Cleaning up; Stealth campaign; Partisan question; CWB advantage; Election theft; Odd conflict; Garden path; Blues singers
Cleaning up
Throughout the last federal election campaign, the Green party, the NDP and the Liberal “green shifters” flew back and forth across the nation spewing negative publicity against Western Canada’s major sources of readily available energy.
The tar sands, coal-fired power plants and our own Saskatchewan heavy crude were all targets.
Interestingly enough, Mr. Dion’s green shifters are now running in first gear, with carbon clogging their political engine.
Read Also
Growth plates are instrumental in shaping a horse’s life
Young horse training plans and workloads must match their skeletal development. Failing to plan around growth plates can create lifelong physical problems.
For several decades, Quebec and Ontario auto, implement and other manufacturers and processors dumped raw effluent and industrial waste into the Great Lakes.
They ripped the countryside apart with nickel, asbestos and iron mines. They harvested the forests until the ground was bare, their cities ate up rich soils that had grown crops for centuries. Have we already forgotten acid rain?
The four western provinces have made leaps and bounds in implementing environmental protection programs. Saskatchewan and Alberta were pioneers in land reclamation and soil conservation programs. British Columbia and Manitoba had reforestation programs in place almost a century ago.
May I … suggest to Quebec and Ontario politicians that they clean up their own back yard, and we’ll take care of ours.
– John Hamon,
Gravelbourg, Sask.
Stealth campaign
It is very strange that the mainstream media has paid no attention to Ralph Goodale’s stealth campaign to manipulate the Canadian Wheat Board.
Two former Liberal candidates including a former Goodale employee are running for CWB director.
As well, an ex-CWB employee who is also a prominent Liberal organizer in Manitoba is spearheading the recent court challenges to the CWB voters list.
Just how stupid do the Liberals think farmers are? Grain producers are not going to fall for this sort of blatant, cynical partisan manipulation.
– Charles Anderson,
Rose Valley, Sask.
Partisan question
Rod Flaman was a Liberal candidate in the most recent federal election in the Regina Qu’Appelle riding where he finished with only 10 percent of the vote, coming in a very distant third.
Lonnie McKague has run repeatedly for the Liberals and served as a staff member to Liberal MP Ralph Goodale.
Both are now running in the CWB elections….
How can either McKague or Flaman carry out CWB duties in a non-partisan manner when they are essentially Liberal politicians?
The CWB is supposed to represent the interests of farmers. It must not be hijacked by the Liberal Party of Canada or become a sanctuary for unsuccessful Liberal candidates.
– Herb Axten,
Minton, Sask.
CWB advantage
Over the past two years, I have witnessed with great dismay the unlawful lobby by the federal government and their unseemly tactics to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. The government’s tactics include: 1) Firing Adrian Measner without cause; 2) Imposing a gag order on the CWB before the last bizarre and biased referendum on barley marketing, and 3) Replacing competent CWB directors with appointed directors whose only objective appears to be the dismantling of our farmer-controlled agency that markets Canadian grain and upholds our high quality grain standards.
The CWB is a pooled marketing agency for farmers/farm families. It was created as a result of farmers’ efforts. Its role is to support farmers in a global environment that is overwhelmingly controlled by corporate interest.
I am often amazed at the number of farmers who mistakenly view their own marketing agency as the enemy, and the shareholder driven companies as their allies.
If the CWB is dismantled, our only marketing “choice” will be to sell to one of several companies whose allegiance is to their own bottom line, not to farmers. They are concerned with making a large profit margin for their shareholders, not with providing a fair price at the farmgate ….
When I do the math, our farm is further ahead financially because of the CWB. I have a strong desire to protect our marketing agency.
– Lori Erhardt,
Oxbow, Sask.
Election theft
It is readily apparent that the Conservative government is trying to steal the Canadian Wheat Board director elections from the farmers (by) stopping legitimate voters from voting, encouraging bystanders to vote and removing spending limits for third party interveners.
And you don’t need a calculator to figure out that the Conservative-appointed board members are right in there pitching for the government at every turn while trying to make it as hard as possible for permit book holders to get back onto the voters’ list.
As a result, the CWB itself is forced into nonsensical statements like, “It’s hard to justify sending letters only to permit book holders when all grain producers are entitled to vote.” (Western Producer, Oct. 30, 2008).
This lines up nicely beside the minister of agriculture’s statement in a letter to “producers” (Sept. 2008) when he said: “This is an opportunity for prairie producers to have their say in the future direction of the CWB.”
So my question becomes: If the CWB elections are for all grain producers, why is it that only the CWB permit book holders have to pay all the costs?
And the second question is, when thousands of permit book holders (eligible voters according to Canadian law [the CWB Act and Regulations]) are kicked off of the voters’ list, why do these disenfranchised people have to pay any of the costs?
Keep in mind that permit book holders pay 100 percent of the costs of the CWB director elections.
The disenfranchised permit book holders are truly back in the category of “taxation without representation,” paying the costs of an election that they can’t participate in.
Farmers must say “no” to stealing elections, “no” to the Conservative political appointments at the board, and “no” to taxation without representation. Farmers can speak by getting back on the voters’ list and voting for pro-CWB candidates.
– Stewart Wells,
Swift Current, Sask.
Odd conflict
It seems incredible that someone would run in the election for a position on the CWB when they are vehemently opposed to the organization. I would call it a conflict of interest.
Would such a person work in the best interests of the farmers, depending on the CWB to market their grain, or would they work toward scuttling the CWB?
I personally would vote for the person who would genuinely work to do the best possible job of marketing grain and I can’t see it being someone who is anti-CWB.
The question of terminating the CWB could best be done by an honest and fair vote, and not by the board elections. Do you want the CWB to sell your grain? What grains should the CWB market? Placing anti-CWB people on the board is counterproductive. It shouldn’t even be an option.
– Ken Leonhardt,
Drumheller, Alta.
Garden path
The way the financial markets are jumping up and down like a yo-yo is exactly what we’d get with an open market for barley and wheat.
If (federal agriculture minister) Gerry Ritz thinks the Conservatives have a mandate to lead us down the so-called garden path of choice, they better think again. With a popular mandate of a mere 20 percent, by using their own flawed calculations, 62 percent times 20 percent equals less than 13 percent wanting change.
Before the demise of the Crow and deregulation we were always able to haul some of our crop directly from the combine to the elevator. Now it may take months before the powers that be send us a train to move the grain.
Do we want to go back to pre-1935? I don’t think so.
– J. W. Zunti,
Luseland, Sask.
Blues singers
One can read letters in which the final price for wheat sold through the CWB is compared with the high price for the year. The writers sing the blues.
I wonder what would happen if they looked at canola and peas in the same way. Using last year as an example, with so many acres of canola being seeded, with $8 per bushel being offered for fall delivery, growers were advised to sign contracts because that is much better than should be expected.
Canola went to $16. A very large percentage must have been sold at $8, otherwise the price would not have gone so high. There is no final payment.
Peas follow the same pattern, have done that for years. It was many years ago a neighbour told me about needing the hopper bin in which he had peas. He sold them. He said he should have bought a second bin. It was not long until the peas went up so much he nearly could have paid for a new bin with the difference.
If the writers who sing the blues about the wheat board were to think of what happens in the open market, they would cry in their beer.
– Lorne Jackson,
Riverhurst, Sask.
