Policy questions
On July 15 a public meeting was held in Newbrook, Alta., to discuss the Alberta Livestock and Meat Strategy. Almost 300 people attended with representation from cow-calf to slaughter, export, auction marts and all the major beef organizations.
Noticeably absent were our elected MPs and MLAs, even though several had been invited. One can only wonder why.
Over 50 percent of those in attendance found the strategy totally unacceptable and another 25 percent weren’t sure if it was salvageable. Areas of concern identified:
Read Also
Topsy-turvy precipitation this year challenges crop predictions
Rainfall can vary dramatically over a short distance. Precipitation maps can’t catch all the deviations, but they do provide a broad perspective.
1. The cost of our product as an export commodity
2. Cutbacks in cost have occurred at all levels except government and they continue to add cost as a solution to our problem.
3. Open-ended government programs are unacceptable. We must know what we are signing.
4.The continual pressure to sign away our rights to the Privacy Act must stop.
5. Red meats imported into Canada must meet or exceed the same standards as Canadian product. We can’t continue to compete in an unfair marketplace.
6. The cow-calf sector must stop being the dumping ground for added expenses. If it is for the good of all, then all should pay.
7.Other than traceability, this strategy has no place in Animal Health and Food Safety
8. Information is the property of its owner and must be paid for if it is to be used by others.
In summary, our industry found a shared vision, a vision that appears to be supported by subsequent meetings. We can survive BSE but can we survive our own government?
(Alberta agriculture) minister (George) Groeneveld, your strategy seriously lacks understanding of the industry as a whole, shows prejudice to some sectors, fails to consider all the problems, is designed more to own and control an industry than to facilitate it and is dangerous to the long-term health of our industry.
Shared vision speaks of a consensus of all not just the forced ideas of one person. If you continue to listen only to the people who tell you what you want to hear, we can only hope you are man enough to live up to your own directive and find an exit strategy.
– Jackie Littler, President,
Woodland Ranchers Association,
Smoky Lake, Alta.
Veteran view?
I wonder what our veterans, who fought and died for this country, would think of turning our democracy over to corporations, as we are now doing under the North American Free Trade Agreement Chapter 11 and the Security and Prosperity Partnership? What’s your guess?
– Paul Wilbee,

Ottawa, Ont.
Keep fighting
My heart goes out to the people who are against a possible development coming to their community (WP, July 24, Alberta farm families fight golf course development).
My advice is to keep on fighting. My family is facing possible development also. In our case it is a neighbour wanting to divide some land into acreages with the possibility of more in the future. Since this land is adjacent to our farm, I find this idea to be quite revolting and repugnant.
Some day I do not want to be looking out at a row of houses. There are two villages nearby and I do not see any logic in creating a third. One home has gone up. It is not a simple bungalow but a big, ugly thing. It sticks out and looks very out of place.
It is not a good location to put a bunch of homes. I don’t think any thought or planning went into this idea….
This development would surely mean the end of our quiet co-existence in this little corner of the province. I just wonder how this neighbour got any approval for such a major project. It should take years to do a proper neighbourhood and environmental impact study.
Also, this potential development is near a large body of water and a nature preserve. I used to hear the water birds there, but since the one house has been built, I no longer hear them….
As for the Alberta people, I think the world has enough golf courses and RV parks. You and my family are not third class citizens. We have the right to live a peaceful life like anyone else in another part of any municipality or province where nothing ever happens.
It’s a sad state of affairs when people go quietly about their work then someone has to come along and suck the joy out of life.
– Mitchell T. Wlock,
Yorkton, Sask.
Challenge figures
In an Aug. 14 letter to the Editor, “CWB’s continued monopoly costs money and jobs,” writer Art Mainil states that if the recent poll on the Canadian Wheat Board’s monopoly would have been done fairly, then 80 percent plus of barley growers would favour a voluntary and competitive market in place of the CWB monopoly.
Spring wheat and durum producers would have shown no better than 40 percent support for the CWB monopoly.
I challenge Mainil’s figure of 40 percent support for the CWB monopoly on spring wheat and durum.
In the last three CWB elections for directors, there was only about 40 percent voter turnout. Roughly half voted for the candidates who wanted a voluntary and competitive CWB.
So the figure of 40 percent should be revised to 20 percent support for the CWB monopoly on spring wheat, durum and barley. Support of 20 percent does not give a mandate to run anything, especially a monopoly.
We need value-added malt and pasta plants for Western Canada in order to counter rising fuel and transportation costs. More money in the producers’ pockets puts more in everyone’s pockets.
If the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta get the wheels turning to support a dual marketing system, Manitoba won’t be far behind.
