Marketing choice; Value chains; Quebec question; Quebec catering; Goodbye, herd
Marketing choice
I am responding to an editorial published in The Western Producer on Dec. 18, “Election results send clear message.”
In making this statement, The Western Producer does a disservice to many producers in Western Canada and also clearly shows a bias to the status quo in reference to the Canadian Wheat Board.
The recent CWB director elections illustrated how more producers than ever are supporting marketing choice on the first ballot. Additionally, two additional districts were very close to electing pro-choice directors.
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?
Finally this was an election to elect directors and does not in any way take away from the results of the barley plebiscite from two years ago.
The realities are that the CWB debate is as alive and well as ever. The realities are also that a CWB that can and won’t adapt is unlikely to survive in any form.
I, for one, will strongly advocate that the federal government continue to work with the CWB to provide choice for prairie farmers. To not do so is simply not recognizing the strong base of support for that position, and the risk that not moving forward will put on the CWB over the long term.
The first priority for the CWB must be to work with the federal government to give the majority of barley producers what they continue to ask for, which is choice marketing.
Alberta produces over half of the barley crop and Alberta’s producers have consistently and strongly supported choice marketing. The real message is it’s time for everyone to listen to what the majority of barley producers have consistently said, and what the CWB has admitted its producer surveys also have shown: that barley producers want choice.
To continue to not listen, and not allow barley producers their right to choice, will further hamper growth and value added in Western Canada in barley production. The ability to work directly with end users such as our malting industry will also be affected. …
I am proud to be elected and to carry on the role of a choice director in District 2. I will continue to ask the government and the CWB to provide barley farmers with choice marketing. …
The editorial (board) at the Western Producer implies via their editorial that the status quo is an option. It may be an option, but it will only serve a minority of barley producers and not meet the growing needs of farmers or the barley industry as a whole. …
– Jeff Nielsen,
Olds, Alta.
Value chains
Farmers who want an end to Canadian Wheat Board monopoly marketing are disappointed with the results of recent CWB director elections. Only one out of the five elected is a marketing choice supporter.
The results are a direct contradiction of the October federal election. There, the Harper government, which supports an end to the monopoly, received overwhelming support in the CWB designated area.
An emotional response from monopoly enders is to call for increased pressure on government. This could include demonstrations or even civil disobedience. A better choice for farmers is to support value chain participation. The whole chain, from plant breeders and input suppliers through growers to end users, has a stake in our marketing structure.
As farmers, we can best position ourselves by producing what consumers want. Value chains that are efficient and market oriented give us an opportunity to prosper.
Working with other value chain partners, especially on science and innovation, is essential.
Collective marketing supporters say that we need single desk marketing to empower us. They may see nothing wrong with confrontation and conflict. That is thinking from the past.
– Thomas Hewson,
Western Barley Growers Association,
Langbank, Sask.
Quebec question
Here we go again. As if we don’t have enough problems without facing the possibility of being governed by a coalition in bed with a party that wants to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada.
I believe that the rest of Canada has treated Quebec more than fair since Confederation. They have received many benefits that other provinces have not. Yet the more money and power we give them, the more they want!
Quebec has been acting like a spoiled child for many years. Although only one half of their population is in favour of separation, we still haven’t resolved this issue. We can now say that giving them most everything they ask for hasn’t worked. The rest of Canada has been held for ransom for long enough. …
Maybe it’s time to say OK to separation and see if the people of Quebec have the will to go through with it.
I’m convinced once all the federal funding, which is in the billions annually, is stopped, separation won’t look as inviting. No money for hospitals, schools, airports, highways, hydro, infrastructures and federal buildings and jobs moved or lost.
Only a fool would think a province could survive that devastation in addition to our current economic state.
I think this is the ideal time to offer the people of Quebec the chance to live with the separatists governing them, or throw the party away and live as part of united Canada. …
Canada can survive without Quebec. Can Quebec survive without Canada?
– Barry Minor,
Cranbrook, B.C.
Quebec catering
The opposition parties in Ottawa were quite within their rights in proposing a coalition to unseat the government. After all, more people voted for them in total than voted for the Conservatives.
The fly in the ointment is the makeup of the proposed coalition. The Liberal-NDP merger is fine. They are both federal parties, but they need the support of the Bloc to out-vote the government. The Bloc is not and does not pretend to be a federal party. They are plainly and openly a Quebec-only party and have no legal place in an actual federal government.
Why are they allowed in the House of Commons? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to ask why do we always cater to Quebec’s demands? Can you imagine the conditions Gilles Duceppe would impose for his support? We think we are paying ransom to Quebec now. Just wait.
What has roused the opposition to such fury this time? After all, Harper had a minority government last time and they lived with it. No, this time he proposed to hit them where it hurts, in the pocketbook. …
(Federal) finance minister (Jim) Flaherty proposed to cut out this payment to political parties and use the money to benefit the shaky economy and the you-know-what hit the fan. The Liberal party in particular would be bankrupted by this move, as they, more than any other party have become accustomed to feeding at the public trough.
Of course the opposition can’t openly admit this is what’s got them upset. They claim they are concerned about the economy. …
This whole scenario revolves around the elephant in the living room that nobody dares speak openly about – the status of Quebec in Canada – but that’s a whole major topic of its own.
– Dave Barnes,
Westlock, Alta.
Goodbye, herd
It is interesting to see the cattle herds leaving Saskatchewan at a rate of more than 30 herds a week.
I am a livestock producer. We complain to our politicians because we are losing our livelihood. They remind me of a dog chasing cars: “Where did it go?”
I asked our provincial ag minister to help our young families. Most of us already have these jobs to help protect our total life investment. He sent me a letter stating that the government would help pay a training program to get another job.
I guess I just never looked at his side of the story. Saskatchewan’s new volume of money comes from taxes on fuel and jobs. If there were no livestock producers drawing tax money, we could have jobs hauling our grain products to the U.S. They could pay us a discounted rate less 20 percent exchange on our dollar.
If we took taxes from the truckers plus taxes on the fuel they burn, the government could reap a lot of money.
Then if we paid the freight to haul it all back as a finished product, jobs and fuel again.
Then we could move to Alberta to retire because it would be cheaper. Just a thought.
– Murray Andres,
MacNutt, Sask.
