Neo-Liberals
I find it hard to believe that in the 1990s when Paul Martin was finance minister he gave his shipping company a grant for over $200 million and told us that it was only a $240,000 grant …. Then of course there was the sponsorship scandal. … Buying votes is an age-old method of winning an election, but he told us he knew nothing about it. He was just the finance minister, how could he know? Many people believed him.
Now at election time he is promising all kinds of treats and perks for us commoners and many of you out there believe him. How could you? Do you not question why he did not give us these things a year ago or two years ago?
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?
I personally find it totally unbelievable that anyone that did not directly receive cash from him could ever vote for him or his party ever again. This neo-Liberal government has continuously eroded the fabric of our society by widening the gap between the ultra rich and us commoners.
He has benefited big business to the point where every and all corporations in Canada have more rights than the citizens that make up this great country. …
Wake up, people, and smell the coffee. At this rate and under this neo-Liberal regime, there are going to be record numbers of poor and homeless people and guess what? This government does not care one little bit.
I urge all voters to get out and vote on Jan. 23 and I urge you all to make an educated decision and not trust a pathological liar to be the leader of this wonderful land.
– Don Zenert,
Chilliwack, B.C.
Resource riches
The letter by Elaine Sloan in the Dec. 15 Western Producer got me thinking. As Saskatchewan has more resources than any other province I have a plan.
Saskatchewan should establish a plan where companies could develop our resources for three years and not pay royalties. After that three-year period, Saskatchewan should implement a royalty structure like Alberta, maybe even a little lower.
After that; using figures from a few years ago (before the current oil price increase) Saskatchewan would be collecting more than the $7 billion Alberta was collecting instead of the $400 million Saskatchewan collected.
Just think of the benefit of that. Saskatchewan’s total budget is less than $7 billion. We could drastically cut other taxes to further spur economic activity.
Wait a minute, Saskatchewan tried just that in 1982. In the mid-1980s, so confident in this strategy was Saskatchewan, they negotiated an equalization deal that saw a $1.08 clawback for every $1 of oil royalty. Presumably they thought they soon wouldn’t be receiving equalization anyway.
Perhaps the government of the day was so convinced they were right that that is the reason Saskatchewan accumulated huge deficits? Even with many years of balanced budgets and low interest rates, we are still paying $580 million interest a year.
I’ve heard quotes that claimed Saskatchewan had more oil than Alberta and then others saying Saskatchewan had nowhere near as much oil as Alberta. These events of less than 25 years ago show who’s right.
If we don’t learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.
– Jeff Jones,
Duval, Sask.
Energy tally
It appears that Elaine Sloan has neglected to do her homework for her sour grapes rant against the NDP (Open Forum, Dec. 15.)
She states that Saskatchewan has as much natural resources as Alberta. I assume she means oil. But the numbers that I looked up show a world of difference.
Saskatchewan has about 35 billion barrels of oil underground, of which four to eight billion may be accessible with current technology and only just over one billion barrels can be extracted profitably.
Alberta has 60 billion barrels of light crude, one third of which can be profitably pumped out, and it can make money recovering 315 billion of its 1.3 trillion barrels of tar sands.
The map I saw showed that only one of the three major tar sand deposits in Alberta touches the Saskatchewan border. Saskatchewan has done remarkably well compared to a province 100 times richer in oil.
Ms. Sloan is also incorrect in her perception of what a Harper government will do for us. Their traditional “big business is right no matter what” attitude will only feed the multinational corporations she is so justly worried about. Farmers will be weaker and more alone than ever.
– Glenn Tait,
Meota, Sask.
Short memory
Surely Mr. Hamon must have written his letter to the editor (Dec. 15) with tongue in cheek. If he can remember what he was taught in kindergarten, he should be able to remember what happened less than 20 years ago.
Anyone prepared to exaggerate the claim (that) the sponsorship fiasco represents the “largest scandal in Canadian history” must either be suffering from selective memory loss or have lived on another planet during the 1980s.
Does Mr. Hamon know of any federal or provincial political party in Canadian history who had more elected members charged, convicted and in some cases sent to jail for having their hands illegally in the public cookie jar than the Devine Conservatives?
Has Mr. Hamon forgotten that it took a Liberal government in Ottawa to clean up the atrocious financial mess left behind by Brian Mulroney?
Has he forgotten that it took an NDP government in Saskatchewan, together with severe sacrifice by most Saskatchewan citizens, to rescue our province from the desperate financial mess left behind by Grant Devine? We are still trying to recover from that disastrous experiment.
It’s time Saskatchewan voters practice a bit of electoral honesty of their own and stop sending those ineffective Conservative members to Ottawa. The Conservative record of financial management in Ottawa and Saskatchewan is deplorable and their record of integrity questionable at best….
I’m confident this election will produce another minority government. Let’s make it clear that we expect all parties to make it work for the next four years.