The time for the CWB monopoly has come and gone. After approximately 70 years of left-wing socialist mentality and rhetoric, it is time for change.
– Don Olah,
Weyburn, Sask.
Many storms
If we expect a voluntary CWB to have a future in the grain industry, we will have to do more than just sell grain into gyrating prices set to the whim and timing of futures speculation.
We need to become price makers, not takers, establishing markets which are substantial and reliable. It doesn’t take an expert to figure this out.
Every bushel of grain contracted to crushers, grain companies or the CWB is hedged on a corresponding futures month to cover any loss in price. How ironic. Selling futures has a direct effect on lowering prices and has given commodity funds ideal opportunity to buy up lower priced grain and manipulate prices to unrealistic, artificial highs, resulting in tremendous profit.
This was their first perfect storm. The CWB and many unsuspecting speculators were forced to buy back the higher price costing prairie producers millions of dollars.
The last storm was mild in comparison, severely depressing prices over a period of almost seven years mainly by selling higher priced deferred contracts, then forcing prices down and buying back at a profit.
How soon we forget. Many people don’t seem to understand how easily prices can be manipulated simply by threatening to make or take delivery on the closing of a contract.
To begin with, the CWB has no business selling grain futures unless making delivery. A much better idea would be to guarantee prices by buying grain futures. Threatening to take delivery would force funds to source our bins or buy back at a higher price. How is it possible we are always the losers when we control the product?
Someday soon, if there are to be any farmers left, we will have to implement our own insurance plan against storms. Why not now?
– Louis K. Berg,
Sedalia, Alta.
Ethanol and food
Although ready since January, Health Canada’s report, Human Health in a Changing Climate, was released on July 31 in the late afternoon with no fanfare.
Kirkland Lake Northern News is one of very few papers that mentioned key predictions of this report. I’ll recall three.
Canada’s national temperature, which was increased by 1.2 C over the past 50 years, will continue to increase at a rate faster than in most other countries.
The Arctic and central Prairies will have the highest temperature increases, leading to droughts in the Prairies and food scarcity in the North.
Residents of the North will be hit hard by food scarcity, natural hazards and increased exposure to the sun’s ultraviolet rays.
Knowing that, how do you like the idea that the federal government plans to spend $2.3 billion in subsidies to plants making ethanol from corn, wheat and soya?
Already the world’s grain stocks are down to 52 days. And don’t count on cellulosic ethanol soon; the technology is just not ready for scale.
Had the federal Conservative and Liberal MPs and Senators read this report in January, would they have voted in favor of Bill C-33, which allows the government to mandate a certain average percentage of ethanol in our gasoline, diesel and heating fuel by 2010?
As an admirer of the American way, does Mr. Harper know that from a quarter of all corn production in the States, enough ethanol can be made to replace only three percent of all American petroleum consumption? Energy efficiency is definitely a better option.
– Pamela Walden-Landry,
Montreal, Que.
Not cattle
I have owned, raised, worked in the field and ridden horses for over 70 years. It really upsets me to hear about how horses are slaughtered.
I have also raised cattle. To compare horses to cattle is absolutely ridiculous. Horses are far more aware of stressful conditions than cattle are. I have trained horses to the point where the only thing a horse couldn’t do is break.
If horse slaughter is such a wonderful asset to Canada, why is it discontinued in the United States?
Let us not give up on stopping horse slaughter the way it is done now.
– Pete Dzendzel,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Cost of drink
Prior to Aug. 1 there were no minimum drink prices in Alberta bars but premier (Ed) Stelmach has changed that.
Some people think the new regulations will mean that people will just consume cheaper drinks at home before going to bars.
The premier’s stated plan was to deal with violence and brawls in and around bars, saying the situation is getting serious.
However, the influence of the mind-altering drug alcohol is not confined to in and around bars. It extends to the homes, the workplace and the streets….
Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission research shows that, among those drinking in the age group 18-24, assaults and violence are almost double the national average at 5.4 percent compared to 3.2 percent and impaired driving charges are the highest in the age group 18-20. …
As of July 1988, all 50 (U.S.) states had set the drinking age at 21. It was calculated that the number of intoxicated drivers killed in traffic crashes decreased by 25 percent between 1980-1990.
Those who do not drink and drive should have a right to drive in safety on our highways, not being jeopardized by having to share the road with intoxicated drivers.
Our judges here in Alberta have sent out a message that drunk driving is trivial, even when death is involved by handing out nonsense sentences.
Little wonder that there are so many repeat offenders on our highways. …
– Audrey Jensen,
Red Deer, Alta.
