Alberta vote
To the Editor:
From Nov. 14 to 24, Alberta wheat and barley producers will have the opportunity to vote on two marketing questions prepared by a “Steering Committee on Dual Marketing” appointed by the Alberta Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Walter Paszkowski.
The Steering Committee was comprised of representatives from: Alberta Barley Commission, Western Barley Growers Association, Alberta Soft Wheat Producers Commission, Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission, Unifarm, Alberta Grain Commission.
With the exception of Unifarm, these groups are either directly on the Alberta government payroll, have received large grants from the Alberta government in recent years, or are dependent on favorable government legislation to continue extracting a levy from farmers to fund their operations.
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.
Most of these groups are extremely negative to single-desk selling and price pooling through the Canadian Wheat Board. The National Farmers Union, the Alberta Wheat Pool, the Advisory Committee to the CWB and other pro-CWB supporters, were excluded from the Steering Committee.
This is typical of what the Alberta government views to be fair and objective. …
For democracy to work and for farmers to make an informed and rational decision on the issues of wheat and barley marketing, they must have access to good information and they must have the time to consider that information.
Alberta Agriculture would deny us this opportunity as they obviously do not want to trouble farmers with the facts.
I would urge farmers to participate in this plebiscite and reject the dishonest and rather juvenile efforts of Alberta Agriculture to influence their vote by voting a resounding “NO”!
The subject of marketing grains and other crops in Western Canada needs to be discussed in a fair, complete, rational and straightforward manner.
I am confident that will happen in the near future and that changes that farmers want will be forthcoming. However, this Alberta plebiscite does not meet the criteria.
– Art Macklin,
CWB Advisory Committee,
Grande Prairie, Alta.
Farm politics
To the Editor:
It was easy to see that Barry Wilson’s holidays were a benefit because he came back with some very excellent articles. I am referring specifically to the one in the Aug. 31 edition entitled “Farmers threatened with shortage of politics?” In this article Barry mentions the new spirit of “co-operation” by various farm “leaders” and politicians.
I thought it would be interesting to project this “new” scenario of events a little more into the future. Perhaps first it might be useful to recount the “benefits” gained by farmers as a result of this “co-operation.”
What I see is that farmers have lost, or are losing, every subsidy of any consequence without gaining anything in return, either domestically or in the export market. No one else dropped their subsidies just because we dropped ours! Isn’t this tantamount to unilaterally disarming yourself in front of a bully? What bargaining chips do we now have left? …
It seems ironic that while all this was going on almost every professional sports team in Alberta was getting subsidies and it must be remembered that there is only one taxpayer. I heard no one from the Agricultural Leadership comment on this paradox, least of all protesting it. In addition to the loss of subsidies Agriculture also lost funds to research stations and incurred a number of “user fees”. Some of the “benefits” of the new(?) co-operation!
From my view, what we now have left is Agricultural leaders who have no money and no political influence. The next question then becomes, why do we need lobby groups to lobby people with nothing to give? The answer is we do not.
On the Federal and Provincial scene, why do we need separate Departments of Agriculture? Couldn’t the various Food Inspection services be put under the jurisdiction of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (where they should be anyway) while the rest of the former Agriculture Department is rolled into the Industry Trade and Commerce Branch? Neat! And lots of money saved.
Don’t any of these illustrious “leaders” realize that they have just done a fine job of helping to emasculate themselves? Perhaps the most important question we can ask our Agricultural Leaders this winter is of what use are you to me now? Personally I feel that money can be better spent than to have “the government pronounce on the limited options available and leave farm groups to haggle over implementation details.” Keep up the good information, Barry.
– Horst Schreiber,
Daysland, Alta.
Farm safety
To the Editor:
I would like to commend you for recent improvement in content particularly as it relates to farm safety. For years I have wondered why there have not been more articles, news items, etc. on the subject. Now there have been several.
Verna Thompson made an excellent point about the swather on the road at night with no SMV signs or whatever. We all need to be far more careful.
I take exception to her comment that we are “inundated with articles and features about farm safety”. I rarely see them, and I’m looking for that sort of thing. We need far more “messages” and they need to be delivered in a more emphatic manner.
– Glen Goby,
Avonlea, Sask.
No-fault
To the Editor:
No-fault insurance in Saskatchewan is fine if you’re the one who caused the accident, but it’s not so for the people that aren’t at fault. Sure the government pays medical expenses but they don’t cover your loss of enjoying the summer activities and pain. This no-fault insurance is making worse drivers out of everyone, as people don’t care anymore how they drive as they’ll only get a minimum charge and a surcharge on their licenses. The ones not at fault, it puts them in a great deal of expense.
– Elaine Cozart,
Brownlee, Sask.
Goodale view
To the Editor:
Re “Goodale downplays Alberta vote on CWB monopoly” – This seems to be irreconcilable.
Goodale sets up a committee (an appointed, hand-chosen-by-Goodale committee) to study grower opinion on the CWB. Yet he says a vote by a region which represents 25 to 30 percent of growers plus a third of the CWB-controlled region will not influence him. Go figure!
-Vicki Dutton,
Paynton, Sask.