– David Miner,
Speers, Sask.
Food security
… Many thinking people are beginning to be concerned about the health of the soil on which our food depends.
City folk should realize that farmers have a big investment in land, machinery and all the necessary inputs to produce the food.
In 1969, when the National Farmers Union was getting organized, the farm return on investment was about two percent, while farm fuel was only five cents a litre.
In recent years, farm returns on investment has been in a negative position, while the multinational food giants have been taking from 25 percent to over 50 percent return on investment in the farmers’ cereal grains that are processed to fill the boxes on the grocery store shelves.
While most farmers continue to produce the grain at a loss, is there any real value added in the processing and packaging plus transportation to warrant that big return on investment by the big multinationals?
In the election coverage, I haven’t heard any real concern over the state of farmers’ cost price, year-end balance sheet.
How secure is a good food supply or for that matter, clean water and air, all necessary for good health and the need for high cost sickness care? And let’s not forget the soil on which our good food depends….
– L. O. Jorgenson,
Abbey, Sask.
CWB competition
The comments by Canadian Wheat Board officials on the Conservative election promise to end the CWB’s single desk monopoly reported in The Western Producer, Jan. 5 are very revealing.
When Deanna Allen says “if the single desk is gone, it is a death sentence for the organization,” she voices the CWB priority of maintaining the organization and all its bureaucratic jobs over any concerns farmers may have.
An example of how the CWB will have difficulty in competing in an open market with other buyers is in the delivery time and subsequent cost. Grain sold to the CWB takes on average 79-80 days to deliver to the customer, whereas open market grain is in the system 19 days. The storage cost to the farmer for the extended delivery time is 50 to 60 million dollars annually.
Without major changes to their business practices, the CWB would be unable to attract farmers’ grain in an open and competitive market….
The CWB was created by an Act of Parliament, therefore the government has the right to change the powers of the CWB without regard to the self-serving interests of CWB officials.
– Albert J. Wagner,
Stony Plain, Alta.
Vote importance
The date when we cast our votes for the person we think best represents our interests is very near. We are fortunate to have the opportunity to vote as there are many countries in our world where people are not able to choose their government.
The saying in the West is that the election is already decided by the time Manitoba votes. However, that is a poor excuse not to vote. There are enough seats in Western Canada to influence the final outcome.
The media is busy presenting their views. Some try to give an unbiased report but many talk shows and newspaper articles are influenced by the personal bias of the host or columnist.
We need to keep informed of the policies of each party, not just their election promises. Examine the past record and recall just which promises from the previous election were kept.
Regardless of which party one listens to, there are not many ideas or plans to help agriculture, although our needs are at least being considered. It will be a tough decision but looking at the misspending of public funds and the denial and coverups of the ruling party, question their ability to continue to govern the country.
Legislation is pushed through against the wishes of the majority of Canadians and the Supreme Court is making our laws rather than ruling on our laws as decided by Parliament….
Whatever party you decide to vote for is your business, but do go out and vote. Or else how can you honestly complain about the government?
– Naden Hewko,
Cactus Lake, Sask.
No dual market
I’ve just received a pamphlet that outlines the Conservative party’s proposals for agriculture, one being to “give farmers the freedom of voluntary participation in the Canadian Wheat Board.”
I take great exception to this proposal as it is nothing short of a means to destroy the board.
Farmers have demonstrated through the democratic process, time after time, the desire to retain their marketing agency by electing to the board of governors, producers that support single desk selling. It should be farmers that decide the direction of the CWB, not some ideological driven politician or political party.
Let’s be clear about one thing: there is no such thing as a “dual market.” We have either the CWB in its present form/function, or we have an open market. There is no in between.
Without the CWB to market our wheat and barley, producers will have nothing other than the choice of which middleman to whom they should sell their product.
As I’m sure everyone is aware, the grain industry is on its knees given the high cost of inputs and the rock bottom world prices for grain. Can you not imagine the adverse effect of placing the grain corporations in a position where they could extract even more revenue from producers?
These companies must be salivating at the very prospect of being able to get their hands on our grain, something they’ve been striving to acquire for decades.
Producers simply cannot stand any more hits. This industry is already on the verge of a major collapse.
To Stephen Harper and the Conservative party, leave the CWB alone. The CWB is the producer’s marketing agency. Let producers decide its direction.
– Don Scott,
Garrick, Sask.
Re: Tax revolt
I have been reading articles concerning education tax on farmland. This tax has got out of hand.
Property tax to pay for schooling was an excellent method in the days of the one-room schoolhouses run by one teacher. However, nowadays property tax for education is obsolete. It has been for at least 50 years.
The education tax should be based either on income or consumption or both.
As such, the government could implement a tax that would be revenue neutral to them. It would have to make adjustments because today there are a lot of people earning an income who pay very little school tax. Therefore the change would have to take place over say a five to 10 year period to allow these people to adjust.
