Letters to the editor

Seed use

We farmers hear so much to use certified seed due to reasons of purity, better germination and cleaner seed due to weeds.

I’m a commercial grain grower, not a seed grower.

I don’t believe in certified seed as I have cleaner seed than some seed growers are selling.

Know your seed grower as there are excellent seed growers and there are seed growers that clean seed just to pass the standards, as they are more concerned to get as much money as possible.

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?

Seed is traded between seed growers for hundreds of miles and they can bring a new weed into the area….

The seed growers want a law so a farmer wouldn’t use his own seed or sell to a neighbour. They should clean up their own act first. The weed standards should be lowered to zero. …

Canola should be treated with flea beetle control chemical during farmer pickup and a sample should be taken of untreated canola to be checked for weeds.

A farmer using his own seed does not bring in new weeds that he does not have.

Ñ Nick Bobyk,

Kamsack, Sask.

SWP & vote

It appears every angle was used to try and convince Saskatchewan Wheat Pool delegates to vote in favour of the capital markets initiative. The initiative reduces farmer control of SWP, allows for the voting shares to be taken away from farmers and be issued to the general investment community and ends the co-operative structure of SWP.

One would think that credit unions would favour farmer control of SWP. However, it appears some credit union directors were lobbying SWP delegates to vote in favour of the proposal.

The lobbying used the following logic. Since the credit unions had some of the SWP convertible notes in their portfolios, delegates were asked to ensure a positive vote. The convertible notes could be traded in for an approximate 15-18 percent premium if the initiative passed.

As some SWP delegates are credit union directors, it was even suggested that a director’s fiduciary duty overrode a delegate’s SWP commitment. Since the convertible notes would have an approximate 15-18 percent benefit upon conversion, lobbying for a positive vote could provide direct benefits to the credit unions.

One would think this type of lobbying should clearly be a conflict and probably unethical.

With the pro Mayo (Mayo Schmidt, CEO of Sask Pool) delegates only barely getting the required two-thirds vote, by less than one percent, it can be easily said that some credit union directors may have had a role in ending the largest farmer co-operative in Canada.

So much for co-operatives working together.

Ñ Harvey Malanowich,

Canora, Sask.

Nasty smoke

I would like to comment on the “smokers rights” letter by Mr. Adrian in last week’s (March 17) Western Producer.

Mr. Adrian feels that citizens of this land wanting fresh air to breathe is appalling. He claims his basic right of shelter has been abolished because he wants to pollute the air.

Mr. Adrian makes it sound like he is outside 24 hours a day, which I’m sure is not the case. What a load of crap. Doesn’t he realize 45,000 people a year die as a result of tobacco related illnesses?

He states that he has been put below animals on the totem pole because he smokes. Well, I would rather have the smell of animals around me than the putrid choking smoke from some inconsiderate smoker that wants to turn their lungs into black leather.

The costs to the Canadian health system due to smoking are astronomical and smokers should have to cover the costs of their own health problems.

This law should have been in place 20 years ago and there would be a lot more people in Canada that still would be here to read this letter.

Ñ B. Vigar,

Lancer, Sask.

Fewer friends?

Re: Lousy steak, (Open Forum, March 17.)

I do hope many Canadians read Mr. Hamon’s letter. If he did have some cattle producer friends prior to his letter, I’m sure he has less now.

It would appear, because he got a tough steak, all Canadian beef is tough. To me, it would seem Mr. Hamon wrote this letter without thinking. It is a known fact, Canadian beef is accepted as tops in any country. Mr. Hamon should travel through U.S., Mexico, Britain and Denmark. They will tell you Canadian beef will compete with any of them.

Since there is some U.S. meat coming into Canada, you never know, Mr. Hamon. Also, could there be just a bit of exaggeration to the toughness?

I should point out, I’m not a beef producer, never was, but was a farmer. I am retired and find more time to read and see how some so-called Canadians can run down our great country….

In the Feb. 10 Western Producer, Mr. Hamon also expressed his thoughts on sharing our water with the U.S. Nothing wrong with trade or sharing, but when it is one-sided, there will be a problem. At present, almost anything going south of the border, there is a tariff or duty applied. Lumber, wheat, pork, barley, you name it.

I suppose if they eventually started getting our water, they would apply a tariff of some kind. After all, it is going south across the border. It appears if it isn’t suitable to the U.S., they do something about it, regardless if it hurts another country or not.

