Letters to the editor

Suffer in defeat

To the Editor:

I feel Saskatchewan’s future is probably going to get worse. I hoped Romanow’s near defeat would have taught him some humility, but he could always rely on the bottom-feeding tendencies of certain Liberals. Nice cushy cabinet positions tend to make oinkers out of certain people.

Small rural businesses, farmers and people in the workforce in rural Saskatchewan are going to suffer for this near defeat of the NDP. Through higher property taxes, much higher taxes on farm fuels and higher utility costs, there will be more bankruptcies in the farming sector, more out migration of young people, and basically a shutting down of a large portion of agriculture.

Read Also

Producers face the reality of shifting grain price expectations

Significant price shifts have occurred in various grains as compared to what was expected at the beginning of the calendar year. Crop insurance prices can be used as a base for the changes.

And who is going to benefit? Alberta, of course. Look at the talent, taxpayers and inventive hard-working people that will probably move there.

All of Saskatchewan’s social infrastructure is supported by about 300,000 taxpayers. They pay for roads, hospitals, schools and of course politicians’ grandiose schemes: Channel Lake ventures, Spudco, failed power plant schemes in South America.

And I shouldn’t forget about big politician pension plans. All this will have to be supported by 250,000 taxpayers by 2004.

Thanks a lot Liberals, you basically guaranteed Saskatch-ewan’s have-not status. …

– Robert Butt,

Flaxcombe, Sask.

Vanclief insult

To the Editor:

I would like to comment on the article my husband and I read in your paper on Vanclief’s solution to the farm crisis. (WP, Sept. 30.)

He is reported as saying, “Some farmers, faced with an operation that does not pay and an outlook of low commodity prices, should seriously consider whether it is time to leave the farm.”

This statement, from our supposed representative for agriculture, at a very low point in our business, sounds ludicrous. He alludes to his own personal experience of leaving the farm in 1987-88.

Well, Mr. Vanclief, a lot of us rode that same storm as well and we’re still here. Critics, then and now, were claiming mismanagement and proclaiming diversification as part and parcel of the solution. We’re still fighting for our right to be in a business which we feel is of utmost importance to the world.

We should feel pride in what we do, for what is one of the things on which life depends? It’s food. Without it, mankind would cease to exist. Mr. Vanclief’s suggestion to quit is very unrealistic and unfair.

We are producing what is needed to sustain life. How can he insinuate that the solution lies in quitting? Yes, he is right that many should and have been forced in all walks of life to change careers. …

Yet I get upset when he suggests that some farmers, suggesting the fault lies again on individuals who are in some way to blame for our predicament, should consider leaving the farm. Most already have jobs off the farm and many are very versatile and open to legitimate solutions.

If, as Mr. Vanclief suggests, farmers just all decided we’d had enough and just quit, who would grow and produce the world’s food? Will it be governments and large corporations owning and controlling the food supply of a country or the world? …

Now going back to Vanclief’s statement. I feel he has insulted the very industry he has been sworn to represent. I see someone who has a very low opinion of the industry in which he earns his living.

– Myrna L. Setrum,

Coronach, Sask.

Study CWB

To the Editor:

In letters to the Open Forum, there are considerable inaccuracies in some of the statements being made. I refer to Mr. Keith Lewis from Wawota, Sask.’s letter, and I quote, “and for Mr. Sahl’s further information, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association is supported entirely by member contributions, which allow us to critically analyze all sectors of the grain industry and to act in the interests of western Canadian farmers.”

Mr. Lewis is very critical of the Canadian Wheat Board, but if he had any background knowledge as to why the CWB was created in the first place, he might well be a staunch supporter.

I would recommend that he and all other members of the WCWGA read such well documented books as Deep Furrows, Tides in the West, The Canadian Grain Trade or The Merchants of Grain, all of which deal with the prairie grain producers marketing problems and their efforts to help themselves.

Through a co-operative effort, which finally resulted in the creation of the CWB, the result of the tremendous effort and sacrifice that was made by actual grain producers to find a better marketing system than the open market which had utterly failed western producers for decades.

The CWB may have some minor problems, most of which are created by groups and organizations – yes and even provincial governments whose philosophy is opposed to the collective and co-operative efforts of the grain producers. …

When Mr. Lewis states that the WCWGA is supported entirely by member contributions, he should be better informed before he makes such a statement.

The Alberta taxpayers have contributed substantially to his organization. If he would check the Alberta Public Accounts reports under grants issued by Alberta Agriculture, he would find that the Alberta government has contributed very substantially to the WCWGA over the years.

The question should then be asked, is his organization not acknowledging these contributions in their financial statements or is Mr. Lewis not familiar with the accounts? …

– G.W. Braithwaite,

Bowden, Alta.

Refuse to buy

To the Editor:

My comments on the “Stop complaining” letter (Open Forum, Sept. 23.)

The number one problem is the farmer is controlled by the government. Can you sell your own wheat to anyone else but them without their permission?

You take what they give you and like it. How come everyone who doesn’t like their wages goes on strike, withholds services and causes problems for everyone else? How do you propose that a farmer go about getting the prices he wants?

