Ag research
To the Editor:
Several articles appeared in your Jan. 9 issue of the Western Producer concerning the research programs of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. These articles could leave certain ideas and impressions with your readers that are simply not supported by the facts of the realities of how we conduct our research to support the agri-food industry.
First, the reporter indicates that there have been reductions to research programs in the department. This is true in the same way that all government programs were reviewed in preparation for the 1995 federal budget and reductions were made in many programs to aid in deficit reduction.
Read Also
Topsy-turvy precipitation this year challenges crop predictions
Rainfall can vary dramatically over a short distance. Precipitation maps can’t catch all the deviations, but they do provide a broad perspective.
However, it is simply not true that “$18 million and perhaps much more (is) scheduled to follow the year after.” There are no such cuts planned to the department’s budget for research at this time.
One of the articles also indicates that the department’s research mission is veering away from a focus on fundamental research, into short-term near-market activities. The research activities of the department run a continuum from fundamental, public good research to the development of products that keep Canada’s agri-food industry competitive.
The Matching Investment Initiative (MII), referred to in your article, does encourage industry to fund, in partnership with the department, near-market research, enabling the department to protect a significant budget for longer-term fundamental research.
However, it is worth noting that some of the MII funding is, in fact, being used by the grain industry in western Canada to increase our long-term wheat breeding program. In total, including industry contributions, the spending on agri-food research is due to increase by the year 2000. To our knowledge, we are the only department which, at this time of cuts, has injected such significant new money into R&D as that contained in the MII Program.
The article goes on to say that the department is firing permanent scientists and taking on “young and learning” scientists for the terms of matching projects under the MII. Under the 1995 federal budget, the Research Branch reduced its work force in research areas determined to be lower priority.
Under the MII, new term employees, mostly technical staff, are being brought in to work on high-priority projects for the agri-food industry to assist it to remain competitive.
Where a scientific and technical match could be found, affected employees were given the opportunity to work on MII projects.
The consolidation of research activities, while painful, has produced a national research network better able to meet the needs of the Canadian agri-food industry.
It is believed that a balance of fundamental research and near-market activities will help Canadian farmers remain competitive.
– Peter Hall, A/Director
General Strategies and Planning,
Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
U.S. market
To the Editor:
I have to smile at some of the letters that damn the CWB for just about everything. Being a beef farmer with a few hogs as well in Ontario, we bought a lot of feed grain. I cannot really comment on the wheat board but I know different people in the west who wholeheartedly endorse the board.
Maybe a lot of the dissenters are too young to remember the way the Yankee door slammed shut in 1952 at the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.
The calamity that ensued didn’t cripple the little operation my wife and I were trying to establish but it gave it a tremendous setback. Also, before there was a hog producer’s board, we would ship a load of pigs and find out a week later what we were paid and sometimes they were not slaughtered for four or five days.
The Americans may find a way to shut the grain out or may even invent a crisis, like one of our provincial ministers here suggested, to make a change if they find their market getting crowded.
– Arthur Garland,
Cargill, Ont.
Medical care
To the Editor:
Our daughter was recently diagnosed with chronically inflamed tonsils with severe scarring. This causes her to experience sore throat, stomach ache and nausea on a daily basis. Because of this, she has missed up to four days of school a week.
Our family doctor referred her to a specialist who told us she requires immediate tonsillectomy – “next week” were his exact words. However, because of cutbacks to health care, our little girl must wait until spring before she has her surgery!
Causing a little child to suffer unnecessarily for months, when a tonsillectomy could cure her now, is outrageous!
If complications set in because of the delay, she could require more extensive surgery.
We pay heavy taxes for hospital and education including the nine-percent PST. We are certainly receiving a poor return for our tax dollars! Where is our tax money going? Our health care system is being deliberately and systematically demolished. Yet, there was certainly enough money in the coffers for the Saskatchewan government to take a raise in wages!
The government’s sloughing of their responsibilities onto hospital and education boards is an underhanded scheme to divert attention from where the blame for this mismanagement belongs – squarely on the government’s shoulders!
We urge the Saskatchewan government to wake up and remedy this mess! And to do so before it’s too late.
– Fred and Monique Feist,
Wilkie, Sask.
Goodale letter
To the Editor:
An open letter to Western Canadian farmers: Is the shoe on the other foot? Let’s ask ourselves that question.
Recently Mr. Goodale has sent out a pamphlet explaining what some prairie farmers will be voting on this winter in conjunction with the barley marketing question. Some farmers, farm groups, grain company executives and even fellow MPs are screaming no fair, he’s spending taxpayer money to promote his point of view!