I think it is time for our governments to stand up and be counted, if not, it won’t be long (before) our beautiful country won’t be ours anymore.

Ñ Doug Robert Meyers,

Berwyn, Alta.

Steak situation

Re: Lousy steak by John Hamon, (Open Forum, March 17.)The proof is in the sirloin steak.

You were reluctant to lay the blame for that brake pad/shoe leather sirloin steak that you struggled through but you did mention Canadian producers. Well, this is how I figure it …

Buy what the farmer/rancher feeds their own families. There is a huge difference in beef raised by rancher/producers versus beef owned by cattle owner/corporations.

The cattle rancher/producer is hands on with a goal to raise strong, healthy and productive livestock. Attend an auction, the point at which the livestock leaves beef rancher/producer’s hands, and you will witness first-hand the pride on their faces when their stock enters the ring.

The cattle owner/corporation is faceless and the main goal is the bottom line. This bottom line affects what, how, where they are fed, killed, aged and processed. …

As to your next steak, sear both sides of your farmgate steak and cook no longer than seven minutes. Well fed, healthy, and content equals nutritious, tender, moist and tasty, a simple equation.

B.C. consumers will be allowed to purchase from the farmgate until September 2006, after which the cattle rancher is subject to a $5,000 fine enforced by the federal government.

This astonishing news poses questions. How long before all provinces are involved in this grave travesty? Who’s best interest is being served?

Whose right of choice is being removed? Will fruit and vegetable farmgates and farmers markets be next? How can we fend off this insatiable, government sanctioned, corporate predator before all rights to choose are consumed?

Check out Bill C-27, which will expand the authority of the Canada Food Safety and Inspection Act with its conflicting dual mandate, secrecy, lack of accountability and poor track record on major food safety issues.

Hoping your next Canadian beef meal is a wonderful experience.

Ñ Bonita Haines Folvik,

Greenwood, B.C.

BSE games

Ever since the mad cow surfaced in May of 2003, we have all had to be subjected to all kinds of learned opinions from so-called experts.

I believe we in cow-calf production are in second class to feedlots and packers.

They have been given incentives and cash benefits while we were told that we were getting the benefits of this through osmosis.

The last thing I learned in education was that the producer was the person making the product available to the processor, not the other way. The ranchers raising the calves are the producers. The rest are processors.

I have decided that there must be more mad cows out there and they have been selectively fed to people who are in positions of power.

This would explain why most of our politicians have gone mad and are out to lunch.

Both the American and Canadian governments are playing games at a time when agriculture is in a serious crisis.

What prompted me to write this was to try to keep my sanity in the midst of confusion and stupidity. Interviews prior to the Calgary bull sale were really laying it on that March 7 was the day of the golden goose in the cattle industry.

One of the strange statements made was that the poor U.S. was losing jobs and they needed these live cattle to save jobs. Who cares? Did not the politicians and the people involved in cattle commissions and such realize that we Canadians have lost hundreds of jobs and that truckers have gone bankrupt all across Canada, let alone the ranchers that haven’t made it and more going to go under? Let’s look after us, not the U.S….

The border was only maybe going to open to 30 month and younger cattle under great restrictions. The two big U.S. owned packing plants based in Alberta have been sending tons of meat across the border to the U.S. in a box forever.

Do they really need live cattle? I don’t know.

If the government had a vision for our future, it would be nice if they had the guts to get it done. Maybe they should be saying, “keep your border closed and we’ll look after ourselves.”

Is it possible that we, the taxpayers of Canada, have been sold out? After all, there may be more sponsorship programs in operation out there. Boon doggle billions.

Ñ Arnold McKee,

Oyen, Alta.

U.S. control

Some Canadian cattle producers are saying we should be nice to the American administration if we are to expect them to open the border to our cattle exports. The argument used is that “we need Americans significantly more than they need us.”

So we should disregard our sovereignty, applaud their illegal aggression in Iraq and commit ourselves to participating in a ballistic missile defense system that many experts claim will never work?

We’ve already given up control over our energy resources by agreeing to the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which provides that we can neither charge a higher export price than our domestic price, nor can we cut back on our percentage of exports to the U.S. in the event of an energy crisis.

According to an article by Mel Hurtig in the March 21, 2005, issue of The Hill Times, quoting Industry Canada figures, 37 percent of Canada’s 500 largest corporations are already under foreign control, mainly American.

It is my view that U.S. ties to Canada serve their own interests more than ours. Where would their economy be without cheap Canadian energy, foreign investment in Canada or transportation and pipeline links to Alaska?

