Loud & clear
The recent results of the Canadian Wheat Board directors election speak loudly and clearly that western Canadian farmers understand and appreciate their marketing board.
The resounding endorsement of single desk supporting candidates underlies the fact that the CWB effectively serves the needs of wheat and barley producers.
The simple truth is this: the single desk marketer puts money in the farmer’s pocket. This fact has been recognized by the American farmers and government, the World Trade Organization participants and other entities.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Despite relentless attacks, our present day CWB is relevant, effective and definitely farmer controlled. As long as we, the farmers, do not become complacent, 10 years from now our CWB will still be operating with our interests first and foremost as a mandate.
Ñ Joe R. Cey,
Wilkie, Sask.
Dollars talk
Re: Pour-on caution, Open Forum, Jan. 6, I am writing in response to Melanie Roth and her comments on a touchy subject.
As Melanie points out, for a number of years “the product we use had retailed for $525 or more.” The point here is that we, the ranchers in this country, have again been taken advantage of. For more than the last few years we have been spending way more than these products are worth.
The companies are again putting the screws to us from every angle. If I can save three quarters of the price on a five litre jug of parasite control product and have to drive to get it, I still save money. This generic type is still guaranteed by the seller.
I never heard of anyone bringing back 10 times more than needed. If they did, they had a truckload of neighbours with them and all bought together.
I have talked to other people in the medication business and related businesses and they have as much as told me that it would be stupid not to purchase the American product to save so much money. For a herd of approximately 150 head, the savings are about $830.
Also, with that big of savings, it is my opinion the rancher is not going to skimp on the amount of product they put on the animal and will possibly use the product more than once a year, with herd health overall being improved.
As of today I have not heard of any legal implications for using this product or purchasing it.
I guess what I am trying to say is, if Melanie Roth and her colleges are so unhappy about this product, they should get ahold of the Canadian companies and protest to them about getting their prices in line with the American product and I would support them 100 percent on that.
Loyalty to our vets is a big thing but when you see mark-up costs of 100 to 300 percent on products, it’s time to look at the almighty dollar saving.
Ñ Kelly Kaufmann
Lake Alma, Sask.
Enforce act
I am disturbed by the fact that the federal government has not been taking action on infringements of the Canada Health Act. The proliferation of private for-profit clinics can threaten the integrity and viability of Medicare.
Two-tier access to medical services like MRI tests violate the CHA requirement that universal access to publicly funded services be provided on an equal basis.
In her report of September 2002, auditor general Sheila Fraser wrote that Health Canada “is unable to tell Parliament the extent to which health-care delivery in each province and territory complies with the criteria and conditions” of the health act.
It is critical that provinces and territories be required to provide information on the mode of delivery of health-care services, in particular, for-profit and investor-owned versus public and not-for-profit. It is the duty of the federal minister of health and members of the standing committee on health to monitor, report and enforce compliance with the criteria and conditions of the Canada Health Act. To do otherwise can only lead to the fragmentation and ultimate ruin of Canada’s public health care system.
Ñ William Dascavich,
Vegreville, Alta.
Poor care
In the past year I have been in and around hospitals and nursing homes because my mother was a patient in the hospital and a resident in the nursing home until her passing.
From what I can see there is more office staff than nurses or aides. It seems the larger the facility, the poorer care is given. My mother did everything on her own but it seemed that when she needed help there was no one there. É When people end up in a nursing home, they are there to be cared for. It is their last place of residence. É
In my opinion our health-care system stinks. (Health-care workers) are being paid well compared to years ago and the care we get seems to get worse. I guess there are no more Florence Nightingales in this world.
Ñ Donna Hyshka,
Wroxton, Sask.
Paid the freight
Re: WP, Jan. 13, “Railway must return some grain revenue.”
The third paragraph says: “The Canadian Transportation Agency announced last week that Canadian Pacific Railway earned grain revenue of roughly $309.9 million in the 2003-04 crop year. That was $321,912 above the maximum revenue entitlement of about $309.6 million.
“As a penalty for exceeding the cap, CPR is required by law to pay a fine totalling $338,008 to the Western Grains Research Foundation, or WGRF, by the end of January.”
Now, just a cotton-picking minute here. What “law” is this? Who dreamed this scheme up?
This is the farmer’s money, not some slush fund that some civil servants can wheel and deal away.
I can just hear the snivelling now as people try to justify this. “It’s not much money per farmer” and “it’s going to a good cause.” That is not the point.
The point is what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. This is dead wrong that someone else would receive the money. This is the farmers’ money.
The farmers paid the freight and if there is a refund, it should go back to the ones that paid it. If my neighbour received a patronage dividend from his local co-op for business done in the year and I went and took it, it is called stealing. In plain language, this is the same thing.
To those who would take this money, keep your hands off. It’s not your money. Take your shyster schemes and keep them to yourself. I am disgusted.
