Denied vote
About 10 days after I received my ballot for the barley plebiscite, I phoned my landlord and another landlord who lives nearby to see if they had received a ballot.
When the answer was no, they phoned KPMG in Winnipeg to inquire about a ballot and they were told landlords do not get a ballot. Here we have two landlords who have had barley grown on their land in the last five years and have paid municipal taxes on their land and federal income tax on their barley revenue, and (they) are removed from the voters list by (federal agriculture minister) Chuck Strahl….
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
I see in the Western Producer, April 5, Chuck Strahl saying, “What a great day for western Canadian farmers,” and all the Conservative MPs shouting “freedom, freedom.”
I guess western farmers can afford to lose another $26 million.
I wonder how many more landlords have been denied a vote.
So much for the honourable Chuck Strahl’s freedom.
– Gord Hill,
Moose Jaw, Sask.
Proof, please
The honourable David Anderson had two letters published in the Western Producer (Open Forum, March 8). Both were intended to undermine opposition to the Conservative mandate of “marketing choice” in barley.
Mr. Anderson claims that the vocal majority of farmers’ opposition to his government’s position is based on simply a misunderstanding. He states that neither the Conservatives nor their anti-CWB task force last fall ever claimed that a single desk Canadian Wheat Board could exist as part of an open market.
Most farmers understand the principle of the single desk and the benefits it provides us, and know that a single desk cannot exist in an open market. That’s a pretty straightforward concept and it is disturbing that Mr. Anderson thinks us so simple that he requires two letters and a volume of past press releases to reiterate it.
Perhaps the reason Mr. Anderson is so defensive about this point is that he finds disconcerting the number of producers who are aware enough of their board and their markets to call the bluff of the Conservative “marketing choice” option for what it is: a ploy to divide the pro-CWB vote and give (federal agriculture minister Chuck) Strahl an excuse to weaken the CWB mandate as a first step to its dissolution despite mass farmer protest.
What Mr. Anderson and the Conservatives are not telling growers is much more disconcerting than what they are telling us. They promise a utopian “marketing choice” system with a “strong and viable voluntary CWB.”
What they don’t tell us is that this voluntary CWB will be a shadow of its former self. At best, it will be a small grain broker with no infrastructure, competing for market share against the multinationals and then trying to hire handling services from its competitors.
They don’t tell us for how long government guarantees of CWB initial payments will continue. They don’t tell us how the CWB will be able to continue to provide producer car allocations. They don’t tell us how the CWB will be able to continue to advocate for farmers’ rights in grain transportation.
In fact they provide no facts or evidence of how their utopia could possibly function….
Let’s not be fooled by these tactics. The Conservatives don’t know how “marketing choice” can work and don’t have our best interests at heart by pushing for it. Let’s keep making our voices clearly heard in support of our best interest as producers, the CWB single desk for wheat and barley.
– Reg Enright,
Rosalind, Alta.
Gopher solutions
In the Sept. 14, 2006, edition of the Western Producer, the gopher problem plaguing southwestern Saskatchewan was shown to be quite extensive. As I read the article, I found it hard to believe that it could be that bad.
The only way to believe it was to see it for myself. On Easter long weekend I travelled with my sons and nephew to Ponteix, Aneroid and Hazenmore to see for ourselves the devastation the gophers are doing. It is unbelievable the amount of gophers there are and how widespread they are.
We talked to many farmers in those areas and they all have the same problems. These farmers need some serious help in controlling this rodent infestation. It has been going on for five years. How many years can they go on without crops worthy of harvesting?
I think it’s time that the provincial government help these people out and come out with a way of controlling these critters that is effective and permanent.
There was some poison tried last year but with no success. It was brought to my attention that the type of grain used in the mixture was not what gophers like and the so-called poison tried did nothing to the gophers.
I think it’s about time that the “experts” trying different ways to control the gopher population licensed to the farmers, as they are the ones who know best what should be done. There has to be something that can be done to help these people out.
– Paul Perreault,
Grunthal, Man.
CAIS changes
The purposely planned destruction of Canada’s main farm program called CAIS (Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization) will hit the farmers of Canada in the spring of 2008 when they fill in their 2007 CAIS claim year forms.
The majority, if not all, of Canada’s farmers will find that being the governments made the reference years mandatory accrual numbers instead of cash numbers, that their margins have dropped from minus 100 percent to minus 120 percent, eliminating the majority, if not all, of Canadian farmers from the CAIS program.
All governments have just changed CAIS from a cash margin to an accrual margin, which makes CAIS totally dysfunctional.
CAIS in 2008 (2007 claim year) will be accrual number (reference years) minus accrual number (claim year) equals no difference, no margin, no payouts.