This raises two very important questions that we need to ask ourselves. First and foremost, where were these instant do-gooders when the previous Minister of Agriculture, Charlie Mayer, on his own accord and without any formal public debate or producer plebiscite, removed oats from the CWB jurisdiction? Also, why didn’t these self proclaimed saints utter a complaint when Mr. Mayer announced the ill-fated continental barley market? Did we forget that great political move that was so strongly supported by some of these same people who are today complaining? Remember that disruption in the U.S. malt barley market cost producers huge dollars. In fact, compare the six-row malt barley price (which is predominantly sales to the U.S.) to that price of the two-row malt barley (which is predominantly non-U.S. sales) and ask yourselves how much that blunder is still costing us. Now are we supposed to trust some of these people with our economic future?
The second question that this poses is, should a duly elected minister of the crown be entitled to his/her own point of view? Yes, the minister sent out a letter (at taxpayers expense) to notify producers that there is to be a plebiscite on barley marketing. According to the pamphlet that I read, it explained why the vote is to be held, when the vote will happen, who will vote, and what the question will be. Now it also went on to explain that according to many people in the government and industry that the issue has to be a black and white issue for farmers. So I suppose this is what really bothers some of the critics out there today, they want the gray area. They want to be self-proclaimed marketers to cherry-pick the high markets but run for government protection when markets fail.
Yes, Mr. Goodale does appear to support one point of view, but is that something to fault him for? This time we as producers are being given a chance to democratically participate, we shouldn’t expect anything more or less. As far as Mr. Goodale is concerned, like all elected people, he has to face the electorate on a regular basis. So keep your cheap, partisan, political remarks out of the grain business and save it for some election rally.
– Micheal G. W. Halyk,
Melville, Sask.
Barley beef
To the Editor:
In Mr. Goodale’s Western Grain Marketing newsletter he makes a statement: “all producers had the opportunity to let their views be known.” But, Mr. Goodale, what good is the producer’s viewpoint if you don’t listen? Barley being a negligible part of wheat board operations, and Canada being a so-called democracy, then why can’t you give farmers a choice? I have never heard any group call for the elimination of the wheat board, but only a pleading to give us a choice in marketing our barley. This is a principled freedom we are talking about.
Canadian citizens that happen to live west of the Ontario/Manitoba border are forced to live by different rules. Your all-or-nothing market option, non-binding ballot is only another bureaucratic waste of tax payers’ money.
My family and I are beef producers, and if barley producers were given the freedom to market their barley south of the border, that could bring up the price of feed barley and that would be a negative to beef producers. But that is not the issue.
We stand behind the freedom of choice not because of financial loss or gain, but because of the principle of freedom.
– Hans Visser,
Taber, Alta.
To the Editor:
The 300 words or less rule has become an irony; most writers seem to need at least twice that amount to exhaust their minds.
It was my hope that readers’ forums were for ordinary readers to express their thoughts in public in contrast to politicians and bureaucrats that we can hear day and night on the media almost 24 hours each day. … I regret that the editor can’t see it that way and treats these politicians to all the space they want.
The CWB controversy should have run its course by now and we ought to be permitted to go on to other concerns, because the Western Producer is read by many people who do not farm.
In spite of my reproof, I believe the Western Producer is the best farm weekly ever published and for variety of information, it can’t be beat!
May it stay in business for many years to come!
I can appreciate your problem if people phone in and threaten to cancel their subscriptions if you publish one more of my letters. I just want you to know that I get phone calls and letters who commend me and beg me to write more. The real problem is that the complainers go direct to you and those who support me come to address me. Too bad it has to be this way. I would assume that the Western Producer is read by more people who agree with me than those who are against me. I guess you have to be the judge on that! The best of holidays to all of you!
– Ernest J. Weser,
Laird, Sask.
CBC on beef
To the Editor:
(Copy of letter to CBC “Prime Time”) I am writing in regards to a show you aired called “Where’s the Beef?”
I was totally shocked and horrified as I watched the program unfold. It is amazing that a station such as the CBC could air such a ridiculous program at the taxpayers’ expense.
Do you realize that you have shown all would-be cattle rustlers how easy it is to steal cattle and even assured them there is very little or no chance of them getting caught, as there are only two rangers to deal with this problem in all of Alberta? Even when rustlers are caught, the ranchers have to prove that the animal is theirs and all the rustlers would get is a slap on the wrist. The people that are affected by your program promoting the rustling of their property are the very same people that have paid the way for the CBC all these years. Some thanks!