I can understand the government’s reluctance to make such changes as it would lose some of their political support even though it would make the tax system much fairer.
I believe that there is an equitable solution to the problem but there is no incentive for the government to apply it.
Because of this, I must support those municipalities that are withholding school tax. When a government refuses to right an inequity, social unrest may be the only way to force a solution.
I had thought that this country was above the need for such primitive action but our government has proven that this is not so. This problem started more than 50 years ago and in those 50 years the government has done nothing to alleviate it while being well aware of the problem.
I should also add that I do not believe there should be a school tax on property in towns or cities either. Again, it should be based on income and or consumption.
– Jim Rogers,
Edgeley, Sask.
Early airline?
Re: “Big Box Ranch,” Western Producer, Dec. 29.
I enjoyed reading Lori Creech’s fascinating article on Australia’s Yulgilbar Station. To get my head around the scale of 33,000 acres, it was necessary to convert it to Saskatchewan sections Ð over 50, almost one and a half townships.
Most intriguing of all was the fourth from last paragraph: “The marble fountain in the courtyard was flown in from Italy in the 1800s …”.
Could Ms. Creech please tell us which airline was air freighting marble from Italy to Australia in the 1800s? Orville and Wilbur made their first flight in 1903.
– Allan Liggins,
Coquitlam, B.C.
Green choice
Re: Agriculture policy, the NDP and the Greens.
In a recent television interview, Howard Leeson, professor of political science at the University of Regina, stated that the Greens were just “spoilers” in this federal election taking votes from the NDP.
This argument ignores the fact that there are very significant policy differences between the Greens and the social democrats, both here and around the world.
Take food and agriculture as an example. In Saskatchewan we have had an NDP government since 1991. They abolished the Gross Revenue Insurance Program, backed the management of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool against the members, supported the centralization of the grain handling industry, abolished the hog marketing board without permitting producers a vote, have given major support to the establishment of corporate hog operations, and continue to strongly support the development of genetically engineered crops.
They have supported agribusiness in promoting the free trade agenda in the Americas and at the World Trade Organization.
In addition, the NDP government closed 52 rural hospitals, cut grants to local governments and school boards resulting in higher property taxes, eliminated grants to regional parks, forced the amalgamation of rural school districts, and attempted to force the amalgamation of rural municipalities.
On all of these very important issues, Saskatchewan Greens stood in opposition to the NDP. Greens everywhere stand for local control, participatory democracy, and the right of all countries to control their own food production system and rural development policy.
The Saskatchewan Greens support family farming, co-operatives, producer controlled marketing boards, an emphasis on local production for local markets, and expansion of ecological farming.
We are quickly moving into the new era of climate change and peak oil and gas. This will have a major impact on farming on the Prairies. The food industry as it exists today requires a heavy fossil fuel subsidy. Do the mainstream parties have any answers?
– John W. Warnock,
Regina, Sask.
Choice matters
Re: “Election clouds wheat board’s future” by Adrian Ewins and “Monopoly not likely threatened under minority” by Barry Wilson, Jan. 5 edition.
So Conservatives want to provide “choice” as defined by Alberta Progressive Conservatives. Well, hold on now. Let’s think about this a bit.
Suppose you are a farmer participating in a “get more from the middle” initiative, probably the most promising opportunity farmers have. This means that you are trying to draw more consumer dollars directly to producers.
That means that you are trying to prevent those currently in the middle from taking home those dollars. That means you as a producer are competing with the large players who currently control the middle.
It could easily take a project two or more years to get off the ground in any meaningful way. That means that you, the producer, must earn revenue by selling to the current middle players.
With the single desk, your product is not readily identifiable prior to the sale.
With a multidesk situation, you’re competing with every neighbour from the Rockies to the Lakehead. Your product is identifiable as coming from someone who means to compete with that prospective buyer.
What are the chances that prospective buyer will buy from you knowing that the money paid to you will be used to support that buyer’s competition?
Alberta’s slogan is, “Choice Matters.” You bet your snakeskin boots and your silver buckle choice matters. It’s just that under multidesk, the buyers have the choice as to which specific producer they wish to buy from, thereby exploiting the lack of farmer power in the market.
It’s one thing to teach those Ottawa Liberals a lesson. It’s quite another to do it by committing mass economic suicide.
– Mike Klein,
Calgary, Alta.
Resource threat
Recent letters to editors of papers from other provinces have covered many issues of concern regarding how Harper’s new Conservatives are planning to restructure Canada, if voters give them a majority in our House of Commons on Jan. 23.
However, there has been little political discussions by all parties about the non-military invasion of Canada from the U.S., who need and covet our water and oil.
Since the Mulroney government took power in 1984, and abolished the Foreign Investment Review Agency, American interests have been buying up Canadian companies at an increasingly alarming rate.