Today’s CAIS does function partially because it presently is cash number (reference years) minus accrual number (claim year) equals a spread, margin and payouts.
All governments have planned this and have implemented this disastrous change of accrual numbers in reference years instead of cash numbers last November.
To date, all governments refuse to do anything about the disastrous change so I want my letter posted on the Agriculture Canada website, to warn Canada’s farmers as to what our governments have purposely planned for us, because Canada’s farmers have a right to know, especially facing future government elections.
– Lloyd Pletz,
Regina, Sask.
Good budget
If a government were going to do something that benefited a lot of average or low-income people, I cannot think of a better time than now.
Income for government has never been so high, in spite of whopping tax cuts to business in the last budget. Now is the perfect time to share the wealth with the historic and present producers of it and at the same time produce jobs and incentives to slow the exodus.
I think the tax exemption provided to graduating university students will provide them with a foot up, provided they are able to earn more competitive salaries. The exemption should not be an excuse so as to continue paying lesser salaries than their equivalent in Alberta. To do so loses its impact.
That the province will pay not only $118 million to fully fund the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program, but also $104 million to cover the provincial share of the 2007 crop insurance costs, sounds like a fair increase to agriculture, which is always too diverse a variable and reliant on Mother Nature….
The assistance to those over 65 with drug costs will be a big boost to the health of the province ….
Of course this budget is sustainable. Its only shortcoming is that Ottawa has yet to be convinced of its share of the responsibility as in Medicare.
But until then, I recall the birth of a hospitalization plan and then medicare, both much greater leaps when we had much less. And by the way, to the naysayers who fear this sustainability question, I can report that at age 65 we do not stop paying income tax.
– Wes Norheim,
Regina, Sask.
Two lies
Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl has spent months urging farmers to vote for (option) No. 2 on the barley plebiscite ballot, insisting that it was not a vote to eliminate the CWB’s (Canadian Wheat board) role.
He insisted that No. 2 was a vote to maintain the CWB for barley marketing along with the open market option. And he gagged or slammed anyone who dared to suggest that it was not a viable, distinct option. Some 48 percent (less than a majority) of those who voted believed Strahl and voted for No. 2.
Now Strahl has changed his tune. Voting for ‘choice’ turns out to be the same as voting to eliminate the CWB. So he’s adding the votes for No. 2 and No. 3 together. Was he lying during the plebiscite? Or is he lying now?
Farmers should note Strahl’s strategy of deceit during election periods. They could add the two sets of lies together in order to figure out how dishonest and deceptive the Harper government is.
No matter what they tell you during an election, the Conservatives intend to count every vote for them as a vote against the CWB.
– Nettie Wiebe,
Delisle, Sask.
MCPA issue
It never ceases to amaze me how the leadership of farm organizations such as the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association (feedlot owners and cattle buyers) can mislead their members into doing exactly the opposite of what is in their own best interests.
A case in point is the recent support shown for the government’s $2 levy that is being collected by the Manitoba Cattle Enhancement Council to increase slaughter capacity in the province.
The leadership of the MCPA was hysterical in its opposition to the announced checkoff insisting that their freedom to choose had been infringed upon and rallied farmers behind this simple message.
Farmers now have the freedom to choose all right. They can choose between giving more of the value of their cattle to one private business interest or to another. I guess it made too much sense to own and operate their own slaughter plant and capture more of the value of their cattle to put into their own pockets.
With this logic, now that the Rancher’s Choice slaughter facility is officially dead, we have real choice. Will we have the same real choice when those farmers who want the “freedom” to sell their grain outside the Canadian Wheat Board and therefore, feed the profits of the multinational grain companies, succeed in dismantling the CWB’s single desk?
I say to these farmers, if you want to be free enterprisers, then stop asking the public for handouts when times get bad.ÂÂ
Exercise and be responsible for the freedoms you choose. Be real free-enterprisers. But quit lobbying government to stop the rest of us from exercising our freedom to join together to preserve and create structures that will bring more of the value of farm produce back to the farmer.
I trust that these free-enterprising farmers are going to tell Prime Minister Harper that they won’t want any of the billion plus dollars slated for them in the federal budget. It’s about time they put their money where their mouth is.
– Ruth Pryzner,
Alexander, Man.
Pet food
As a bit of background from (a March 30) Menu Foods press release:
“Melamine has been found in the wheat gluten from a new supplier in the United States, who sourced this wheat gluten in China. This is the same ingredient that Menu Foods made reference to in its recall press release of March 16. Melamine has not been found in the wheat gluten that we obtain from our other suppliers.”
