Alliance supports ag
I take great exception to your editorial on June 7 titled “Alliance is letting supporters down.”
In this editorial you stated that the Canadian Alliance has ignored agriculture. Nothing could be further from the truth. The pro-Liberal stance of this article will do nothing to help western Canadian farmers.
You failed to mention our efforts to force the government to deliver an additional $400 million in emergency help.
We forced an all-day debate and a vote in the House of Commons on March 20 that was defeated when Liberal MPs followed the will of the Prime Minister instead of what was in the best interest of their constituents.
Read Also
Kochia has become a significant problem for Prairie farmers
As you travel through southern Saskatchewan and Alberta, particularly in areas challenged by dry growing conditions, the magnitude of the kochia problem is easy to see.
Your editorial stated that we have asked a few questions in the House of Commons. You are purposefully understating the facts and misleading your readers. Since the opening of this session of Parliament in February, we have delivered almost 100 statements and questions on agriculture, making agriculture one of the top five issues raised during the daily question period.
Our questions have ranged in topics from the ongoing farm income crisis, the Liberal’ s backdoor attempts to circumvent supply management tariffs, the foot-and-mouth crisis, the drought in many parts of the Prairies, as well as supporting our organic farmers.
Your editorial team has completely ignored our efforts to force the government to increase their response to the foot-and-mouth disease threat. It is in large part due to our efforts that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has begun public hearings in rural Canada explaining the roles of all livestock industry stakeholders in the event of an outbreak.
These are just a few examples of our efforts. It is your editorial team that is focused on leadership issues, not the Canadian Alliance Agriculture Critics.
We have been doing our job. Your comments are intended to misstate the facts and mislead your readers. I challenge all of your subscribers to check the official record of the House of Commons (Hansard) to determine if you or I am presenting the facts accurately.
– Howard Hilstrom,
MP (Selkirk-Interlake),
Chief Agriculture Critic,
Canadian Alliance,
Ottawa, Ont.
Tides are turning
You know I read this editorial (Barry Wilson, May 17) and I am disheartened because of the content. I say that because I was raised on a farm and hate the way the tides are turning.
I do in a way agree with what is said but there is something else that should be remembered. It started as the family farm and many, including myself, feel that it should be thought of that way.
I was raised on the farm and still have close ties to my brother who is on the farm. I personally would not want to be on the farm anymore but that is because of the 1980s and the despair that there was at that time.
I am disappointed at the way agriculture is looked at today. It has to be a business not a family farm. Does it not matter if that land has been in your family for 100 years?…
I understand what the government is talking about but what do they really think that they will accomplish? There is already a high unemployment rate in Canada and with the added ex-farm labors and farmers, where will the extra jobs come from?
Farming? I think not, as they are wanting to do away with the farming and establish corporations.
I would like to know if the government thinks that a lot of the farmers would go work for the corporations that have taken over their farmland?
From what I know of farmers, I think there is far too much pride to degrade themselves to working for someone who has put them out of business. As a family farm is still a business but a matter of pride also….
I don’ t know about the rest of the people but I don’ t see the big corporations putting the grub on the table.
I see them providing the cash to buy the goods but if there is nobody to produce the goods, what good is the money?
It seems to me to be like a lot of the old Communist societies where people were happy that they had money, no matter that they had nothing to buy with the money they had.
People in Canada seem to like to complain that the price of things are way too high. It seems to me that if everything has to be imported or bought from corporations, the price is going to be much higher.
If you went to a farmer to buy a half a beef, you would get it for a reasonable price in most cases but what if you went to a corporation to buy the same meat?
A better suggestion is that if agriculture is not so important, go to buy a beef or sheep carcass in England or in Europe someplace. I would think that with the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Europe that Canada would start to see the importance of agriculture in Canada and how precious that it really is.
I don’ t know how to impress it on the general public, other than to have the price reach an exorbitant price and have them realize that they were wrong, but then by that time it is too late.
– Kent LaCoste,
Weyburn, Sask.
Priorities
Re: Appeal by Sask Energy and the increase in the railway revenue cap.
Wouldn’ t it be nice to have a rate review committee for agricultural producers?
