Special deal
George Radwanski will be remembered as the privacy commissioner who “outraged and saddened” auditor-general Sheila Fraser by his abuse of power, reign of terror, lavish unjustifiable expenses and cronyism.
However, the favours handed him by Revenue Canada have not generated as much publicity. A few days before he got his plush government appointment he was allowed to clear $557,000 in back taxes with a lump-sum payment of $62,726 – a bit more than 11 cents for every dollar that he owed.
Next spring when income tax time rolls around, I think we should all ask for a “Radwanski.” That is we’ll pay 11 percent of the amount owing and promise to remit the rest when Radwanski pays his. After all, what’s fair for one is fair for all, don’t you think?
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?
– Bev Currie,
Swift Current, Sask.
Leading questions
I see the Alberta government has published an opinion survey saying most farmers want a dual market in both wheat and barley.
I was one of the farmers surveyed by Ipsos-Reid about the Canadian Wheat Board. Surveys are only as good as the questions they ask. They kept asking me leading questions.
I tried to explain to the woman that the CWB is a seller of grain, not our only buyer, as their questions suggested. She did not seem to understand the difference.
They kept asking if I would like to keep the CWB and have an open market. I tried to explain that we could not keep the benefits of the CWB as a single seller of our grain while also having many other sellers. They just would not accept that answer.
They also kept asking what I thought the biggest obstacles to marketing choice were. I told them that I had lots of marketing choice and nothing was stopping farmers from selling their own grain anywhere they wanted. All they had to do was follow the rules.
But I guess that did not fit into their script, because they would not change that question either.
I can see how the questions could have pushed many farmers into giving answers the Alberta government wanted to hear. So I think this survey proves nothing, except that the Alberta government likes to waste money on propaganda.
– George A. Calvin,
New Norway, Alta.
Tariffs the issue
As the editor of a publication that has earned the respect of many readers across Canada for its in-depth and usually reliable information on all aspects of agriculture and agricultural policy, I’m sure that you are eager to learn about errors that have been made, and will move quickly to correct them.
One such error appeared in your Nov. 6 editorial, “Trade concessions have bought little,” where it is stated: “Groups represented by the Canadian Agri-food Trade Alliance and Grain Growers of Canada have called on the Canadian government, in its trade negotiations, to give up supply management. …”
The Canadian Agri-food Trade Alliance has never called on the Canadian government to give up supply management. The operation of domestic systems, marketing or other, are not our concern.
Our concern is that high and prohibitive tariffs, restrictive tariff quotas, non-tariff barriers, trade and production distorting subsidies and export subsidies, keep our producers and processors out of markets, hinder our efforts to create new markets, and force our producers to suffer the income-depressing effects of subsidies.
We have thoroughly explained to government and negotiators the costs of these barriers and subsidies to our producer, processor and exporter members. Tariffs like the $440 per tonne tariff on wheat in Japan, the 50 percent tariff on beef going into Korea, the 85 percent tariff applied by India on canola oil, the European Union’s 165 percent tariff on refined sugar, and the 256 percent tariff applied by Norway on canola, prevent our industries from competing in those markets – some of which are the most lucrative in the world, and which are held by our competitors.
Did you know that the United States still has the right to spend almost $600 million US on export subsidies, and that the EU can spend $8.9 billion? …
We have also clearly outlined the benefits of liberalization. For every $1 billion increase in agriculture and food exports, total Canadian farm income increases by over $300 million, and almost 7,000 new jobs are created for Canadians.
For the 90 percent of the farm population that relies on international markets, the negotiation of an ambitious trade agreement that curbs or eliminates subsidies and brings down access barriers is critical. The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance will continue to vigorously pursue real and meaningful liberalization of international trade. The future of the Canadian agriculture and agri-food industry depends on it.
– Ted Menzies,
President, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance,
Ottawa, Ont.
Not glowing
I’m responding to an article that you had posted on your website written by Barbara Duckworth (Cattle prices rock market, WP, Oct. 30.)
I would like to say that the glowing report of favourable calf prices is grossly overstated. We sold our calves at Clyde, Alta. (Nilsson Brothers) on Oct. 14, and our high quality steer calves (average weight 560 pounds) got a high of $107 per hundredweight.
I think that it is out of line to compare this year’s prices as being anywhere near last year’s. In Dawson Creek, on Oct. 7, we watched excellent steer calves in the 600 lb. division get a high of $96 per cwt.
Now, if you were that rancher, and I know him well, how would you feel seeing a report like this?
To even call last year’s market favourable is asinine. The price difference for 2001 and 2002 was $142 per cwt. for 600 weights in 2001, compared to $117 per cwt. for 600 weights in 2002, with no difference in the quality of calves sold. This is a significant drop in the market, and to refer to last year’s market as favourable is not only ridiculous but irresponsible.
Does this reporter know that Farm Credit Canada is deferring payments on loans to many producers? It’s the only way many of us can stay in business, something that would not even be an option in a good market for calves.
Canadian cattle producers are in dire straits, and have been lobbying the government for some aid … but should a politician read this article, his/her attitude towards our producers might be altered to think, “well, if they are getting good prices for their calves, favourable to last year, what are they complaining about?” …
Perhaps getting an overall average from all livestock auction markets in the last month would be the most sensible. … I hope you will keep this in mind for future articles.
– S. Harris,
Dawson Creek, B.C.
Buying leverage
I’m a former Saskatchewan resident now living in Louisville, Tennessee. Word at church today (is that) fellow cattle farmers hope the border will remain closed to Canadian cattle. The comment (is that they) really enjoy the good prices. So Canadian farmers, fight back. Stop buying U.S.-built farm equipment.
When I travel from Tennessee to Saskatchewan every summer, eastern Saskatchewan seems to have more modern equipment than any other region that I travel.
Remember, all you farmers in Canada, John Deere and all the other American companies need you. My advice: stop buying and see if the U.S. manufacturers will help open the border to Canadian beef.
– Ken Mack,
Louisville, Tennessee
Horrific treatment
Re: Wood Lynn Farms Ltd., Edgin County, Ont.
Reading the article in the Western Producer dated Oct. 23, I was totally repulsed, disgusted and nauseated.
How humans can treat animals, in this case pigs, in this horrific manner is beyond reason.
If they were not able to manage and/or financially support this operation, then get out in a proper and decent manner.
After reading the article I have visions and nightmares of this horrible, disgusting practice at Wood Lynn Farms. I hope they get much more than the mere $10,000 fine and 18 months in jail.
We are below animals when we, the supposedly more intelligent, behave like this. Maybe we should abandon you as part of society. What goes around hopefully will come around to you.
– Lorraine Gibson,
Pine Lake, Alta.