Note the ultimate source was China, but the supplier was in the U.S. It will be interesting to find out which company supplied it. I bet it was not the Canadian Wheat Board.
Given the recent events around food safety for pets around the production of massive quantities of pet food containing poison attributed to foreign-grown wheat gluten, one cannot help but wonder what assurances Canada’s new government will give to the people of Canada for the safety of their and their pets’ food supply.
With Canada’s New Government’s determination to destroy our family farm and the Canadian Wheat Board, which incidentally is Canada’s only safe food source, in favour of multinational corporation(s), one of whom a former prime minister sits on the board for, and globalization of our food supply, whose only concern is for profit.
Once the destruction of the Canadian family farm is completed by Canada’s new government, one cannot help but wonder if Canadians can expect to have safe healthy nutritious food, not only for their pets but also for themselves and their families?
One also wonders what control, if any, will Canada’s new government put in place to ensure that the cheapest food possible found by the corporations around the world and imported to Canada for Canadian consumption (to be sold for the highest possible profit) will be indeed safe for Canadians and their pets to consume?
Another point of interest – be it gluten or be it spinach, none originated from Canadian family farms.
– Neil Peacock,
Sexsmith, Alta.
Challenge issued
The Saskatchewan government has invited former U.S. vice-president Al Gore to speak in Regina on global warming on April 23, 2007. Gore will receive a speaking fee of $125,000 and individuals will have to pay $20 to $75 for a ticket to hear him.
Meanwhile, British journalist and newspaper owner Christopher Monckton (a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher) has challenged Mr. Gore to a formal debate on global warming, to be televised internationally. …
After almost four weeks, Gore still has not responded to the challenge.
Why won’t this self-styled saviour of the planet donate two hours of his time to face off before the whole world against a prominent critic? Could he be fearful of losing the debate? Or does he only travel around telling fearsome tales when there’s money to be made out of it?
– Karen Selick,
Belleville, Ont.
Lost profits
Re: “Civil servant suspended for e-mail” (Edmonton Journal, April 4, 2007)
I was appalled reading the story about an Alberta government employee who sent a derogatory e-mail to a pro-Canadian Wheat Board website. The employee is obviously ignorant of the history and function of the Canadian Wheat Board and was merely unwittingly reflecting the right wing ideology of her employers.
I am now a retired farmer, but throughout the years I was grateful to have had the benefit of the CWB bargaining collectively on my behalf for the best possible price in a competitive world grain market. As an individual grain farmer, I would have been at the mercy of private international grain merchants ….”
Of course bargaining collectively is anathema to the private corporate sector. It impedes the maximization of their profits. That is why they fund right wing parties that ensure legislation furthers their interests.
In their attack on the CWB, right wing governments, together with the private grain trade and their lackeys, are using clichés like “freedom” and “choice” and ambiguous questions on ballots designed to produce the results they want.
Once the CWB is dismantled, under the terms of Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), it will not be possible to reinstate it. Any attempt to do so can be challenged by the private grain trade. They can sue the Canadian government for “loss of anticipated profits.” This could run into millions of dollars. Dollars that, thanks to the CWB, are currently benefiting western Canadian farmers and the economy of the prairie provinces.
– William Dascavich,
Edmonton, Alta.
Tory travesty
It is with a mounting mix of anger, disbelief, and concern that I watch the Harper Conservatives attack the Canadian Wheat Board. While I am not surprised by their desire to destroy the CWB, I am appalled at the tactics that they and their supporters seem to find acceptable.
While I find the conduct of Harper’s Conservatives to be reprehensible, I am equally troubled by the consent which their unprincipled actions appear to have met. Like spectators at a schoolyard fight between a vicious bully and his hapless victim, those farmers who are against the CWB are egging Harper’s thugs on …. To these individuals, the end seems to justify the means, no matter how unethical.
Then there is another group that is uncomfortable with the tactics that the bully is using …. But they stay silent either out of apathy or fear that the bully will turn on them when he is finished brutalizing his current victim.
Finally, we have the other members of Harper’s Conservatives, elected to govern our country in a fair and just manner. Instead, they too are divided into the same groups as above, either cheering the beating on or too frightened to say anything to their malicious leader.
It is critical that the citizens of Canada stand up and speak out for principles that I believe our country stands for: truth, decency and fairness. For us to act as silent onlookers to such a travesty of democratic governance demeans us as individuals and a nation. In the Liberal sponsorship scandal a small group of partisans stole money from the Canadian people, with a few elected and appointed officials turning a blind eye; a shameful episode in our history. The Conservative government’s pogrom against the Canadian Wheat Board is a violation of the principles of fair and just governance, a far more sinister and malignant occurrence.
– Cameron D. Goff,
Hanley, Sask.
