Unwanted mail
We all get junk mail. More than we like. But when junk mail propaganda sponsored by Shirley McClellan, Deputy Premier of Alberta and Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, pollutes my mail box it makes me angry. I’m referring to an 11-page pamphlet entitled Choice Matters (paid for by my tax dollars) that is an insult to every intelligent bona fide grain farmer in the province.
It is trying to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board’s single desk selling option … something farmers have voted to keep because they understand the value of the Wheat Board as a single desk selling agent.
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?
That is something (Alberta) Premier (Ralph) Klein and some of his cabinet seem unable to understand.
The Klein government’s drive to destroy the real usefulness of the Canadian Wheat Board makes one wonder who they are depending on for their information. Could it be from those affiliated with the multinational grain companies that stand to benefit greatly if the Canadian Wheat Board no longer has its single desk selling option?
Yes. There could be a few producers in niche situations who might actually benefit for a short time from the marketing choices promoted by the government, but Shirley McClellan and her cohorts have obviously missed the point that taking away the wheat board’s single desk selling policy will result in an anomaly from which only a very few will ever benefit.
– Mary Burpee,
Hughenden, Alta.
Triple S
On page 78 of the May 8 edition there is an article on the cow that was not tested for BSE at the “Texas Lonestar Beef Plant.” The article is headlined “Failure to test sick cow a mistake.” I would strongly suggest the article would be more appropriately headlined “Shoot, shovel and shut up.”
– Jack Chalmers,
Calgary, Alta.
Corp. supremacy
Re: Packers Defy Request for Information (WP, May 13).
I found it absolutely astonishing that (Conservative party leader) Stephen Harper would have his minions on the House of Commons agriculture committee vote down a motion to levy fines of $250,000 per day against packing companies for each day they refused to provide information as directed by Parliament.
The companies were directed to produce financial records to prove they were not reaping excess profits during the BSE crisis.
They were found in contempt of Parliament for their refusal to comply.
A parliamentary order has the force of law – how else can Parliament reign supreme?
By not backing Parliament on this issue, it seems to me that Mr. Harper and the Conservative members of the agriculture committee are willing to accept the supremacy of corporations over our Parliament. And the man wants to be Prime Minister. Go figure.
– Don Scott,
Garrick, Sask.
Health effects
We live one mile from a 2,000 hog barn.
There are a total of seven barns totalling approximately 84,000 hogs in a four-mile radius. All this is in our backyard. If you think our health isn’t suffering – think again.
Three of my neighbours have the same symptoms as we have.
One of my neighbours is worse off – she just underwent surgery for sinus problems. Her doctor believes it is a consequence of living close to the hog barns. She never had these problems before the barns were built.
This isn’t coincidence. It is real. Numerous studies have been done regarding health issues surrounding factory hog operations with the same results.
The symptoms include eye, nose and throat irritation, hoarseness, cough, sinus problems, headaches and dizziness.
This is exactly what we are experiencing. When will the government start listening to its taxpayers? Money seems to be more important than health.
– Gislain, Sylvianne andJeremie Tardif,
Girouxville, Alta.
Stooping low
Canadian border closing has nothing to do with food safety.
… I am an Alberta cattle feeder who has bought thousands of top quality feeder cattle from Montana over the past few years.
My family is from the U.S., I attended university in the U.S. and I have always had a great deal of love and respect for my American neighbours and the American way.
However, many Americans are crossing the line between good business and unethical behaviour with respect to situations with our current cattle market.
Is it ethical for members of R-CALF and Montana Stock Growers Association, who are openly opposing the importation of Canadian fat cattle, which they say is unsafe and a health risk, to be up here buying feeder calves in anticipation of the border opening?
Canadian beef has an excellent reputation of being premium quality.
R-CALF and the Montana Stock Growers Association cannot compete in the cattle industry on a level playing field, so instead of working harder to improve their operations they whine to the government about how unsafe and unwholesome Canadian beef is, saying imports of beef from Canada should be restricted or curtailed.
Right now our market has hit rock bottom. These hypocrites can buy these cattle much cheaper in Canada than they can in the U.S.A. because of our market collapse, which has been enhanced by the protectionist philosophy of R-CALF and its members.
So they are capitalizing on our weak situation that they have promoted and helped create….
In the near future I hope to be able to resume buying feeder cattle from Montana, but I can assure you that I will not be buying feeder cattle from any R-CALF member or a member of the Montana Stock Growers Association as I do not like doing business with people who have no sense of fair play or moral value. …
In short, keeping the American border closed to Canadian cattle has everything to do with protectionism and politics, and nothing to do with food safety.
– Grant C. Nelson,
Stirling, Alta.
CAIS flaws
I have given some serious consideration to this new CAIS (Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization) program.
Since this is going to be our new program, let’s try to make it user friendly ….
I will refer to your program handbook, page 8 reference margin is $100,000. Producers can select a protection level of 70 percent to 92 percent, which require a deposit of $14,000-$22,000. Later we received a partial deposit option requiring a one-third deposit of $4,667-$7,334, with a three-year time limit to have on deposit the full amount.
… I would like to choose maximum protection, but because of my financial position I feel I can only choose the lowest protection available. If I do this I know that leaves me in a very vulnerable position.
Question? To whose benefit is it for me to have anywhere from $14,000-$22,000 on deposit. …
It will cost me money. I will likely have carry that much extra in my operating loan, therefore increasing the amount of interest I have to pay each month. It stifles my ability to pay bills or upgrade machinery.
It is a hardship that I feel forced into in case there is a serious loss because of BSE, drought, floods, frost, and the list goes on….
Some suggestions from my point of view: (1) I don’t see why a farmer should keep money on deposit at all. He should be able to choose at what level he wants to participate and then put funds in when there is need, the same as the government is choosing to do.
(2) Have all deposits be eligible as a tax deductible expense, and all withdrawals as taxable income.
(3) … Make the program flexible. Say a producer must maintain a minimum of a $500 on deposit but can deposit up to 100 percent of his chosen reference margin. That he can choose to deposit or withdraw any amount within those margins. This would enable him to even out the highs and lows of his operation as we face ever changing circumstances.
(4) … Make this CAIS program user friendly. …
– Lyle Chase,
Roblin, Man.
David’s dreams
I feel I must reply to the letter of David Sawkiw of April 8, 2004. I wonder where he finds Utopia in living in Saskatchewan. I have lived here in Saskatchewan since 1963, not from choice, but because I was transferred here.
David mentions free health care; maybe he better check what we pay in hidden taxes for so called free health care.
Why didn’t he mention the huge waiting lists for medical treatment – I know because I waited just over two years for a knee replacement.
David mentioned free education – why did we have to pay for university education? We do have lower electrical, natural gas and telephone than some provinces, but far from the lowest in Canada. Liquor and cigarettes – I don’t care about prices because they are not necessities.
Alberta’s prices are much lower. Vehicle insurance is lower – but persons responsible and not made to pay – all of us are assessed. What cloud was David riding on because our highways are a disgrace compared to our neighbouring provinces. Lowest PST – it just went up another one percent – Alberta has no PST.
Fuel is substantially lower in neighbouring provinces. I don’t frequent casinos as I work too hard for my money to fritz it away. Best air? How, with all the pollution from chemicals?
Forestry, bus service, social services, tourism – I have been to all provinces except the Maritimes and all appear similar.
Hog farms – air and water polluters. Housing is cheap here, only because our economy is stagnant. David better travel outside our province with an open mind and he will change his thinking.
I sure would like to have David’s dream.
– Ed Arndt,
Wadena, Sask.
