Voting rules

To the Editor:

I never thought the day would come when democracy was destroyed in Canada, but that is what happened when Alberta’s plebiscite on the Canadian Wheat Board was set up.

A big part of democracy is controlling who is eligible to vote. For example, it is not democratic for Russians to vote in Canadian elections. They do not use our government or its services, therefore why should they decide who our government will be? To vote in Canadian elections you must be a Canadian citizen and have documents to prove it.

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.

Likewise, to have a democratic vote on the CWB, it makes perfect sense that voters are restricted to those who use the CWB or its services. This can be proven, like Canadian citizenship, by CWB permit books.

Yet according to the voting criteria, someone like my mother could vote in the plebiscite. She grows a small patch of barley to sell as wheat-straw weaving.

Just as a farmer, who grows wheat or barley to feed his cattle, can vote on the CWB. They have never used the CWB nor do they have any intention of using the CWB, therefore they should not have a vote.

We do not allow Russians to vote in Canadian elections. For that matter, we do not allow landed immigrants who live in Canada but are not Canadian citizens to vote. So why should we become undemocratic in a plebiscite and allow people who do not use the CWB to vote?

Then again, why should I complain? If Mr. Klein continues his present course of democracy, I should get to vote in the next Alberta election.

– Karen Pedersen,

Cutknife, Sask.

CWB monopoly

To the Editor:

I have not had a definite opinion on dual marketing, but your reply to Kevin Avram (Nov. 9) was most indignant, arrogant and unsubstantiated.

Was not the control of the Wheat Board initiated just for the war? As all other price-fixed commodities were freed to rise with increasing costs and demands due to the war, why didn’t the government let go of its monopoly of grain after the war? Are farmers the only people to be grudged the profits of our honest labor?

Your answer to Kevin: “Those powers continued because farmers wanted them to continue” is not substantiated.

If the board is so good, why then are farmers storing more grain in their own bins (rather than hauling direct from the field to the elevator), computer linked to Winnipeg, contracting their own grain on the futures market, and using producer cars? Is this not done to better market their grain? It seems the board is not doing the job.

I’m voting for freedom.

– Ron Steinke,

New Sarepta, Alta.

CWB helps

To the Editor:

The last couple of years there is quite a controversy over the Canadian Wheat Board. I have farmed for over 50 years and I believe the formation of the Wheat Board was one of the better things that took place to take care of farmers’ interests.

I wouldn’t say the Board is perfect but it was certainly a big improvement over what we had before.

I think these farmers that are hauling grain across the border and breaking the law are doing the wrong thing, especially when this is being promoted by some of these farm organizations. I would like to commend our Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Goodale, for not being swayed by some of these groups.

I know there is a great deal of support for the Board so I hope they come out and make their views known.

It looks to me that the vote in Alberta is somewhat like the referendum in Quebec in which the government is just promoting their side of the picture.

As wheat and barley are the only two grains handled by the Board, there is plenty of other crops to grow and sell on the open market.

The fluctuations in the open market were very large at times. One example was in 1973: flax went from about $3/bu. to about $12/bu. These large prices sound good but don’t help much if you haven’t any to sell. Then some farmers held on expecting a higher price and ended up selling for much less.

That is why I liked the stability of the Board, because it didn’t matter what time of year you sold. Also it was nice to get a final payment in the new year.

I don’t doubt some farmers close to the U.S. border may at times get a better price but for the good of the majority let’s hang onto the Wheat Board.

– Jack Wheeler,

Treherne, Man.

Metric follies

To the Editor:

So it’s been 25 years since metric was supposed to come in. Well, it hasn’t worked in most ways. Look at any newspaper ads across Canada and you’ll see 95 percent are not metric. Land for sale is in acres; buildings, boats, lumber, small trees, machinery, trailers, motor homes, tarps, etc., are all in feet.

All birth announcements are in pounds, ounces and inches. Ask anyone how their car or truck does on gas and you’ll nearly always get miles per gallon. Ask anyone in the country where they live and its in miles. Ask anyone how tall they are, their weight, their waist or other measurements, their shoe or hat size and its not metric.