Ñ Victor Hult,
Waseca, Sask.
Trades rule
Ladies should jump in on the trades. There is a shortage of skilled labourers, plumbers, electricians, carpenters and such. It seems no one wants to do any real work, the physical stuff, preferring cushy white-collar jobs.
However, it would seem to me that becoming a tradesman is the ideal way to get a workout without going to the gym and spending big bucks.
Speaking of big bucks, with the lack of such skilled labour around, there’s getting to be pretty big dollars attached to those jobs too.
I’ve noted a few females have taken on the challenge of entering what used to be a man’s world and wielding hammers, wiring houses and the like. Good for them.
In my day, typing and computer jobs were once thought of as women’s work and we didn’t get paid much for it either. However, as soon as the field was invaded by the male of our species, the pay scale went up considerably.
So did health problems due to lack of physical activity. Sitting all day at a computer or other such desk job has robbed many of good physical and mental health. So why shouldn’t the ladies take up physical labour and gain the benefits of all that invigorating activity while getting well paid for it?
True, some have found it hard to find an employer to take them on. They’ve set up their own businesses or found a boss who knows the value of having one or more females working for him. With hard work it’s soon discovered they’re worth their salt on anyone’s crew.
I believe the farming community can provide a large portion of this labour. They’ve had some experience in all of the trades simply because that’s what farming’s about Ñ doing for yourself. I figure the ladies can darn near rule the trades world if they jump on the bandwagon and fill all of those jobs that are in such large supply.
Ñ Lori Feldberg,
Wetaskiwin, Alta.
Real dilemma
I note that Mr. Andy Mitchell, minister of agriculture, in his season’s greetings to farmers and the agri-food industry, said in part, “the government of Canada recognizes the importance of a strong and prosperous farming community, and I’m committed to creating an environment that allows Canadian producers to earn a living. It’s also essential that Canada’s agri-food sector as a whole be profitable.”
He is to be commended for demonstrating far more concern and insight into the desperate farm crisis than his predecessor, Mr. (Lyle) Vanclief.
I do take some exception to his implication that the agri-food sector is in the same dire straits as the grassroots farmer is. It appears to me that all facets of agri-food except the farmer are doing quite well, thank you.É
Unless or until Mr. Mitchell and his colleagues address and resolve the real dilemma that has been facing the grassroots farmer for many years, the farmer and the rural infrastructure supporting him are in an impossible situation that is fast becoming hopeless.
That dilemma of course is that while those who supply the farmers with whatever services demand to be paid in 2004 dollars, as is their right, the farmer is expected to pay for them while receiving in many instances less that Dirty Thirties prices for his product.
I wish Mr. Mitchell and his department good luck and success in resolving this problem. We are counting on them because unlike the dispossessed Scottish crofter or Ukrainian kulak of old, we farmers of today find very few new frontiers left out there to conquer and must try to deal with our difficulties where we are now situated. We can’t do it alone.
Ñ R. Don Robertson,
Liberty, Sask.
Thanks anyway
I called the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program to see if my wife and I will be receiving disaster aid from this wonderful program our government has put forward to replace the last wonderful program.
We spent many pleasant hours doing up the paperwork for this disaster relief program as we have the last few years with CFIP (Canadian Farm Income Program) and once again to our amazement we did not lose enough money this year either.
We have spoken to many a farmer and have yet to find one who has not lost money in the cattle industry, especially for the last three years, and still have not found one who hasn’t been told that they have not lost enough money yet, or as the CAIS folks put it, your reference margin isn’t where it needs to be to trigger a payment. Whatever that means.
All kidding aside, this program is an absolute, fricking disgrace. The same geniuses that designed the CFIP and NISA (Net Income Stabilization Account) must have come up with this new improved CAIS program. I fail to see any difference, other than more paperwork. É
This is three straight years of losses for us on our farm. Between drought and the BSE crisis, we are now forced to sell. We can no longer hang on. We thank the Liberal government from the bottom of our hearts for their endless support in times of need. These programs have been such great benefit to us and brought us such joy in filling out all the useless paperwork. É
Maybe someone from the CAIS administration group could print somewhere, maybe the Western Producer, a list of all the farmers who have received disaster assistance and how much.
My guess is the farmers who were fortunate enough to have a good year somewhere in the past three, to put their reference margin where it needed to be, may have been able to trigger a payment. Bravo for them if they did.É
We did receive a couple of cheques from CFIP. My wife and I both received a couple of cheques last year for $82 each, which kept our farm thriving for another night. My thanks once again.
I guess they felt bad about not helping us last year in our time of need so they thought they would send a little relief.
