a rare fatality review into the death of Kevan Chandler, judge Peter Barley recommended Occupational Health and Safety protection for these workers. The Conservative government launched their own one-year review and consultation into this issue, which resulted in employment minister Thomas Lukazuk saying in 2010 that we must consult with farmers.Nine years of consultation have resulted in approximately 160 deaths and many thousands of injuries, and no improvement in protection for our farm workers.Who is this government serving? Clearly it is not our farm workers and their families.I have personally beseeched two premiers, various government ministers and many Conservative MLAs to provide these workers with basic protection of health and safety.If it were not for the five years of support from Alberta Liberals under Kevin Taft and Dr. David Swann, I would be sure compassion does not exist in Alberta politics. Thank goodness for these decent and caring Albertans….Darlene A. Dunlop,Bow Island, Alta.
Read Also
Saskatchewan puts crown land auction on hold
Auctions of Saskatchewan crown lease land are once again on hold.
Alfalfa worries
I have a few comments concerning the article entitled “Alfalfa seed growers worry about GM pollen flow,” (WP, June 3.) This case is being heard in the United States and we sit back and watch. If the U.S. court agrees with Monsanto, the genie is effectively released and there is very little Canada can do about it. Regulate all you want, but it is a waste of time and money. The thought of Canada stopping the contamination is a pipe dream.To establish a “reasonable tolerance level for low level contamination” is totally absurd. Anyone with half a brain will know there is no such thing as a “little bit pregnant.”Thirdly, there is little need for Roundup Ready alfalfa. Generally speaking, once the stand starts to deplete, it is not due to weed pressure, but root disease and other pathogens that Roundup has no effect on. At this point it is only good practice to plow down and break the disease cycle rather than continue the stand and cause more problems down the road.This question of cross-pollination and contamination has been answered a long time ago with Roundup Ready canola. Can a farmer even find canola seed that does not contain the RR gene? I think we all know that answer.The alfalfa industry is a multibillion-dollar global industry. I personally feel there has been way too much public money spent on alfalfa as I have grown sainfoin, cicer milkvetch and several different clovers in my 25 year career as a farmer.I have compared these to alfalfa, and to tell you the truth, I don’t see what all the hoopla is about. Alfalfa is not all that great. So, the bottom line is, if this Monsanto company can ruin the alfalfa industry I will not lose much sleep. Alfalfa has been the king of the forages for long enough and it will be many, many years before they get to ruin sanfoin, cicer, etc.I am very happy that I am nearing the end of my career as a farmer. I can now kick back, eat my organic foods and let somebody else worry about how they are going to feed the world.David Sawkiw,Preeceville, Sask.
Packer domination
In recent weeks there has been a plethora of articles in the farm media promoting the value of organizations like the Canada Beef Export Federation and the Beef Information Centre. The underlying theme of these articles is the necessity for cattle producers to continue to fund these organizations through check-off levy. We are told that these organizations are so successful at promoting Canadian beef and at leveraging additional funding, that the return to “the industry” is many times the initial seed money.Undoubtedly, this campaign is designed to coincide with the introduction of the refundable levy in Alberta.With that in mind, cattle producers should maybe be asking some hard questions before deciding where their check-off dollars go. The first question I would ask is why cattle producers should be paying the majority of beef promotion costs? Most ranchers sell weaned calves or feeder cattle. Most feedlots sell live fed cattle to the packing oligopsony.Only the packer and retailer actually sell beef. The complete domination of the marketplace by a handful of players in the packing and retailing sectors ensures that any enhanced revenue earned by increased marketing efforts for beef does not trickle back to the sellers of live cattle. To add insult to injury the “export members” of CBEF, predominantly large packers, demonstrate their leveraging skills when funding their organization by extracting more than $5 out of cattle producer’s pockets for every dollar they contribute themselves.A second question might be to ask for evidence of the success being claimed for these organizations.Successful promotion of beef in the North American market and enhanced marketing efforts overseas should have resulted in good demand for Canadian beef and higher prices for cattle.Instead, we have cattle prices lingering at the lowest levels since the Great Depression and on-going liquidation of the national herd as a result. Agriculture Canada recently predicted an average net operating income of negative $5,195 for all beef cattle operations across the country in 2010.If this is the result of successful marketing and promotion of Canadian beef, perhaps it’s time cattle producers redirected their check-off dollars elsewhere rather than supporting the status quo, which has so clearly failed.Iain Aitken,Rimbey, Alta.