Doing that is less costly than a military invasion, especially when those investors can do so by borrowing most of the funding from our own Canadian banks.
The use of water and oil at present and increasing rates in North America is absolutely unsustainable for the long term. Canada has sufficient amounts of these precious resources to meet our own needs, if we use them judiciously, but not enough to supply the wants of our big neighbour to the south.
David Orchard … warned Canadians about these trade agreements with the U.S., and has steadfastly argued for abrogation. Abrogation is also supported by the Canada Action Party … and Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians, as well as other well-known and respected Canadians….
Perhaps Canadians are just too trusting. When our Canadian officials appointed representatives to draw up the rules of the Free Trade Agreement, most of these people apparently had connections to corporations.
For these representatives the “free” in the FTA really meant freedom for multinational corporations to be relatively free of any control or regulations by governments that would protect Canadian and American consumers, and the resources that are in their public domain.
– Leo Kurtenbach,
Cudworth, Sask.
Protect seniors
As a concerned citizen, former LPN and an advocate for seniors, I am concerned about the many hardships and abuses our seniors are facing today.
Therefore I urge you to be sure that your MP is representing, protecting and respecting their life, values and dignity.
Seniors and those who are unable to speak and defend themselves are counting on us to defend them.
Before you vote in the upcoming election, please research and make sure that your MP will be responsible and accountable to you, the voting public.
As we all know politicians make and break promises at will unless they are held accountable. We must not tolerate elder abuse.
– Louise Scutchings,
Calgary, Alta.
Do the time
Crime is emerging as a central issue in the campaign while at the same time we learn that the incarceration rate for Canada for last year is at the lowest ebb it has ever been, according to a Statistics Canada report of Dec. 16, 2005, while the same study reports that our crime rate is very near the highest it has ever been since records were kept in 1962.
Could this be an indication that there just might be a possibility that the federal Liberals’ legal system isn’t working? The public has been screaming out that the judicial system needs to be fixed but the Liberals just didn’t get the point.
Were the Liberals serious about fighting crime when Liberal justice minister Cauchon on April 1, 2003, initiated the Youth Justice Act, specifying there would be no jail time for 12 to 17 year olds who committed second degree murder – house arrest and community service would suffice?…
Hardened criminals who have served violent crimes, some for sex offences, are being released even though they are found to be at high risk to reoffend. The real victims are defenseless children.
Males convicted of possession of child porn depicting gross sexual abuse involving violence are being sentenced to house arrest where they can carry on with their particular “pastime.”…
The Liberals have had 13 years to deal with the problem of crime. What are our chances of being led out of the wilderness by leaders who created the problem in the first place? Stephen Harper’s motto is “Serious Crime Deserves Serious Time.”
– C. P. Lind,
Edmonton, Alta.
Creating victims
Stephen Harper is in a power struggle to become prime minister of Canada.
His idea of helping farmers is to take their grain marketing system back to the early 1900s. That system made farmers into financial victims of the grain companies.
Now Mr. Harper wants to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board’s single desk selling.
Harper’s antiquated system will once again make grain farmers financial victims of the now bigger and more powerful grain companies. So the situation would be worse than it was in the early 1900s.
Then, farmers got fed up with being shafted by grain companies and formed their own companies: the three prairie wheat pools and the CWB.
Politicians should keep their hands off the CWB. Harper says his party would support supply management so why not the CWB? His voiced support of supply management looks hollow. …
Having read a secretive speech Mr. Harper made to a very conservative American group, the Council on National Policy, in Montreal in June of 1997, I think we should take Mr. Harper’s intentions to end the CWB and other Canadian institutions seriously. He is the last person we need as prime minister of Canada.
– George A. Calvin,
New Norway, Alta.
No imposition
On Jan. 3, a small central Alberta newspaper’s editorial implied that there was no reason to vote in this federal election. The editor considered waiving the right to vote as an option.
Anyone considering waiving their right to vote is surrendering to the theory that a specialized class of so-called responsible men is better qualified to decide what is best for them politically, economically and socially.
No different than a Marxist-Leninism ideology, this theory asserts that a small elite intellectual community – our current political and business leaders – knows what is best for us.
Voting is more than a right. It is a duty requiring an action of participation.
In this election the differences between the candidates and parties are clear to those participating in the process. If you can’t see the differences, your duty is to make a difference.
If you voted the same way in each election and you are dissatisfied with the results, maybe it’s time you considered changing your vote. Apathy and cynicism are just excuses for laziness.
Democracy is not free. Veterans, women and minorities sacrificed and paid the ultimate price to bequeath to us a responsibility to exercise, preserve and pass along to future generations our system of government.
Considering their sacrifice, it hardly seems like an imposition to get off one’s bottom two cheeks and make it work.
– Joe Anglin,
Rimbey, Alta.