Rustling is also an excellent example as to why we must retain our firearms for the protection of our personal property. When our justice system is powerless to control this type of blight, it makes sense that we should at least be able to guard our own belongings.
It would be interesting to see a program on the farmers’ rights to protect their livestock in this manner, but would you air such a program on behalf of the farmers? I doubt it!
It is very difficult to have any sympathy towards the dismantling of the CBC when programs such as this show such blatant disregard for the concerns of rural life. I hope that the producers of this program are not so naive as to think that this type of reporting is going to be some sort of solution to the rustling problem. In fact with the benefit of the information you provided, the problem could very easily escalate. Just maybe some of your pompous fat cats should actually have to slug it out in the trenches along with the farmers.
– Mrs. M. A. Mighton,
Quesnel, B.C.
Been there
To the Editor:
A recent issue of a popular farm paper, Grainews, carried a lengthy article by the President of UGG in which he offered advice to Mr. Goodale on how to word the Barley Vote Question, advice that I hope Ralph will ignore. Of course, keeping in mind that Ted Allen is a self professed Disciple of Squawky Preston’s Reformers, who are not enthused about any form of regulation beyond that which specifies how wide the Red Carpet should be with which we welcome Corporate Interests, makes his views easy to understand. Furthermore, having regard for Conrad Black’s (Boss-man of Hollinger Inc.) being reported by Elections Canada as being quite generous to the Reform Party, sheds further light on the subject. In the same issue, Alf Bryan also takes a swing at the CWB controversy, especially in regard to Judge Gieshecht’s ruling that observance of the law is the cornerstone of a civilized society! As well, Alf strikes out at economist Ken Rosassen for his stunningly accurate description of the similarity of the Dual Marketers to the Free Riders of yesteryear’s Snow Plow Clubs (which I thought was right on!).
But what interested me most was Alf’s reference to the Voluntary Board that existed from 1935 to 1943 and which he holds up as proof that a Dual Market would work! Really? I am tempted to resort to the line of a Radio Comedian (Baron Von Munckausen) who used to ask “Vass you dere, Sharlie?” to which I personally can say “I was.” 1936 was the year that at the age of 21, I harvested my first crop. … I very well remember how 1936 and 1937 both being dry and crops short over most of the grain belt, prices recovered somewhat and the Wheat Board being pretty much a “New Kid on the Block” was at the start somewhat ignored.
But starting in 1938 with the return of normal rainfall and good crops, prices naturally headed for the cellar! Why, I could never understand. The Good Book reveals that the ancient Egyptians had sense enough not to willfully throw away the periodic bounties of Mother Nature, storing them instead to have in times of need, which as we all know invariably re-occur. At any rate, suddenly the Board’s guaranteed initial payment looked pretty good and with no delivery regulations yet in effect, the Board was literally swamped and with a sluggish export market to try to dispose of it in.
This I submit had more to do than anything else with the Board being provided with mandatory Single Desk powers, along with delivery allocation authority by means of the quota system. No doubt the need for an assured supply of food and feed grains for the War effort were also a factor, but the obvious fact that given the vagaries of human nature, a voluntary board just could not work was the main reason. And I sure don’t see human nature having changed much or if it has, it certainly hasn’t been for the better!
– Philip Lindenback,
Weekes, Sask.
Barley trade
To the Editor:
(1) Free Trade or a brain twister? It has gone beyond common sense! Andy McMechan was in leg-irons for selling grain over the U.S. Canada border. Was the grain boot-legged? Does Free Trade call for leg-irons for the participants? I think not! Now some people want free movement of labor between the U.S. and Canada. Will labor be in chain-gangs? And what about Mexican labor? They want to move north under NAFTA. Then some want Global Trade. Do we put them in leg-irons too?
(2) Feed barley to Japan? Why not? Barley is a good human food. Much better than snakes and frogs, as they eat in some Asian countries. We have always used some barley in our diet. The only reason that it was fed to animals was because we had too much of it! Sorry cows, you get less barley and more hay. It is better that way!
Oh yes – what is Mr. Goodale going to do for the snowed-under crops? There will be a lot of hardship in Northern Canada, a real disaster for many!
– Paul Kuric,
Vega, Alta.
BSE update
To the Editor:
Now that dark nights and winter is upon us, now is a good time for an update on our BSE problems from the ground level. I mentioned winter, for many cattle farmers it must have felt like winter in their minds since March 20, 1996, when BSE made its greatest impact on our industry.