Proposed CWB changes
Proposed changes to Canadian Wheat Board voter eligibility supports what farmers want – farmer control of the CWB.The move to legitimize the CWB voters list and bring credibility to the results of the CWB director elections is an important step in ensuring legitimate farmers are in control of the CWB.CWB surveys consistently show active producers, whether single desk supporters or open market advocates, want the affairs of the CWB to be directed by farmers. The proposed changes to the CWB Act define an actual producer as one who has produced or was entitled to produce at least 40 tonnes of grain in the crop year in which an election occurs or in either of the two previous crop years. To put this in perspective, this is 1,468 bushels of wheat, 1,836 bu. of barley or 1,764 bu. of canola. Another way to look at it is 40 tonnes is roughly the production from 40 acres.Supporting this proposed change is the reality of farm size in Western Canada. In the 2006 census, Statistics Canada reported the average size of a farm in Alberta as 1,055 acres, 1,450 acres in Saskatchewan, 1,000 acres in Manitoba and 353 acres in British Columbia. Requiring the typical production from only 40 acres for voter eligibility, when compared to the average size of farms in Western Canada is, by any argument reasonable. Another important perspective is that producers who produce 40 tonnes of any of the seven major grains listed in the CWB Act would also be eligible to vote in CWB elections. This is important because although the CWB only markets wheat and barley, the scope of CWB marketing decisions on wheat and barley have a measurable impact on the movement and values of all crops, both directly and indirectly. …The proposed legislation is an important move to legitimize the CWB voters list and make sure that only producers directly impacted by the CWB are involved in the CWB elections. These proposed changes are not new, as they came from a 2005 Liberal-appointed review panel and were recently supported by the CWB board. The Western Barley Growers Association is an organization that embraces change and, like the CWB board of directors, fully supports the minister’s efforts in proposing this legislation. We want to ensure actual producers who are impacted by the CWB are the ones casting ballots in CWB elections. It is the only way to ensure the decisions regarding the CWB stay in the hands of farmers.Brian Otto,President, Western BarleyGrowers Association,
Government spending
The majority of Canadians understand that all countries in the world are experiencing a recession that has created higher than average unemployment, a heavy strain on small businesses and many households.In these difficult times, Canadians were expecting restraint on government spending, evaluation of cost versus benefits received and on that standard even ending existing programs such as official bilingualism. However, approval by our appointed Senate of Bill C-232 and subsequent proclamation into a law that will require all Supreme Court justices to be fluently bilingual in French and English will not only add additional costs but will also infringe on the rights of the majority of unilingual English Canadians.Most Canadians also find it difficult, to understand why our government would choose to host the G-20 conference in the centre of Toronto and thus create additional security costs with a budget of $1 billion. Many of us also find it difficult to understand the need for an artificial lake in Canada, where we have thousands of lakes in national parks. We hope that all this preparation to host the G-20 conference and government imposed official bilingualism will impress the world leaders but we doubt the majority of Canadians are very impressed.Ken Kellington,Moose Jaw, Sask.
Praise for tariffs
Country-of-origin labelling acts something like a tariff. It alerts consumers to products that are produced domestically and allows them to be patriotic and “Buy American” if they want. It somewhat allows them to keep the market from being overstuffed.A tariff regulates the market only, not the entire system from planting to plate. It allows the domestic economy to perform for the domestic producer and consumer first. If there is a need for outside intervention in the market, the person that controls the tariff on behalf of the regime in power and the people at that given time can reduce the tariff to allow for imports.The idea of free trade in this regard is to have schedules and books of information to try to overstuff someone’s market.Understand that the European Union, despite its big market, has ample production as well. Right now they are putting large amounts of barley into storage.What I am saying is, we don’t need free trade with the European Union. A free trade agreement, in agricultural foodstuffs especially, would just lead to putting more foodstuffs into storage and possibly more destruction of foodstuffs.There are obvious reasons for putting your own market first. Most obvious are (that) you wouldn’t eventually have anything and you wouldn’t eventually have the medium for exchange – money.Tariffs bring sustenance and freedom to the people and money in their pockets. Free trade is freedom’s enemy.Ralph Dawson,Hythe, Alta.
CWB bill explained
I would like to respond to Mr. Neufeld’s letter to the editor (“Only open marketers,” Open Forum, June 10.) Mr. Neufeld is confused about Bill C-27 and its changes for the future operation of the Canadian Wheat Board. The bill is short and has two main provisions: that producers will receive their payments faster; and a change that ensures that active producers are the ones voting in the CWB elections. Both provisions are supported by the CWB.The new legislation does not add other large producers to the voters’ list. Producers of rye, flax, oats, rapeseed and canola have always been eligible to vote in CWB elections. The amendments would require producers to have produced at least 40 tonnes of grain in the year of an election or in either of the previous two crop years.When an independent panel was asked to bring forward recommendations to reform the CWB election process, the panel recommended the modest 40 tonne threshold because they said they wanted to ensure that smaller producers still had the opportunity to vote.These are simple changes that are supported by farmers, industry and the CWB. Our Conservative government is listening to real farmers and is responding with practical legislation.David Anderson,MP, Cypress Hills-Grasslands,