So obviously someone is not doing their job at the top, with the results of these low, low prices for the grain. What will happen if the farmers do get together and refuse to buy anything but the bare necessities?

What will the chemical companies do if not one farmer in Saskatchewan buys herbicides, pesticides or fertilizer for two years? Do we think the prices for grain would go up?

– Lillian Johnston

Hazlet, Sask.

Potato advice

To the Editor:

Re: Hot Potato Goes Cold (WP, Sept. 9.) Initially, I would like to mention how much I enjoyed reading such a well-written article. Ed White has done an excellent job.

In reading the issues present in this article, Saskatchewan taxpayers should sincerely view this potato situation as just another provincial governmental scenario where those up in those positions where their wages are paid whether they succeed or not, become involved in areas of business where they have absolutely no experience.

Where is it written in the job descriptions of those three individuals, Eldon Lautermilch, Brian Kaukinen and Harvey Fjeld that gives them the authority to determine themselves qualified as potato industry experts, let alone business experts? …

Any first-year business recruit would have known that no profitable multi-million dollar enterprise such as a french fry potato processor would risk their business by relocating to an environment where no stable foundation of supply was prevalent. …

In my view, Saskatchewan needs to have a minimally established potato supply industry foundation in place before even searching to lure an established french fry processing enterprise, with my emphasis on established.

It does not take much consideration or analysis to determine that every province in Canada would like one or more of these entities to establish their operations in their provinces.

I can almost guarantee that those other competing provinces would have had significantly stronger proposals than what I have perceived from this article, in luring these entities. …

Private businesses look for assurances right at the beginning of their analysis on specifics determining whether to invest their company’s operations in another geographic region. One of the initial main criteria and assurances would be where they would be obtaining their raw materials….

I am the owner of a business in Calgary, where we manufacture and distribute a tool we have patented and wish to distribute throughout Canada and the U.S. We approached a few of the economic development agencies run by the Saskatchewan government in regard to possibly setting up our operations in Saskatchewan. …

Eventually the deal fell through, as I could not see putting my company in the position they wished me to. The strict conditions and terms they wished us to abide by, in regard to the assistance they would provide was another reason for us not to relocate our potential $25 million dollar business. …

Saskatchewan deserves more than luring pig operations into the province. These economic developmental programs need to be redesigned along with the hiring of qualified individuals to run them and a clear and specific mandate in how Saskatchewan will lure more businesses.

From a business manager’s point of view, there is a huge opportunity in Saskatchewan for businesses and investment. However, the business economic development model must be redesigned to provide the opportunity.

Saskatchewan does not need to lure businesses with reduced taxes or free grants either, as there are other options available to the economic development of the province that would not cost the taxpayer one additional penny.

– George Choboter

Calgary, Alta.

Reduce income tax

To the Editor:

Income tax is supposedly the means to distribute income from the ones who have to the ones who have not. To some extent it does, but at a price to the economy, seldom considered.

While it is used to fund the vast needs of welfare, while doing this it slowly eats away at our dollar and inflates the cost of every item we buy.

When a wage earner receives compensation for work done, income tax is removed which he never sees. What he takes home is his true wage. This tax as it is paid by the employer to the government is therefore an employer’s tax and is passed on to the consumer in the price of goods. …

Unwittingly or not, labor unions, by driving up the wage scale, have at the same time automatically increased the amount of extra tax to be paid. Farmers, who are inputs end users, have to pay this tax on every item. High taxation in the system has reached the point (where) it is close to destroying agriculture….

Income tax has to be reduced, the sooner the better, and the more the better. We cannot sustain the load we are carrying, especially agriculture. … Destroy the family farm, and whatever replaces it will make sure costs are covered, or you will do without.

– N.L. Grant,

Unity, Sask.

Eastern sympathy

To the Editor:

We in Eastern Canada feel for you western farmers. We feel we have been at the bottom of the heap as far as all governments are concerned.

We sell products on the open market and buy things that are made with union wages and big profits by multi-national corporations. I have no answers for you but hope someday things will improve for all of us.

So don’t get discouraged. You may get your reward some day.

The old farmer stood at the pearly gates. His face all muddy and old. “What have you done,” St. Peter said, “to gain admittance to the fold?”

” I’ve been a Canadian farmer sir; I’ve farmed for 50 years.”

He slowly raised his hand to his cheek and wiped away a tear. The pearly gates swung wide open, St. Peter rang the bell. “Come in old man, you’re welcome here. You’ve already been through hell.”

– Jim Rae,

Stouffville, Ont.

Organize farmers

To the Editor:

… The biggest problem facing the farmer today is the price, which is determined by a few multi-national corporations who do the bulk of the marketing throughout the world.

They have a large part of the milling, feeding and distribution of agriculture products and are gaining greater control every day, which in effect they are selling to themselves.

Farmers throughout the world are suffering. While we criticize other countries for subsidizing their farmers, they have to or they wouldn’t have any farmers.