Since March 20, the slaughter of cull cows and over 30 months of age cattle has reached 55,000 head per week; dairy breed bull calves also slaughtered from Dec. 1, 1996; and beef breed bull calves will also join the Great Kill. Livestock prices hit rock bottom, but now for some weeks, prices are on the rise with stories of a shortage of beef.
For well over 20 farmers, rising prices have come too late, unable to find somewhere to turn, unable to find that light at the end of the tunnel, let down by a Government with a Minister of Agriculture running around like a headless chicken, let down by our National Farmers Union, who were asked by the Government to hold back on the pressure as it might bring down the Government.
For the aforementioned farmers, time ran out, falling incomes, unable to foresee the future, they closed the door of farming for the last time and turned out the light of life.
As for myself, I have always held the view that if one door shuts another will open. With that view in mind, I look upon the end of 1996 with delight and an open mind for 1997. After this tale of woe, I still wish all your readers a very Merry Christmas and an even better New Year, and may all your problems be smaller than mine.
– George H. Wilson,
Exeter, Devon, England
Dairy facts
To the Editor:
As a team of Registered Dietitians, we are committed to ensuring that the public receives accurate information regarding nutrition, health and food safety. On this basis, we felt that we should respond to information that was published in the “Lifeline” column entitled “Alternative treatments for breast cancer” which appeared in the Nov. 21 edition of The Western Producer. This column contained dietary recommendations regarding milk and milk products that are inaccurate and misleading.
Canadian milk products are a safe, wholesome and nutritious part of a healthy diet. In fact, recent research suggests that consumption of milk and milk products, such as yogurt and cheese, is linked to a reduced risk of high blood pressure, dental caries and certain forms of cancer. In addition, milk and milk products play an important role in promoting bone health throughout life.
For these reasons, the majority of health professionals support the inclusion of milk in the diet. For example, organizations including Health Canada, the Canadian Pediatric Society, the Osteoporosis Society of Canada, and the Canadian Cancer Society recommend including milk and milk products as part of a balanced diet.
Research suggests that consumer interest in nutrition, health, and food safety in Canada is currently at an all-time high. Fortunately, we live in a country where this interest is supported by a strong regulatory system that protects the safety of our food supply. In fact, the Canadian regulatory and monitoring system for foods is among the best in the world. As a result, all Canadians can rest assured that the foods they consume are both safe and nutritious.
Healthy eating is the result of informed choices regarding foods. Given the critical link between nutrition and overall health, these choices should be based on fact, not speculation or personal opinion. Our well-being is too important to be based on anything else.
– Heidi M. Bates, Registered Dietitians of the Dairy
Nutrition Council of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alta.
Help airline
To the Editor:
It’s really no wonder the Federal Government is so far in debt when you look at their reasoning. The problem with Canadian Airlines really points to the root of the problem.
Buzz Hargrove made sense when he pointed out that if the Airline goes down, the Government will lose about $400 million, and as I see it, this would just be the start of the loss. No money would be coming in, but UI payments would be going out. I imagine there would also be welfare payments going out to many of the people in the lower income brackets.
Now if they kept collecting the $400 million, they could well afford to loan the Airline the $100 million suggested by Hargrove. I would think that we as taxpayers would be much better off collecting the $300 million than collecting nothing and paying out to boot.
The Media, the Government and the company are all blaming the CAW for the problem, but the employees have already given three times and they are back for more with no guarantee that this will save the airline and they won’t be back for more in 1998 or ’99.
They are implying the employees would be better off with 90 percent of their wages than nothing. Why not give them 100 percent of their wages and loan back some of the money the employees would be paying in income tax, UI and pension benefits, instead of cutting the fuel tax to the Airlines?
– J. B. Forrest,
Saanichton, B.C.
Keep CWB
To the Editor:
As a farmer, I want to keep the CWB and single-desk selling. In talking to other farmers, they are of the same opinion.
Sure, there are things that need to be changed and improved to make the system work better. That’s fine, change will improve the way it works, but don’t destroy the CWB.
– Lee Ann Tessier,
Birch Hills, Sask.
Havana handout
To the Editor:
No doubt some of you have heard of the latest government handout to the tune of $35 million. Apparently Canada is footing the bill for the construction of a new airport terminal in Havana, Cuba. … How many more of these “handouts” to the tune of millions of hard-earned tax money leave the country every year without anyone realizing the consequences?
