Fire Bouchard

To the Editor:

On Oct. 30, many Canadians will be watching the outcome of the Quebec Referendum with great interest.

Should the “no” side (federalists) be successful, Prime Minister Jean ChrŽtien will undoubtedly continue to allow opposition leader Lucien Bouchard to rant and rave about Quebec separation in the House of Commons.

This is of great concern to the majority of Canadians. I for one find it very annoying that Bouchard is allowed to be leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in the first place, given that his only concern is separation!

Read Also

Producers face the reality of shifting grain price expectations

Significant price shifts have occurred in various grains as compared to what was expected at the beginning of the calendar year. Crop insurance prices can be used as a base for the changes.

He shows no interest or concern for the other nine provinces.

It is my opinion that Preston Manning, leader of the Reform Party of Canada, should immediately assume his place as leader of the official opposition. Then we as Canadians can get on with more pressing issues like criminal justice reform and tackling the country’s out-of-control debt.

All interested and concerned Canadians should let the Prime Minister know how they feel about this issue.

Let him know that you disapprove of Bouchard remaining official opposition leader after Oct. 30.

-Fay Kalischuk,

Drayton Valley, Alta.

Canadien legacy

To the Editor:

It is refreshing to see Jessie Sargent’s letter (Forum Oct. 5) with a positive attitude towards Canada’s French heritage.

In contrast, Ms. Maclean (Sept. 7, responding to “Bilingual heritage,” July 27), denounces French-language legislation. Disliking my pointed comment that complainers might rather be Americans, she validates my statement by citing the U.S.A. as a model of unilingualism.

Also, she says South America is a unilingual model. There’s the problem; looking elsewhere for solutions.

And, of all places, American countries, violators of basic human rights!

Another problem: For 200 years, Francophones have heard this sort of negative stuff. No sooner was a democratic, albeit basic piece of legislation re language signed than some group or faction was opposing it. Too many newcomers over more than a century have identified with these negative forces.

The other problem: It is impossible to dialogue with people who overtly or covertly wish French Canadians had been deported. Where? My ancestors were born “Canadiens” since the early 1600s.

It is historically correct that Britain was happy to have the French colony of Canada after losing their American colonies to Independence in 1776.

Another problem: Many don’t seem to realize that the foundation for many freedoms enjoyed by those who came later happened in the mother province of Quebec, through struggle and legislation, i.e. Religious Freedom Quebec Act, 1774.

Then in a recent letter (Forum, Sept. 28), S. Makaroff complains about the natives. Again, free land was available because of peaceful treaties. Even if homesteaders worked hard, where else was such a paradise?

Many who came here after all these struggles and negotiations had been made came from countries where little more than “serf” status existed and unfortunately oppression reigned.

There has to be an attitude change. You can’t keep condemning historic solutions which directly or indirectly allowed you to enjoy the benefits thereof.

-Therese Lefebvre Prince,

Yorkton, Sask.

CWB bias?

To the Editor:

Your full-page opinion from Bill Morriss on “Anti-Board Pamphlet” shows a true ignorance and arrogance on behalf of this paper.

For my opinion, a newspaper should be non-biased in its reporting of facts but this article is without rebuttal.

As a farmer the Wheat Board denies one the right to sell what I produce to whom I choose, even to my neighbor. I think this is a communist mentality.

In today’s economy, farmers can market their crops with computers instead of horse and buggy. The price the board offers to me for wheat that I produce is three dollars a bushel, less than I could receive by marketing my wheat to the private sector. That’s $200,000. I think I’m being robbed blind legally and that stinks.

The Dinosaur Wheat Board will die if there’s dual marketing? Well, maybe we should pull the plug and see.

-Brad Hearn,

Etzikom, Alta.

For freedom?

To the Editor:

Are you in favor of having freedom? These are the opening words of the two questions that Alberta farmers will have a chance to answer this fall in the provincial government’s plebiscite on the Canadian Wheat Board.

Since no red-blooded member of western culture can say no to freedom, it is obvious which way the authors of these questions would like us to vote.

If what they really want is a true understanding of where Alberta farmers are on this issue, why use such emotionally charged wording?

Personally, I feel that the use of such a hard-sell technique limits our freedom – the freedom to make a rational decision about an important issue, the freedom to understand the facts of the situation without the influence of outsiders trying to further their own political agenda.

And make no mistake about it, the Alberta government is an outsider; the future of the Board is a matter for farmers and the federal government to resolve.

If you are in favor of freedom, vote in the upcoming plebiscite.

If you are in favor of having the freedom to continue to use an institution that has served us for 60 years, say no.

If you are in favor of having the freedom to stand together with your neighbors in the markets of the world, say no.

If you are in favor of having the freedom to deal with an agency that is committed to acting on your behalf and returning the profits to you, say no.

If you are in favor of having the freedom to allow the continued existence of the small family farm as we know it, you know what you have to do.

-Brett & Desiree Garrison,

Calmar, Alta.