To correct this problem farmers have to organize themselves into one general farm organization and work with farmers throughout the world to do something about marketing.

Farmers have to agree to formulate their policy within one general farm organization. You can’t get anywhere heading in different directions. If your ideas are best convince the majority at a general elected assembly and be prepared to accept the majority vote. There is no gain in being right until you can convince the majority.

It seems that the best setup would be to use the rural municipality setup, a separate policy organization, but financed by taxes so that every farmer would automatically be a member. …

– Alex Olson,

Spy Hill, Sask.

Bailout vote

To the Editor:

Allene Douglas (Open Forum, Oct. 7), puts the finger on the pulse of the election correctly. I too believe there was an expectation by the farm and rural vote that the Saskatchewan Party would borrow billions to bail the farmers out. In other words, Devine all over again.

I take exception to that Saskatchewan Party in our province. The only other province that has both a provincial and federal political party that has no relevance outside of their province is Quebec. But in Quebec about half the population has no use for Canada.

That does not apply to Saskatchewan; our political parties must have a base in other provinces and in federal politics as well, because we owe it to us in order to have connection to the rest of Canada and the federal government.

I believe your editorial on the election was all wrong. This was not just a protest vote of the farm sector. This looked like a vote for a bailout, by way of the money markets and at the expense of future generations. Too bad that there is no law in place to prevent governments to borrow huge sums on the backs of future generations. We still have $12 billion to pay from the last round.

Still, it seems we have been spared a loathsome increase of our provincial debt for at least four years. For that reason alone many voters can be happy about the outcome of this election.

– Ernest J. Weser,

Laird, Sask.

Poor wheat

To the Editor:

The poor performance of the AC Barrie variety of Canadian Western Red Spring wheat in the Parkland zone is a huge disappointment and needs to be addressed by SeCan, the owner of the variety.

The high incidence of ergot reported, as well as the empty top portions of each head, comes as a surprise considering the positive reports from SeCan that this would not be a concern for AC Barrie producers.

The ergot fungus and the blank top of each head of AC Barrie have created a huge loss for producers through yield loss and downgrading. …

Spokespeople for SeCan blame environmental conditions for the reports of ergot, yet this does not explain why AC Barrie performed at a substandard level next to other varieties. …

The major question that comes of this dismal performance is one of liability. With the lack of information provided by SeCan, do they hold any responsibility in the millions of dollars lost by producers who chose to grow their variety? As a matter of principle, SeCan needs to hold some accountability and provide some recompense to these producers.

When AC Barrie was introduced, producers were assured they were purchasing a quality cultivar. Because this harvest proved otherwise, will SeCan stand up and take responsibility for this abomination, or will this be another example of the farmer shouldering the cost and assuming the risk?

– Alyson Enright,

Edmonton, Alta.

If I were PM

To the Editor:

(Federal agriculture minister Lyle) Vanclief said in the news no help from Ottawa because government can’t afford to pay now. How come Mr. Lloyd Axworthy was able to spend $160 million to study and remove land mines (and) Mr. ChrŽtien was able to spend millions on war, $5,000 to $25,000 per bomb, and now it will cost billions to repair the country?

The money should have been spent at home. (It) cost the taxpayers millions.

Mr. Vanclief said in The Western Producer that some farmers should consider whether it is time to leave the farm. What kind of a man have we got for Agriculture Minister? He should be gone. He does not have a clue.

I would make Lloyd Axworthy Agriculture Minister. He could spend the millions at home and move Vanclief to foreign affairs. He would save us millions as he does not spend any money….

Farmers are operating below the cost of production. Bankruptcies are starting to escalate.

If I was Prime Minister, my first order (would be to) bring all troops home, stop trying to police countries with population of 400 million with our population of 30 million. The millions (of dollars) spent in foreign countries should be spent at home.

The Federal Government must come up with a farm program like the U.S.

Farmers, keep up the protest. Stick together. We must stick together like the Oil Cartel. They keep raising the price of oil. Remember when the next election comes up, write to President Clinton for help.

– Jack Pawich,

Cartwright, Man.

Simple policy?

To the Editor:

The agriculture policy of Lyle Vanclief is simple. If you can’t make a living farming, then maybe you should get a job pumping gas. I have always thought the federal Liberals like to keep things complicated and bureaucratic so this policy certainly is a surprise to me.

I wonder if this easy-to-understand approach will be used in other areas of government such as with Quebec businesses. Or maybe the Arts council will adopt it, since they have been using tax money to produce material that most Canadians find either offensive or uninteresting. …

I suggest that we should place some value on the number of farmers we have and not just the quality of farmers. The whole service industry would be much healthier if we had more not-so-wealthy farmers as opposed to fewer larger efficient operations.

A two-price system could encourage small operations and also make farming a possibility for more not-so-wealthy families.

If I quit farming, there is someone who will purchase and farm my land. The only motivation government has to keep me on the land is that I will create economic activity.

The decline in farm population has hurt our rural non-farmers. When I quit farming and get a job flipping burgers, I not only am not providing economic activity but I am taking a job away from someone else.