The consequences? Simple. more deficit for generations to come. But there’s a point of light at the end of the tunnel. Someday when you get off the plane in Havana, you may receive a free cigar. I know, I don’t smoke either! Happy New Year!
– John. J. Hamon,
Gravelbourg, Sask.
Unity vote
To the Editor:
With the prospect of yet another Quebec referendum and a federal election looming, Canadians can seize an opportunity to take the nation’s future into their own hands by pressuring the federal government to hold a national referendum on indivisibility. …
Canada is our country. The question of indivisibility is for Canadians to decide in a national referendum, not for the StŽphane Dions to prejudge. Until then, the federal government cannot claim that they have a mandate to prepare for the legal breakup of the country.
… Canada is the “real” country, Quebec is not. After a nation-wide majority in favor of indivisibility, Canada can join other major indivisible world democracies and so compound Quebec’s problems at the international level. Surely, Canada’s will should prevail over any “yes” Quebec plebiscite.
If an indivisibility referendum achieves a double majority in Quebec, such a constitutional amendment might even be entrenched. Could Quebec be convinced? The federal government would have to display a full deck of cards, which I doubt they will; all the more reason for Canadians to insist upon it.
In last February’s unity throne speech, all Canadians were promised a say in the future of their country.
Therefore, one mantra approaching the next federal election should be: an indivisibility referendum beforehand. If not, a second mantra will take its place: “Anything But Liberal.”
– J. Rennie,
Montreal, P. Q.
Co-op spirit
To the Editor:
A few months ago I attended a meeting in Meyronne where four gentlemen were discussing the pros and cons of the current proposal to sell government-owned grain cars to the railways.
In earlier times, my father hauled many loads of grain to Meyronne, a distance of 24 miles. He made as many as three trips a week, each trip taking two days. Mom was home alone with a small family and livestock to care for while Dad endured those long cold trips. There was a transportation problem then.
Eighty years later, we are again faced with an even more serious transportation problem. Then the country was young, they were building towards a future when an infrastructure would be in place and life would be easier. We have that infrastructure in place but the present situation doesn’t suit the powers that be. We are told we have to change, we must give away or tear down our present system and we must reinvest in a new system.
Eighty years ago my father hauled all his wheat to the line companies who sold it through the Winnipeg Grain Exchange.
He had a friend who was a grain buyer for a grain company. When the Pool was formed, he became a Pool buyer. He told my father that when he began to work for the Pool, he felt as though he had died and gone to heaven. Finally he could give a farmer a fair shake, previously he was expected to steal all he could as was the mentality of the grain trade of the time. Another great improvement for my father was when the Canadian Wheat Board began to operate and modified some of the worst practices of the open market.
They say times have changed, there is a global economy, we must be competitive. Some things remain the same, greed is still with us. The powerful still want more power. The powerful are still careless in the exercise of their power. People are still hurt.
Does the employee of the Wheat Pool have the same attitude as that of my father’s friend? Some do, there are still many fair-minded people, but it is rather obvious that the mentality of the head office has changed in a dramatic way. In-house trading of Class B shares was offered to all employees of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.
I have no objection to employees having an opportunity to invest in their place of employment. However, they were offered an interest-free loan and are required to pay only 75 percent of the principle back.
Farmers were not offered the same deal. It has become increasingly obvious that the Pool, under its present leadership, considers farmers merely grist for their mill. The company has become more important than the farmer.
I would like to commend the journalists of the Western Producer. I consider that the Western Producer has done an excellent job of presenting both sides of controversial subjects. They also proved their professional integrity when they refrained from purchasing Pool shares.
I was disappointed at the Meyronne meeting. There was no real discussion about the very real threat to the very existence of large areas of our farming community because of transportation problems. There seemed to be no vision for the future. There is no plan in place, rather we are expected to accept whatever comes our way.
My father, and others like him, thought there must be a better way. They had this crazy idea that they were all in this situation together and they should pull together.
They believed in equal opportunity for all, not preferred opportunity for a select few. I am of the opinion that where there is a will there is a way! …
Over-regulation can become a tyrant, but no regulation is a recipe for disaster. Anyone who has looked at the railway system of western Canada must realize that it was not designed or regulated to serve our needs. It does not have to be that way! Only a few miles of new roadbed would in many cases save hundreds of miles of back haul. The railways don’t care how far our grain is moved. They simply recover their costs. It is much the same situation with the grain companies. It is time to insist on something better. …
– J. Leslie Wilson,
Assiniboia, Sask.