Socialists three
To the Editor:
The comment on Eldridge’s letter of July 6 was neither concerted or vicious. If he thinks we three are socialists then he should know that socialism is not dead. While the justice system, police, primary education and even medicare are supported by public funds (socialism), I know that socialism struggles on.
Socialism has been and can also be the engine of our economy. The only difference between the one and the other is that socialists do not believe in “root, hog, or die.” We have some compassion for those who have fallen by the wayside.
Neither system is perfect and men will not devise a perfect system while still they roam this planet! In fact socialism and capitalism mean very little; you can have good or bad government in either. Would Mr. Eldridge not agree that the Devine government was real bad for this province?
The “love-in” of Ontario voters with Mike Harris seems to be of the shortest duration ever. No system can stand where the rich are getting ever richer at the expense of all others who are getting poorer and more and more in numbers.
It was capitalist governments who have suckered us into massive debt, perhaps to please the money lenders.
Indeed, they do not have the answer in how to pay that debt except to charge it onto those who can least afford to pay.
– Ernest J. Weser,
Laird, Sask.
Large farms
To the Editor:
A “Tip of the Iceberg” story tells about 10 percent. Paul Kuric’s letter (Open Forum Sept. 7) is just that as he compares present deplorable economic conditions to that of sixty years ago.
Mr. Kuric is among many who blame governments for allowing and favoring large land holdings instead of taking sensible actions to increase rural populations.
Mr. Kuric went on to explain the plight of those squeezed off the land who find themselves unemployed, rummage through garbage and steal clothes-line laundry to survive.
Had Mr. Kuric gone on, he could have explained the deplorable conditions Russia plunged into because of oppressive large landowners. The masses wanted land, but the Czarist regime, corrupted by large landowners and the wealthy, refused to make the necessary changes. Conditions became so desperate that even the innocent modest-sized farm operators were blamed for the nation’s depressed state.
A just land reform could have taken place during Kerensky’s provisional government; however the international oligarchy worked fast to get their way.
Present economic and social conditions in Russia are much worse than under Marxism. A few under the guise of a free-market economy prosper on the backs of the masses.
Had an equitable land reform taken place in Russia before 1917, the world would not have been plagued by Marxist tyranny.
Inflation, stress, poverty and high crime rates are some bitter fruits of monopolies.
Efficient grain farmers manage fairly well on 600 acres of good quality cultivated land. The same is true for 50-sow farrow-to-finish hog operations or 25-milk-cow herds. Farm operators expanding on the aforementioned are clearly working to crush smaller operators!
Remember, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem!
-Stuart Makaroff,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Subdivide farm?
To the Editor:
This is in response to the letter from Philip Lindenback of Weekes, Sask. (Sept. 14).
Thank you, Mr. Lindenback, for confirming my opinion. It is obvious, if you and your sons are the average, that agriculture is indeed in dire straits.
If all farmers on the prairies have an average annual cost of over $90,000 each, the cost of producing food is arbitrarily and automatically going to reflect that cost.
Is it possible to maintain this method of farming? Will the soil maintain its fertility? Will crops be able to adapt, if global climate changes continue to occur?
Will there be sufficient water to meet the needs of the fertilization programs?
One possible solution, Mr. Lindenback, is to divide your 3,000 acres into much smaller plots and lease them to families at an annual rate of $15 per acre.
This would give you an annual income of $45,000 and still leave you and your sons with 360 acres.
With this much land you could become an efficient producer of locally needed produce. Why worry about what the E.U. and U.S. farmers are doing?
As it takes only about 6,000 square feet of land to produce sufficient food for a family of five, there is now the potential to feed over 20,000 people from your property alone!
Think of all the employment created! You could now provide employment for university and college students, start new programs in conjunction with the universities in the four western provinces, and create a new community made up of a small post office, store, gas bar, coffee shop, repair shop, farmer’s market (to buy, sell or trade all the goods produced), some type of recreational facility, place of worship, maybe a school and university sub-campus.
Perhaps they would even need a mayor. Interested, Mr. Lindenback?
The end result could be the creation of thousands of man-hours of employment (construction, support services, etc.), and the beginning of the much-needed tax base for the local and provincial governments.
At the same time, you and your sons have saved $275,000 in annual expenses, have a net income of $45,000 for an annual gain of over $270,000!
Perhaps the 360 acres could be turned into a wildlife refuge for the local population and to increase your own income. Enjoy life and make money at the same time. What a life!
-Roy Tweedle,
Prince George, B.C.
Big debt
To the Editor:
What is your opinion as regards the National Debt? This debt was piled on us without us agreeing to take it on and usury on top of it.
My opinion is since the public did not contract this debt, it is illegal, unlawful and downright dishonest. Some say that we have to pay it. I say that we can’t pay it. And why should we, since we did not agree to take it on?
Governments have spent foolishly what the public did not have. Now there is no way to pay the debt.
The National Treasury is blown inside out, with no bottom to it. Our bureaucrats have gone berserk in deficit financing. Now they are dumping the debt onto the public. I say pull in your dumb horns, bureaucrats. It is time to think straight.
– Paul Kuric,
Vega, Alta.
