To the Editor:
Social spending is not the cause of the deficit and cutting social spending shouldn’t be the way we deal with it, or we’re punishing vulnerable people who aren’t responsible for creating the deficit.
Before we launched the war on inflation in the late ’80s, our deficit was actually declining and would have continued to decline if we had continued in that direction. The war on inflation carried out by the Bank of Canada brought the country into a recession, caused a sharp decline in our revenues and increased our interest payments on the debt. …
Read Also
Proactive approach best bet with looming catastrophes
The Pan-Canadian Action Plan on African swine fever has been developed to avoid the worst case scenario — a total loss ofmarket access.
The deficit has become a key tool for picking away at what the financial elite consider to be our overly generous social welfare system, and government policies are dedicated to pampering the undeserving at the expense of the deserving.
European countries have done some trimming, but their overall social programs remain intact and are more generous than Canada’s, which spends only 17 percent of its gross domestic product on social programs.
Germany spends 24 percent, France 26 percent and Sweden 34 percent. The U.S. spends only 14 percent, which is why millions of Americans have no health care at all and thousands of unnecessary deaths each year because of it.
If we allow our social programs to be eroded, many of us will be destitute and the financially elite will be extremely well off.
– Vivian G. Wenzel,
Major, Sask.
Pork board
To the Editor:
The single-desk selling system of hogs through Manitoba Pork has worked very well for producers. In fact, we have seen the industry double in the past 15 years and indications are that farmers are prepared to expand as the market growth continues. That is until the Minister of Agriculture, Harry Ens, announced radical changes to the marketing of pork. …
While the Minister claims that producers will have more choice under dual marketing, the fact is that producers will have to bargain with the packing companies and in fierce competition with one another to provide hogs at the lowest prices, just like the good old days.
Producers rejected this approach and the marketing board began single-desk selling. Mr. Enns would like to take the hog industry back twenty years. Manitoba’s producers do not want to live in the past.
There has been no consultation with producers prior to the Minister’s announcement. Hog producers have clearly stated that they want single-desk selling and processors support the system because they do not have the resources to deal with individual producers. …
Single-desk selling has not been a barrier to growth in the hog industry. In fact, it has promoted security for producers in guaranteed fair prices and stability for packers in guaranteed supply. We must also realize that under terms of the NAFTA, the single desk selling function of Manitoba Pork cannot be restored.
Surely a decision with this much opposition and with so much at stake must be reviewed.
Dual marketing will not mean freedom for Manitoba’s 2,300 independent producers. It will open the door to expansion by large operators and to a vertically-integrated system such as the one in the U.S. where large corporate farms have displaced the family farms.
Large feed companies were able to undercut smaller operators and family-owned operations cannot survive. Producers who were once independent are now employees of the large firms. We would do well to heed the advice of our American neighbors who have warned us not to go in this direction.
I urge you to contact your MLA or the Premier to voice your objection.
– Rosann Wowchuk, MLA,
NDP Agriculture Critic,
Winnipeg, Man.
Farm unity
To the Editor:
Marketing of farm grain on an open market or individually versus CWB: I am surprised that farmers are so unwilling to co-operate and work together when farming is having such a hard time to end up in the black at the end of each year.
If we let the CWB disappear and let the multinational companies handling grain do our marketing, there is no question where any extra money that may be made (such as at present the Japanese may want to purchase barley at higher prices) will go.
The multinationalists will gain the largest portion of that extra money. After they work in their costs and profits of elevators, rail cars, terminals, ships, overseas offices, etc., there will be very little of the extra money left for the farmers. …
At present we have a well-recognized organization throughout the world in the CWB that is operating very economical for all producers. I feel if we as producers were willing to accept an average price for our grains marketed through the CWB over a period of years we would be as well off or maybe better than trying to sell our grains on our own as we would be making use of the government assistance available to the CWB.
We could sell through the CWB any time of the year and receive an average price for our grain plus other advantages.
If the CWB needs some changes, then let’s make changes. One change I would like to see is the CWB have the authority to market all our grains.
We have as much as nine different crops on our farm to market and I feel the CWB is in a far better position to market these grains than an individual can.
– John Cubbon,
North Battleford, Sask.
Debt load
To the Editor:
What really baffles me is every country in the world seems to be in a state of financial crisis. The deficits run into the billions; I would imagine the combined debt would run into the trillions.
Then if you add to this the personal debt, credit card, house mortgage, car loans and whatever, the world over, I would imagine this must be another few trillion.
Two questions: Who is lending all this money? Where the hell did they get it to lend?
– J. B. Forrest,
Saanichton, B.C.
