Your reading list

One Canada

Reading Time: 6 minutes

Published: October 26, 1995

Most of us have envisioned a united Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans, where every citizen is a good Canadian, with equal rights and opportunities for all and special privileges for none.

A good Canadian should not need a hyphenated foreign prefix. We can all be proud of our ancestral background regardless of their origins.

There should be no “distinct society”. The only group that could possibly qualify for that designation would be the native people. However, it would not be in their best interests or that of Canada as a whole.

Read Also

Looking down a fence line with a blooming yellow canola crop on the right side of the fence, a ditch and tree on the left, with five old metal and wooden granaries in the background.

Producers face the reality of shifting grain price expectations

Significant price shifts have occurred in various grains as compared to what was expected at the beginning of the calendar year. Crop insurance prices can be used as a base for the changes.

In recent years a number of fanatical rabble-rousers have advocated the separation of Quebec from Canada. How they have succeeded in their efforts remains to be seen.

However, if Quebec votes in favor of separation, it should be complete and absolute. There should not be any dual citizenship, dual passports or the use of Canadian currency.

As a foreign country, no citizen of Quebec could sit in the House of Commons, the Senate or the Supreme Court. Likewise, all bureaucrats and office workers in parliament offices, of Quebec origin, would have to be discharged. The same holds true of members of the RCMP or the Armed Forces.

It would be sheer lunacy to have citizens of a foreign country formulating laws and regulations which were detrimental to the citizens of Canada. It would be equally ridiculous to have citizens of a foreign country in a position to enforce those laws.

Quebec should assume at least one quarter of the national debt. The St. Lawrence Seaway could pose a problem. However, if difficulties arose, being an International Seaway, the United States could probably intervene and create a St. Lawrence Seaway zone, similar to the Panama Canal Zone.

This of course is purely surmise. The people of Quebec may be patriotic, but they are not stupid, I hope.

-Eric Quark,

Moose Jaw, Sask.

CWB mandate

To the Editor:

The upcoming grain marketing referendum in Alberta in November is only weeks away now. In spite of the very misleading and confusing wording on the ballot, it should be a time to welcome a chance to lay to rest the question that seems to be plaguing a few people, namely the Alberta government and a handful of people in western Canada that seem determined to weaken the Canadian Wheat Board and ultimately destroy it.

I believe that the CWB can only function with a true mandate to control all export markets of our grain in western Canada. That in simple terms means “maintain the single-desk authority as it is today.”

The only alternate authority available today-based in Winnipeg-is overrun with speculators, along with the usual multinational grain traders, and of course, the handful of greedy grain producers who think they can do better on their own.

Little do they know that they are playing into the hands of the larger traders in the same sinful atmosphere.

It is time once again for the “Silent Majority” who support a common sense approach to marketing to rise up and mark your ballot as you did when you last elected a strong group of CWB believers to the Advisory Committee to the CWB. Thanks for your support.

-Lorne Radcliffe,

Cardale, Man.

Wake-up call

To the Editor:

Referendum Minister Lucienne Robillard’s recent remarks that the federal government would respect Quebec’s decision to unilaterally secede from Canada in the upcoming referendum should be a wake-up call for all Canadians.

Neither Lucienne Robillard, nor Prime Minister Jean ChrŽtien, nor any single provincial legislature is above the Canadian constitution.

A subsequent declaration by the Prime Minister after a “yes” win in the referendum in support of Quebec’s decree would not be binding unless it includes an amendment to the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, which require consent from the provincial premiers and the Senate.

Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau once stated that “If Canada is divisible, then so is Quebec.”

Constitutionally, the borders of a province cannot be altered without the endorsement of the parliament of that province.

Also, a single province cannot rupture the integrity of Canada’s borders through unilateral secession. The constitution doesn’t allow it. …

Since Quebec’s separatists only make up about 12 percent of the Canadian population, the destruction of Canada, if agreed to, can only occur in conjunction with the terms demanded by the other 88 percent. This figure includes both Canadians living outside Quebec who may assert a land corridor linking the Maritimes to central Canada, as well as loyal Canadians living in Quebec who wish to remain territorially as part of Canada in “Majority No” parts of that province.