If we did, producers could say, “we don’ t want to raise prices, but we can’ t help it – our costs have gone up. We have to pass those costs on to consumers or we will lose money.”
In a spring like this one, where the price of nitrogen fertilizer has shot up by over 60 percent since last year, who wouldn’ t want to have this excuse?
Unfortunately, unlike crown corporations and railway companies, producers have no control over the price of what they produce. If our costs go up, we have to absorb them, no matter how outrageous the increase might be.
Meat, bread and vegetables taste a lot better than natural gas and railway steel. It is too bad that producing them leaves farmers with a bitter taste in their mouths.
It is time that society got its priorities straight. Food, along with water and air, is a necessity for life.
– Terry Hildebrandt,
President, Agricultural
Producers Association
of Saskatchewan,
White City, Sask.
Eco-network
I am writing in response to your article on May 24, “Manitoba funds environment lobby.”
While we are grateful for the coverage, I would like to correct any misinterpretations that may arise from it.
First, the headline itself is questionable. Manitoba Eco-Network is not an environment lobby. Rather, as the article notes, we are a network of non-governmental organizations around the province.
Our member groups cover a vast range of issues – from forestry to waste reduction, to energy issues, agriculture, parks and wilderness, urban habitat, and everything in between.
Our mandate is to facilitate communications between the member groups, and provide information and referrals to the general public, media, government, etc. Our second mandate is to provide public education on environmental issues, to which end we undertake a variety of projects, often in conjunction with member groups.
Thus, we have indeed co-ordinated conferences on organic agriculture (the Organic Producers Association of Manitoba has been a long-time member group), and we are embarking on a research project in conjunction with Hogwatch, another member group.
We have also carried out projects on environmental chemicals and cancer, organic lawn care, environmental assessment, sustainable communities, publishing the Green Guide to Winnipeg, producing environmental videos, and many more.
In short, our interests are very broad – much broader than farming issues – and we are not a “special interest that fights farmers” as Mr. Penner seems to think.
Neither are we necessarily an “opponent of development.”
Rather, we are most interested in development which is truly sustainable, and which is undertaken with due respect for the various legal processes which are meant to ensure that this is the case.
Sure, environment groups, and the thousands of Manitobans they represent, don’ t always agree with government, but enabling improved public participation in environmental decision-making, which is what this grant ultimately will do, can only serve to broaden the debate and ensure that results are more satisfying to the community at large….
– Anne Lindsey,
Executive Director,
Manitoba Eco-Network,
Winnipeg, Man.
Farmers’ interests
Further to his letter to your paper on June 7, I would like to assure Howard Hilstrom that the CWB is run in the interests of farmers. The CWB is led by directors, two-thirds of whom are elected farmers. We are the only organization that is elected by the producers of Western Canada.
With that legitimacy comes responsibility. It is our duty to make changes that meet farmers’ needs and we have responded with several major changes.
For instance, we’ ve implemented new pricing options, invited the Auditor General to review the CWB’ s operations, and developed ways to further enhance value-added processing in Canada while continuing to meet farmer returns.
The CWB sells grain into the premium domestic market at transparent prices that are North American-based. It provides marketing support in the form of technological assistance, supply assurance, flexible farmer delivery opportunities, quality control, risk management tools and forward pricing.
The CWB’ s efforts have contributed to the development of a Canadian processing industry that is currently growing more quickly than in the U.S.
We now have 48 mills in Canada grinding more than three million tonnes of wheat annually, and 11 of those mills have either been built or expanded in the last three years.
At the same time, nine mills have closed in the U.S. As a result, we now have more wheat and barley processing capacity on a per capita basis than the U.S.
Perhaps Mr. Hilstrom would be better advised to lecture Americans that open marketing is damaging their value-added processing sector.
– Ken Ritter,
Chair, CWB Board of Directors,
Kindersley, Sask.
Review policies
The federal government’ s recent announcement that the current policy on agriculture will be reviewed in an effort to reduce farmer dependence on government support payments warrants discussion.
Farmers are encouraged that the federal government has taken notice of western Canadian agriculture is an industry with major problems.
The less than encouraging part is that the federal government has not acknowledged the fact that its own agriculture policies have failed the entire industry.
