WORTHY OF INCLUSION
April 28 was the National Day of Mourning. Each year we honour Canadian workers injured or killed on the job, most of them anyway.
We do not honour the farm, ranch and feedlot workers in Alberta who are killed or seriously injured at work. Why don’t we honour these workers? Because Alberta’s Farm and Ranch lobby considers these workers to be just another input, such as manure, chemicals and fuel.
Just another writeoff and the Alberta government does their bidding.
Read Also
Worrisome drop in grain prices
Prices had been softening for most of the previous month, but heading into the Labour Day long weekend, the price drops were startling.
Only WCB (Workers’ Compensation Board) accepted fatalities are included in the Day of Mourning numbers and most of Alberta’s Farmworkers are not covered by WCB so they are not counted. They just kind of disappear.
Alberta farm workers are persons, they have family and friends who mourn them and miss them.
These workers are excluded from the OHS (Occupational Health and Safety) scheme, mandatory WCB, minimum pay, minimum age, rest breaks, vacation pay, holiday pay, the right to know about dangers, the right to refuse dangerous work, the right to join a union and the right to a workplace investigation when they meet with a serious injury or death.
Surely these Alberta workers are at least worthy of having their lost lives included in our National Day of Mourning.
We may work in Alberta but we are Canadians.
Darlene A Dunlop,
Farmworkers Union of Alberta,
Bow Island, Alta.
LEFT WINGING IT
After His April 24 column in the WP, it would be interesting to see a definition of the “left wing crowd” mentioned by Kevin Hursh.
In the past it was suspected that “left wingers” were the first to point out the declining fish stocks on the East Coast and it was also “left wingers” who mentioned human involvement in climate change.
In Alberta, “left wingers” were accused of predicting rising electric bills with the deregulation of that industry. In all three instances, “left wingers” were right.
With such a diversity of issues “left wingers” must be a very diverse crowd but the impression I get from Kevin’s comments is that “left wingers” are always wrong.
Is it possible that the old saying about it being a human trait that “if something is not working more of the same activity will fix things”.
It is obvious that the present grain transportation system is not working for farmers, so should we not be looking at any solution or do we need more deregulation and privatization?
I would like to see Mr. Hursh’s definition of left wingers. Perhaps that will help me understand his thinking. In the meantime, is it possible that most farmers don’t care whether a solution is left or right as long as it works?
Could it be that many, like me, belong to the Pragmatist Party and don’t care about left or right and instead focus on the results?
As a mature gentleman once told me, “words are cheap but action takes cash”.
Horst Schreiber,
Ohaton, Alta.
FACTS NOT PRESENT
I was disappointed in the commentary by Kevin Hursh, “Will wheat board politics hinder industry progress?” (WP April 24), which made several false and damaging statements about the Saskatchewan Wheat Development Commission (SWDC).
Hursh’s suggestion that SWDC is pursuing a political agenda and is not focused on its core mandate of research and market development is false.
In fact, the SWDC board of directors is actively considering a number of proposals from the research community with other funding agencies such as the Western Grains Research Foundation (WGRF).
I challenge Hursh to produce a single example of producer check-off funds being used by SWDC for political purposes.
The election process was open to all registered wheat producers and while voter turnout was relatively low, it was very similar to other commission elections.
Hursh’s contention that we stayed away from the recent Canada Grains Council symposium in Winnipeg for ideological reasons is also incorrect. In fact, SWDC had previously scheduled a board of directors meeting and strategic planning session on those dates.
We decided it was more important to focus on completing the start-up phase of the commission instead of spending producer check-off dollars to attend a conference.
All SWDC directors attended a UPOV-91 session on April 17 in Sask-atoon sponsored by AG-West Bio and the University of Saskatchewan as well as the recent Grain Transportation Summit in Saskatoon, hosted by the U of S.
Perhaps most troubling is that Hursh feels he can question the track record of the commission based on our absence from a conference and a number of false assumptions about what we might do, instead of our actual performance.
I can assure him that the SWDC board is committed to creating value for Saskatchewan wheat producers through targeted investments of check-off funds and would urge him to stick to the facts.
Bill Gehl, Chair,
Sask. Wheat Development
Commission,
Regina, Sask.
FALSE AND MISLEADING
This is in response to Elaine Sloan’s April 24 letter to the Editor. It is my opinion that she tries to make some arguments that are false and misleading.
As for Kevin Hursh being in la-la land, that is totally false. He is a common sense farmer who is very knowledgeable in many things relevant to the industry.
No doubt, Monsanto is out to control the world’s seed supply. However, I would like to see some documented statistics as to how many farmers have committed suicide because they can’t afford seed.
Also she groups organic and GMO together. This is totally false, as the two have no relationship whatsoever. GMO is the altering and mixing of genes.
Organic is farming without the use of chemicals. I am old enough to remember farming without chemicals. The fences were choked with weeds and every time the wind blew the land was a half a mile in the air. The yields were reduced as well.
If we all went organic, there would be a lot more hungry people in the world.
We could argue the logistics of organic versus conventional farming practices forever but that old horse has been flogged to death.
Dave Weisgerber,
Consul, Sask.
C-30 IMPROVES ALL
Re: “Oil over Ag” (WP letter to the Editor April 17)
Leo Kurtenbach’s recent letter highlights his misunderstanding of the grain transportation issue.
Recognizing the rail logistics challenges being faced by shippers, our government tabled legislation (Bill C-30) to improve rail logistics for all commodities.
Bill C-30 will expand oversight of grain movements by requiring additional, more timely and accurate data from the railways to in-crease the transparency of railway, port and terminal performance across the supply chain, corridor by corridor.
This bill will also mandate grain volume requirements at one million metric tonnes per week. This figure is being met, and will ensure a record volume of grain is moved while not hampering the flow of other commodities.
Contrary to Mr. Kurtenbach’s assertion, our government understands that a strong Canadian economy relies on timely rail service for all commodities.
Bill C-30 will also increase the interswitching distances from 30 kilometres to 160 km for all commodities on the Prairies, allowing for practical access to more than one railway to 150 prairie grain elevators, compared to just 14 with that access today.
With an amendment our government introduced on April 7, this legislation will meet stakeholder requests for meaningful service level agreements with strong penalties between the railways and shippers of all commodities.
This legislation addresses the immediate needs of our economy and longer-term challenges; our economy needs a system that works today and tomorrow, with the capacity to export what is produced.
Our government is focused on a way forward that will benefit all shippers selling every commodity, from grain to oil, and continue to grow our overall resource economy.
Gerry Ritz,
Agriculture minister,
Ottawa, Ont.