I urge Canadians everywhere to pressure their respective provincial governments as well as the federal government to defend Canada and the Rule of Law. Use the talk shows, letters to MPs, newspapers and protest marches. We should not stand idle and let Canada slip away.

– James Rennie,

Montreal, Que.

Time to go?

To the Editor:

There is a fast-growing feeling in Canada that Jean ChrŽtien should resign as Prime Minister because of conflict of interest. He is a resident of Quebec, the province that demands separation from the rest of Canada.

It is felt that he is not in a position to make unbiased decisions in the Quebec versus the rest of Canada problem that we have today. To solve this problem, we have to have a representative of the rest of the provinces with no ties to Quebec.

Unfortunately our Prime Minister does not qualify for that position. A voluntary resignation would be preferable, but in the end he will be forced to resign.

– J. R. Clayton,

Killarney, Man.

SaskPower bills

To the Editor:

How is it that SaskPower needs, once again, to raise our power bills? I don’t think that the money is needed to make up for rising costs, or keeping in line with other power companies, but rather to cover SaskPower’s inefficiencies.

They need to find out where some of the wastes are and solve the problems, not keep paying for them.

A while back, SaskPower turned down a bid for wind power. I agree that this may have cost a lot in the beginning, but it would have paid for itself many times over by now.

A few years ago, it was all the rage to convert to electric heat in Saskatchewan. I think it is about time to look for an alternate means of heating.

– Darcy Matlock,

Outlook, Sask.

Alberta words

To the Editor:

One of the questions in Alberta’s marketing vote is: “Are you in favor of having the freedom to sell your barley to any buyer, including the Canadian Wheat Board, into domestic and export markets?”

I would like to see the question reworded to ask: “Are you in favor of having the freedom to sell your barley against that of your neighbor and in that process undermine the bargaining power of all barley growers including yourself?”

The question on wheat could be similarly reworded. Need I say more?

-Peter Galawan,

Virden, Man.

Low prices

To the Editor:

We delivered No. 1 red spring wheat, some high protein, and our pay was $3.02 per bushel. We also delivered No. 2 durum and the pay was $3.12 …

This pay is very unsatisfactory as there is so much taken off at the elevator.

How do farmers keep going to pay bills when this is all they get per bushel?

I think Mr. Goodale better start helping the farmers as they’re the ones that are holding Saskatchewan together. How can any young person come back to farm if that’s all he’s going to get for his year’s work? …

The farmers better start using their heads and get after our elected government officials as they are like some of the crops, don’t have much in their heads, but to be digging up dirt on each other and going to court, and sending out questionnaires about the power increase. This could have saved some money and kept our power lower;. Why do they always hit the farmer?

Come on farmers, don’t let the government keep walking on us.

-Elaine Cozart,

Brownlee, Sask.

Need vote

To the Editor:

Mr. Bill Morriss’s interesting and informative documentation of the Canadian Wheat Board’s tortuous journey across the wheat fields of western Canada ended on an unfortunate note.

Possibly the bone of contention which is dividing the grain producers, pro and con single-desk selling of their grain is best illustrated in the last paragraph of the article.

Forty-four years ago, Manitoba farmers voted ten to one in favor of the CWB. Forty-four years later it is questionable if one of the original ten farmers who voted in the 1951 plebiscite is still actively farming.

It is time to question the issue. If it is to be fair to all concerned parties, it should not be a decision made by government bureaucrats, politicians, or any assumption perceived, as a result of the past election of members to the Grain Advisory Board, or the impending Alberta plebiscite.

Grain producers who favor or oppose single-desk selling are equally anxious to voice their convictions.

It is now time for this divisive issue to be resolved, and it is time to move on to other problems in the business of producing and marketing grain.

Grain producers should exercise their right to determine their destiny and demand a prairie-wide plebiscite.

-R. Pankiw,

Dufrost, Man.

explore

Stories from our other publications