What is sorely required in Canada, if we are to preserve our sovereignty, is that our political leaders have the intestinal fortitude to counter the bullying tactics of the American administration by renegotiating our energy export and foreign investment policies.

Ñ William Dascavich,

Vegreville, Alta.

Rural essence

I begin by quoting Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont Dundas & South Glengarry, CPC): “Having taken their property rights away and watching their livelihoods die, all the government can offer rural Canadians is better internet access. I suppose if they have the internet, farmers will be able to advertise the sale of their farms and look for work in the city.”

That is where things are headed as long as the government fails to support our agricultural sector. It is ironic that the government is so fond of talking about high-speed communications for rural Canada, when its response to the BSE crisis has been so slow.

In the throne speech, the government calls broadband communication one of the fundamentals of rural economic development. What about agriculture? When will the government realize that agriculture is the very essence of our rural economy?

Sasktel’s CommunityNet program is one such example. The project is expected to cost $70.9 million, with the government of Canada contributing $5 million through Western Economic Diversification.

According to the project’s website, all communities with schools, health facilities, libraries or government offices have been included in CommunityNet. The cost of connecting every village and hamlet to the network is too prohibitive at this time.

Federal finance minister Ralph Goodale said, “regional and rural economic development is a part of the government of Canada’s overall economic strategy. That’s why we’re investing in the fundamentals such as skills upgrading, community development and modern infrastructure like the broadband communications in northern Saskatchewan.”

It’s a sad time when the costs of fundamentals are too prohibitive. When will the government realize that agriculture is the very essence of our rural economy?

Ñ Nevin Arnie,

Sturgis, Sask.

Less irrigation

On July 8, 1860, captain John Palliser told his London financiers: “This large belt of country embraces districts, some of which are valuable for the purposes of the agriculturalist, while others will forever be comparatively useless… The least valuable portion of the prairie country has an extent of about 80,000 sq. miles, and is that lying along the southern branch of the Saskatchewan and southward from thence to the boundary line.”

In these modern times of climate change, rapidly disappearing glaciers, decreasing snow accumulation and increasing evaporation, all of which will drastically affect the availability and quality of our water, prairie governments come up with schemes which seem to fly in the face of captain Palliser’s wisdom.

At the Drought Proofing the Economy meeting in Regina last November, Saskatchewan Agrivision unveiled their government-funded, 50 year water scheme which will supposedly fix Saskatchewan’s economic problems.

They told us about their multimillion-dollar proposal to construct 20 new dams, as well as a couple of major diversions on our rivers, and create reservoirs to supply water for economic development in clusters of chosen communities, many along the southern branch of the Saskatchewan River. …

In the article “Eastern Alta. debates proposed water project” (WP, Feb. 24), we discover that Alberta has its Special Areas, too. They touch on our western boundary and are also part of captain Palliser’s “comparatively useless” 80,000 sq. miles lying along the southern branch of the Saskatchewan River.

This recycled 10 year, $192 million project will extract 76.5 billion litres of water per year from the Red Deer River, create 130 new jobs, and increase the area’s GDP by two percent by, you guessed it, increased irrigation, increased industrial livestock production, as well as create wetlands and improve tourism.

This scheme was tried 75 years ago and it failed, with folks even provided with free transportation to leave….

Wouldn’t it make more sense for these governments to support agricultural practices in Palliser’s prairie country which require less, not more, irrigation? Practices such as planting drought-tolerant crops, for instance? Or producing hogs outdoors instead of crammed into factories in which millions of gallons of our drinking water are used to flush tons of manure out of the barns?

It seems they just don’t get it. They defiantly believe that nature can be forever managed as they continue their frenetic pursuit of so-called rural revitalization, come hell or no water.

Ñ Elaine Hughes,

Archerwill, Sask.

Alberta hunting

I am writing as a concerned Alberta resident about the Alberta government’s proposed law in regards to the Metis settlements and MŽtis Nation of Alberta to allow them the same hunting and fishing privileges as Treaty Indians. I feel this will cause a serious threat to our wildlife management in Alberta. …

There will be many repercussions if this law takes effect. If the Metis harvest large numbers of animals in areas where there is a limited draw for resident hunters, the biologists have told us they will have to reduce the number of tags given out to resident and non-resident hunters or even close the season for everyone but the Metis and Treaty Indians. This in fact means that the very people who support our fish and wildlife associations, the research departments, and the biologists of Alberta will be the first people to pay for unconditional hunting rules and guidelines.

