Second step
Re: Editorial Nov. 6, defending supply management.
The international agency Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development report on subsidies does not agree with you about Canada’s boy scout behaviour. It counts supply management benefits as indirect subsidy and figures that Canada is right up there with the U.S. in producer subsidy equivalent.
When oat growers ask our trade negotiators for relief from European export subsidies, we are told that export subsidies are as sacred to European farmers as supply management is to us. Oat growers don’t get much benefit from supply management but end up getting hurt by export subsidies. We are right to complain.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
The editorial suggests that Canada has taken a first step in making trade concessions. Other countries make the same claim for themselves. Someone has to take a second step if we are to get anywhere.
Groups represented by the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance and the Grain Growers of Canada have the right idea. Canada must show a willingness to negotiate on our own protectionist policies.
Prairie farmers who depend on export markets have much to gain from reduced protectionism. So do consumers and taxpayers.
A mindset of defending supply management and other sacred cows is a recipe for failure in getting a better trade deal for us.
– Tom Hewson,
Langbank, Sask.
APAS funding
Saskatoon reporter Sean Pratt’s article, “SARM rejects resolution for more APAS funding,” (WP, Nov. 13) was most informative.
Congratulations to the SARM (Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities) delegates and board for rejecting the resolution advanced by Gerald Faye, RM of Emerald, that SARM convince “freeloader” municipalities to fund APAS (Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan.)
Mr. Faye’s municipality pays $12,000 a year to APAS. The RM of Biggar paid a prorated fee of $17,706.42 for 2003. On Sept. 9, 2003, five out of seven council members, without prior consultation with landowners, voted to continue the RM of Biggar as a member for 2004. According to APAS calculations, the fee will be $21, 247.70. In two years $38,954.12 in taxes will be diverted to APAS.
The APAS financial statements as at Oct. 31, 2002, filed six months late on April 22, 2003, with the Corporations Branch, showed under revenue that membership fees totalled $1,399,714.
Over $1.25 million were diverted from 113 municipality budget tax dollars that would have paid for gravel, rising fuel costs, graders, increased employee wages, etc. How many millions of tax dollars would be diverted to APAS if all landowners, through their respective councils, were forced to join?
Mr. Faye’s “freeloader” label, to describe the 184 RMs who have chosen not to “voluntarily” force their ratepayers to join APAS, is extremely offensive. Should Mr. Faye be labelled a freeloader by those farm groups he chooses not to support?
I agree with Robert Schultz, that APAS should sell individual memberships or as SARM president Neil Hardy, stated, “it should be a truly producer organization funded by a checkoff….” as do other organizations who practise the democratic principles of freedom of choice and association.
An opt-out clause at the municipal level is another option.
Convincing rural councils to voluntarily enroll their RMs in APAS for an annual fee of one-half mill times the agricultural assessment is an easy way to get money. Much easier than selling individual memberships. Some democratic organization this is.
– Vera Shamon,
Biggar, Sask.
Grain cars
I have read the Producer for the past 50 years.
I wrote a note to the Editor 30 years ago. It was printed in your paper. It stated that the grain cars would become the property of the railways eventually. I have not changed my mind.
– Bruno Truant,
Sparwood, B.C.
Marketing choice
I believe that Barry Wilson’s column concerning the impact on the Canadian Wheat Board of a federal Conservative party government is unfair (“United political right hastens doom for CWB,” WP, Oct. 30.)
Should the (Canadian) Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives merge into the Conservative Party of Canada, it should be remembered that one key component of the merger agreement is that the Alliance policy-making process, involving “one member, one vote” input and approval, will remain in place. This facilitates a diversity of views on many subjects, not the least of which is the CWB.
Many people are concerned about whether the CWB inhibits value-added processing, as an example. Value-added processing is an area my parliamentary colleagues and I particularly support.
A few years ago, it was contended that a pasta plant planned for Swift Current wasn’t built due to the CWB monopoly on the sale of area grain.
From the foregoing, I see the main issue as being that of giving farmers a choice as to whether to use the services of the CWB.
The issue is choice, not elimination. That principle is a matter of Alliance-adopted party policy, which reads as follows: “We will give farmers the freedom to make their own marketing and transportation decisions and to direct, structure and voluntarily participate in producer organizations.”
This cannot be reasonably interpreted to mean that the new party will get rid of the CWB or any other producer-driven marketing or transportation organizations.
We are simply asking that farmers be given a choice and, for that matter, that existing marketing choices that some farmers have (such as in Ontario) be available to all farmers throughout Canada.
Right now, if farmers don’t like the way the CWB is operating … they can’t effect change to the CWB through withdrawing their support of the organization. This isn’t right or fair….
In politics, as in life generally, perception is often quite different from reality. Conservative views are as varied as any others.
It’s unfortunate that Barry’s column reinforces a misperception that only federal Liberals favour marketing through the CWB.
Those who favour marketing choices aren’t automatically opposed to the CWB. Many Conservatives favour marketing choice. So do many others. I hope that Barry will reconsider his views here.
– Lynne Yelich,
Member of Parliament,
Blackstrap, Sask.
Moose herds
Re: Oct. 23 issue, “Cold brings new season of wildlife challenges.”
This letter is more for Mary MacArthur than the farmer who claims to see 400 elk at one time.
Perhaps Mary should drive out of the city and look at the surrounding fields and forest.
When she spots herds of moose tearing down fences, she could call the local fish and game clubs and sell the information to hunters. I am guessing a herd of moose must be 20 or more animals in a group, not a common sight in Alberta.
Definitely the farmer is grasping at straws claiming herds of moose (are) tearing down fences and leaving the wire for his horses to get caught up in. Horses have a knack at finding wire to cut themselves with. They don’t need help.
Wildlife compensation? Definitely. All the oil and gas revenue from lease land could go to fish and wildlife to pay the damages. Not to the farmer pasturing the lease land to the dirt.
Allowing land owners to charge for hunting on deeded land only would bring in extra income for the farmer and more recreational access for everyone.
– D. Williams,
Bonnyville, Alta.
Save moisture
This may be helpful to the agricultural community. I grew up on a Saskatchewan farm and now have lived in rural Alberta for nearly 30 years.
I drive the highways and secondary roads very frequently summer and winter. I notice a lot of things but especially the ditches drifted full of snow.
If farmers and ranchers put up snow fences about 100 to 200 feet in from the roads and/or ditches, you would save a lot of that moisture that melts in and runs down the ditches (so it would) stay and soak into your fields and pastures.
Let’s keep the moisture where we need it.
– Lorraine Gibson,
Pine Lake, Alta.