We have asked them this year if it would be possible for them to gather up my $80, my wife’s $80 and perhaps a number of other $80 cheques and give them all to one farmer in need, hold a lottery to see who wins all the $80 cheques or just give it in our names to a charity. Don’t waste our time anymore with this senselessness. É
This CAIS program and all other such programs are more stressful than the actual disasters themselves. É
Ñ Ron and Sharolyn Easton,
Calgary, Alta.
CFIA no friend
Just exactly who is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency working for, anyway? They have done everything in their power to hold up progress in the BSE situation, including Ñ but not limited to Ñ going on strike. While us ranchers go bankrupt, this government agency gets wage increases.
Announcing a “suspect” BSE animal just after the United States says they will open the border? How ludicrous it that?
And they certainly are not expediting any new packing plant openings either. I have been told that they want a quota system, much like the dairy and egg producers have. That would totally cripple the free enterprise in the beef industry.
We do not need more government involvement, we need less. They cannot even get the 2003 CAIS (Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization) payments out, payments that could mean the difference between us ranchers surviving and not.
We need an investigation into this, and not by some other red tape bound government agency either.
Ñ E. Roth,
Dewberry, Alta.
Jarvis tribute
It was with great sadness that I learned of the passing of Esmond Jarvis.
I served on the advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat Board through the entire time he was chief commissioner.
All of us wondered what was in store at the board after overlooking all the other commissioners who had so much experience and ability.
As time went by it became apparent Esmond knew the board was to work for the interest of farmers. I found him very approachable to talk to, and got to know him very well on a trip to an international grain meeting in the southern United States.
Ñ Avery Sahl,
Mossbank, Sask.
Trust deficit?
It has been a short timeline since the announcement of the border opening on March 7 to live Canadian beef, to another confirmed case BSE in a dairy cow in Alberta, to a third case in a younger beef cow in Alberta.
In that time, Alberta premier Ralph Klein has managed to make the worst possible public view of the situation, demonstrating a profound inability to understand the Canadian cattle industry locally and nationally.
His initial statement that Canadian cattle producers should “play by the rules” shows a basic misunderstanding of the Canadian cattle industry at a fundamental level. The implications of this are huge.
His obvious assumption is that livestock producers are somehow responsible for BSE by not obeying the feed ban.
Initial investigations are just getting under way. Industry experts don’t know what the situation is, but Ralph Klein is ready to condemn all of us.
Then, to follow this up with comments that a national cull of older animals at this time could somehow solve this crisis, shows no concept at all for the problems producers are facing every day.
A national cull could not possibly serve its proposed purpose now. As of June 30, Canada will have in place the slaughter facilities necessary to deal with our ever growing cattle slaughter needs.
These statements come at a time when cattle producers need the support of their governments and their reassurances to the industry. Are our American neighbours not watching?
What messages are our leaders sending? Is it the doctrine of Ralph Klein to dissemble and devastate a major industry in Canada from an elected seat of power?
Ralph Klein’s message seems to be this: we can’t be trusted as livestock producers and we need to be told when and how to feed, shoot and bury our cows.
Watch out Canada, the Alberta Clipper is blowing through and King Ralph is making sure that we are all going with it.
Ñ Shannon Fenn,
Stoughton, Sask.
APAS support
In Saskatchewan farmers have not had a strong voice that has been able to lobby government on our behalf. I believe that the time for such a group has never been more needed.
I believe that Agricultural Producers of Saskatchewan could be that group. APAS is a group that is willing to listen to the grassroots farmer and is funded by farmers.
APAS was created after a resolution by SARM (Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities) but is completely separate from SARM. They have already gained a national reputation and have proved that the government both federally and provincially will listen.
They were instrumental in obtaining for the Saskatchewan farmer the 30 percent of CAIS (Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization) that the provincial government had not paid out.
Too often the other farm groups that have claimed to represent farmers have been too far to the left or the right and are not willing to listen to input from the grassroots or have only been interested in furthering their own goal and really didn’t care what was happening at the farmgate.
SARM is a lobbyist for the farmer but is really another arm of the government.
There are many farm programs and subsidies that exist within the United States, which insure that farmers can make a good living and exist upon their farms. The farmers are valued for their production. Politicians in the U.S. are more responsible to the farm vote.
More people in Saskatchewan are affected by what happens on the farm than many realize. Whether a person works in an area directly related to farming such as selling fertilizer, parts and machinery companies, or whether they have a job in a city not directly related to farming, there is an effect. Ask any retailer how their business does in a year of drought or frost or how their sales are. É
We as farmers have not had a strong voice to represent us in the past. Companies say that they represent farmers but in actuality look out for their own interests.
Now farmers have a chance to fund a true grassroots organization. APAS is not funded by big companies, but by the farmers themselves. They have no agenda other than getting the best for those they represent, the farmer.
I am willing to pay my six cents per acre to have a voice willing to speak up for me and protect my interests.
Ñ David Strain,
North Battleford, Sask.