Why are our biologists and fish and wildlife people not going to the government and requesting a hold on this legislation until government fully understands what this legislation will mean to the people of Alberta and more importantly the survival of our wildlife?…

Everyone in Alberta that buys a hunting/fishing licence also actively participates in the surveys that are needed by biologists and the Fish and Wildlife Department personnel to manage our industry effectively. If the government allows 80,000 potential Metis hunters to hunt and fish without licences, there will not be any accurate reports on the hunting season. How do you manage the industry then? …

No one would deny any person who is starving to hunt and provide necessary food for their family. But, to legalize 80,000 MŽtis for the handful of people that may need the food is ridiculous. …

I urgently request the MLAs to put a hold on this until further studies can be completed to look into our future and see exactly the consequences of this action.

This is a potential non-reversible disaster that will be created to our fishing and hunting industry in Alberta. There will be a tremendous amount of bad spinoff to our controlled industry and more importantly the wildlife in Alberta.

Ñ M. Neil Johnson,

North Star Outfitting,

Marwayne, Alta.

Celebrate what?

As each month unfolds, I become more disgusted with the plight of rural Saskatchewan. Every day there is news of a store or post office, a service disappearing.

Grain prices drop while chemical and fertilizer companies boast huge profits, not to mention many machinery companies.

So why spend to feed a hungry world? The hungry world can’t afford our crops and as farmers we must face that reality. It is not a farmer’s responsibility to feed poor people. Governments must feed the poor, which is each and every taxpayer in Canada.

The Chartered Accountant Income Support (CAIS) as I call it, tries to address this, but need I say more?

The coming year will see increased crop insurance costs, fuel costs, machinery costs, depressed grain prices, but our provincial government seems to do little to help.

My wife, who is on our local Celebrate Saskatchewan and homecoming committee, has been turned down for any funding for our community celebrations as have other small communities.

I guess it figures for a government that barely knows rural Saskatchewan exists, yet it is sad for a province that once boasted the third largest population next to Ontario and Quebec.

So celebrate and be proud that we have made one of the best provinces in Canada, a place where our youth have found work and good life for themselves and their children Ñ in Alberta.

Ñ Raymond Peterson,

Tompkins, Sask.

Help available

Farmers and forestry workers can receive all the help required to cover their losses in income caused by the U.S. border difficulties.

The financial help they need to build, equip, operate and market their products is also available at no additional cost to taxpayers of Canada.

Article 314 of NAFTA reads: “(Export Taxes) No party may adopt or maintain any duty, tax, or other charge on the export of any good to the territory of another party unless such duty, tax or charge is adopted or maintained on any such good when destined for domestic consumption.”

Note the word “unless” in the above. Canadians pay GST on their purchases of lumber, paper, oil, gas and electricity, so it follows that NAFTA allows Canada to charge the U.S. buyers of these goods the GST at border crossing point, valued at current market prices.

The GST income from our exports of oil, gas and electricity alone would bring in $350,000,000 per month. This money would go a long way in building, equipping, processing, operating and marketing our beef products worldwide.

It would also allow the “Canadianization” of our meat processing and forestry industries to be released from the current stranglehold of foreign interests.

All that’s required is for our political elite to act for the good of Canadians as opposed to their apparent will (to) do all possible to not upset our good neighbour to the south. …

Our political elite need only:

1. Cancel all further payments for salaries and contracts related to “trade negotiations” with the U.S. on any border disputes the U.S. may wish to continue or add to their list.

2. Legislate the extension of the GST to apply to our exports of lumber, pulp and paper, oil, gas, petroleum products and electricity priced at current market prices rather than at prices set years ago under long-term supply contracts.

3. Restrict all communications regarding trade matters with the U.S. to ministers or elected members of Parliament, so that Canadians can witness how these members handle the affairs on behalf of Canada….

Ñ Vern Bretin,

Leduc, Alta.

Lock ’em up

As a Grade 9 student in a rural community, I have been closely following the event of the massacre that claimed the lives of four RCMP officers.

I believe that the courts should be stricter in dealing with criminals who have a history of being dangerous. Our justice system must be willing to keep these criminals locked up in jail. This would make our rural communities much safer.

Our RCMP force is a very talented group of individuals, but there is just so much ground to cover. I feel that if violent criminals are locked up, we will be safer, including the RCMP.