Best interests
Well, the World Trade Organization talks and negotiations have ended with an apparent deal in the making. One may well ask, “what’s in it for us?” and “what did we have to lose to get it?”
Among other things, we will lose the government guarantee on Canadian Wheat Board sales.
Also the government would lose its ability to authorize the sale of grain to other countries on credit. In addition, farm aid packages will come under attack.
In exchange we are to see paths set out that would see export subsidies eliminated, trade distorting agricultural subsidies cut and tariff barriers come down.
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.
In response to this, I have three questions. What is the time frame for these reductions? To what extent will these trade distorting subsidies be reduced and can we trust these countries to stick to their word?
If one looks back at the North American Free Trade Agreement, the chances of these countries following the spirit of the deal are little to none.
I think Bob Friesen, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, hit the nail on the head when he said, “these countries that belly up to the bar in trade negotiations and talk about market access are usually the ones that try to impede market access afterwards.”
If we look at the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, we were told by the U.S. among other things that “if you give up the Crow Benefit and you give up the two-price system for wheat, then you can have access to our lucrative markets.”
I think we all know what happened to these lofty promises. Whenever they’re out-competed in an industry, they think of ways of shutting it down – from potatoes and softwood lumber to grain and pork and beef.
To say the least, NAFTA has left our farming population embittered and frustrated and our industry a shambles.
What will be their target next time around? The CWB itself? Very likely. Both the U.S. and Europe wanted the estimated $160 to $200 million extra gleaned for the farmers through the advantage of single desk selling declared a subsidy. How is this a subsidy?
According to WTO definition, a subsidy is assistance provided by a government to artificially support an industry.
In my opinion, it is none of their business how we market our grain and if we have a way to get additional dollars for the producer we should not be penalized for it.
I think the federal government would do well to realize this, for if the CWB goes, this additional money will have to be put into programs at taxpayers’ expense.
For this reason, I think all farmers and related organizations should demand to have a say as to the fate of the CWB. No government should act unilaterally in what they think is in our best interests. We’ve had too much of this already.
– Don Bamber,
Oyen, Alta.
Checkmate
In a chess game, the players often develop positions incrementally and hope that the opponent will not realize what is under attack.
This strategy is used as country after country is being set up to be controlled by an oppressive world government.
People vote for candidates and parties who will advance certain policies or values. In my check list in deciding who I will vote for, I ask which candidate will take the issue of world government seriously and who will offer up the strongest resistance.
Examination of the evidence is required. If we fail to become informed and fail to act, we may one day have a surprise encounter with this hideous entity and hear “checkmate.”
– Laverne Isaac,
Medstead, Sask.
Too costly
Vancouver world wheat prices hit $8 again last week whereas our latest August Pool Return Outlook indicates farmers will receive final Vancouver price of only $5.63 for similar product.
Many Alberta farmers are hoping that (Calgary MLA Mark Hlady’s bill) will be enacted in the Alberta legislature this fall, giving us the freedom to sell our own grain for a 10-year trial period. Not everyone believes we need a Canadian Wheat Board that is consistently costing us about $2 per bushel.
– Louis K. Berg,
Sedalia, Alta.
SARM’s summer
How SARM (Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities) spent its summer vacation: Over the summer, SARM’s Clearing the Path committee has been quietly meeting with a few of Saskatchewan’s stakeholders such as the oil and gas, forestry, industrial livestock, trucking, manufacturing and geophysical contracting industries, the chamber of commerce and Agrivision.
The committee’s job is to identify impediments to economic development within the existing municipal structure, legislation or policy, and to make recommendations for change. Its goal is to create a regulatory environment that doesn’t hinder economic development in rural Saskatchewan.
Apparently, there were no plans to meet with small family farmers, health or environmental groups, educators, religious groups, seniors or youth groups – all equal stakeholders in the survival of this province.
It is also unfortunate that there were no public meetings to give ordinary folks a chance to participate in this process. …
SARM plans to present … its final report at the annual SARM convention in March 2005. Will its recommendations for change ask that towns join SARM to bring population numbers up? That our 297 rural municipalities amalgamate into regions and have standardized bylaws so that decisions on local issues can be made by someone outside the area and rubber-stamped by local council (like Manitoba’s proposed Bill 40)? That Saskatchewan Environment give up what’s left of its regulatory control, leaving the responsibility of protecting our environment and health with the investors and operators of development projects … projects like industrial hog barns?
Will the government’s decisions for change be transparent and participatory, be based on precaution and wisdom, be aimed at sustainable and appropriate economic development, and be protective of our air, soil and precious drinking water for our health and for the future children of Saskatchewan?
– Elaine Hughes,
Archerwill, Sask.
Urbanized thought
The editorial in the Sept. 30 issue of The Western Producer made me start off again on my tirade about the urbanization of thought.
The oh-so-sophisticated city of Calgary, we have heard, and as the editorial pointed out, doesn’t want a slaughterhouse within its limits.
I’m totally against giant feedlots, I consider them unhealthy and inhumane – and they’re usually owned by huge non-Canadian conglomerates.
The modern slaughterhouse, however, is quite different from what slaughterhouses once were, yet there are some people who are under the impression that they operate as in the dark ages.
One person helped drive a proposed slaughterhouse away from a town by telling the citizens that there would be the sound of gunshots and blood running down the gutters.
So a Calgary alderman doesn’t want a slaughterhouse in “our city,” saying that it belongs in a “rural” area.
Well, well. Where that slaughterhouse could be was, not long ago, a rural area.
One could say that Calgary doesn’t belong on “our grazing land” for it has spread and sprawled so much that, every so often, another bypass road is built and then Calgary engulfs that one and so it goes, more land under asphalt.
Calgary originated because of the North West Mounted Police and ranchers. When the Calgary Stampede rolls around each year Calgarians play at being cowboys; it brings in tourist money. Then it goes back to being Oil Town and apparently the ranchers are forgotten, unless they happen to own an oil company or have shares in that sour gas development already near the site of the proposed slaughterhouse.
That alderman, with his urbanized way of thinking, probably eats meat and probably has welcomed many kinds of businesses to “our town,” many of them foreign owned.
Did he give his reasons for vetoing an up-to-date slaughterhouse?
Maybe he’s a vegetarian.
– C. Pike,
Waseca, Sask.