Contrary to the image portrayed by the federal government, including the (agriculture) minister, today’ s farmers approach agriculture as a business, and therefore have, and will, continue to change their operations to take advantage of specialization and diversification ventures which offer an opportunity for profit.
All too often it has been government-legislated rules which have denied farmers the opportunity to gain a profit from the marketplace.
Grain transportation is one example of federal government action denying an improved return to farmers on grain and oilseed production (some $228 million).
In 1997, the federal government commissioned Justice (Willard) Estey to examine the grain transportation system. When the recommendations were published, it was calculated by the Prairie Farm Commodity Coalition that resulting cost reductions would return $300 million annually to farmers.
The government responded by passing grain transportation legislation in June 2000, reducing railway revenue.
The new legislation ignored all of Justice Estey’ s recommendations, while continuing to maintain a system which responds to rules and formulas instead of the market place.
The greatest fear farmers have is that the government’ s blueprint for Canadian agriculture will result in more stifling regulations and added costs while maintaining costly and redundant regulations.
As a first step in rethinking the approach to Canadian agriculture, it is of utmost importance that all policies be reviewed.
– Albert J. Wagner,
President, Western Barley Growers Association,
Airdrie, Alta.
Naming youth
If a local youth under age 19 commits a crime, even murder, and isn’ t raised to adult court, I must attend court to learn his identity.
Yet a 14-year-old girl ousted from her 4-H club for missing a few meetings has her name right there in the article, for all of Canada to read.
Young offenders aren’ t named so their misdeeds won’ t shadow their adult life. Wouldn’ t it be fitting to talk of the 14-year-old’ s ouster without naming her?
– Claudette Sandecki,
Terrace, B.C.
Good grasp
Your editorial of June 7 titled “Alliance is letting supporters down” has caused me some concern. As a farm partner in Saskatchewan, I’ m quite confident I have a good grasp on the issues of importance in agriculture today and I can state comfortably that the Alliance has been very active on agriculture matters this past session in the House of Commons.
Since the session began back in late January, we have posed nearly 100 statements and questions on everything from the farm income crisis to foot-and-mouth disease to organic farming to chronic wasting disease to drought.
We held an all-day debate calling for an additional $400 million in emergency aid for farmers which the Liberals defeated. Our Agriculture Committee activities have been no less active.
In terms of the foot-and-mouth crisis itself, it was largely through the efforts of the Alliance that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency undertook public hearings in rural Canada and began their information campaign we’ ve all seen on television recently. To suggest the Canadian Alliance has been letting its supporters down is simply not the case….
As an MP and a farm partner, I can guarantee you that I raise the concerns of farmers at every opportunity while I’ m in Ottawa.
– Carol Skelton,
MP, Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar,
Harris, Sask.
High costs
So Monsignor Chrétien intends to fix the farm income problems by hiring a bunch of bureaucrats to create tough new environmental regulations and food safety plans. Did they solve Bombardier’ s problems with strict environmental regulations and tough new labor laws?
They also are telling farmers to diversify and create value-adding enterprises. Maybe they should instruct the Canadian Wheat Board to allow farmers the freedom to add value to their production without having to pay a ransom to the CWB.
A real example of what’ s wrong with farmers’ income is the huge escalation in the cost of production. Some recent house cleaning uncovered some records from 1984:
A new 24-foot pull-type swather cost $6,550, now maybe $30,000; 46-0-0 (was) $250 per tonne, now $485; fuel (was) 31 cents per litre, now 53 cents.
Most parts and machinery cost about one-third of today’ s price. Wheat in 1984, No. 3 Canadian Red Spring initial price (was) $3.97 per bushel, today (it is) $2.23.
We are expected to accept the lowest international price for our grain while paying the highest made in Canada price for inputs.
When our health-care workers and teachers and government employees demand higher wages, maybe we should tell them to diversify and get another job. When our illustrious MPs in Ottawa want to raise their own compensation, maybe they should get an extra job.
The railroads, the banks and oil companies are making obscene profits, a lot of it at the farmers’ expense.
Food processors and food chains are making huge profits. Consumers are paying a small fraction of their income on food. A lot of this good fortune is at the expense of the primary producer.
– Roger Brandl,
Fort St. John, B.C.