Farmers give their yields per acre in bushels. Many private radio stations give temperatures in both, and the rest we get used to converting.

How many billions did it cost us for all the machines which were likely all imported?

We know gas companies wanted metric. They knew their prices were going much higher but didn’t want to say gas is over $2 a gallon. …

– Les Allison,

Roland, Man.

Why just west?

To the Editor:

Why is this wonderful organization, this “Canadian” Wheat Board, only good for western Canadian farmers? Why haven’t Ontario and Quebec farmers starved to death without it?

To Mr. Hehn and the rest of the Wheat Board, don’t hold your breath waiting for me to come back.

I can’t stand the prosperity.

– Keith Griffiths,

Coronation, Alta.

Distinctly unfair

To the Editor:

This is an open letter to our shortsighted Prime Minister. He promises to give Quebec a distinct society status forgetting that we have 10 provinces and two territories. All are distinct.

If he should succeed he will be no friend of the rest of Canada and will destroy the Liberal government even as Mulroney destroyed the PC government. To set up Quebec above the rest of the provinces is unacceptable to say the least.

If Quebec is unwilling to take an equal share with the rest of the provinces, there is no accommodation for special treatment. Don’t even try it.

– Paul Kuric,

Vega, Alta.

$4.25 barley

To the Editor:

I would like to direct this letter to Mr. Lorne Hehn about his comments made in the Nov. 16 issue of this paper.

He blames farmers for missing out on lucrative barley sales to Japan because they won’t sell their barley to the CWB. He makes the statement that these sales would return over $4.25/bu. to central Alberta farmers. If the CWB would come out with a spot price contract for that amount for Japan sales, I would sign up my feed barley (52-55 lbs./bu.) immediately. But we all know they don’t work that way.

With today’s system of pooling all sales, no farmer in western Canada is going to see over $4.25/bu. from the CWB, as he would suggest, even with their final payment in January of 1997. With the CWB initial payment for feed barley at just over $2/bu. and the domestic price approaching $3.50/bu. for farm pickup, why would anybody in their right mind want to sell to the CWB especially when the PRO is forecasting somewhere around $3/bu.?

My point is that the CWB is shutting Canadian farmers out of the Japanese market, not the farmers themselves as he would suggest. Try changing the rules for once and quit thinking that the CWB is invincible.

If they came out with a spot-price contract for 800,000 tonnes of feed barley on a first come, first serve basis for $4.25/bu. farmgate price, they would have their barley in no time at all.

Everybody would benefit from this because that much grain drawn out of the domestic market would add more pressure to an already tight supply. After the mess they made last year of the barley pool I wouldn’t trust the CWB to sell my barley any farther than I could throw them. The most important thing to me on our farm is good cash flow and the CWB initial and final payment method of doing business just isn’t good enough anymore in today’s business world.

One other point of interest that I found amusing was the price quote for durum with a farmgate return from the CWB approaching the $9/bu. mark. If that is the case why aren’t the initial prices for durum a little bit closer to that quote instead of the $4/bu. range right now?

It couldn’t have anything to do with a plebiscite being held to see what farmers think.

Pretty subtle way of trying to boost support for the CWB, don’t you think?

– Bernie de Beaudrap,

Trochu, Alta.

Animal abuse

To the Editor:

In the Nov. 16 issue of the Western Producer, I read about an Edmonton man who dragged his horse behind a truck.

He was fined $1,000 and will not be allowed to own horses for five years.

I have read other articles involving cruelty, such as farmers starving their cattle, where small fines were levied as the only punishment.

The Alberta director of the SPCA feels that violence against animals is increasing.

I think that the fines for cruelty against animals should be greatly increased and that people who are cruel to animals should never be allowed to own animals of any kind. That might serve as deterrents to others.

– S. Markwart,

Rosthern, Sask.

Price checks

To the Editor:

I feel I must respond to a recent editorial, “Wheat Board Explains Prices” by Garry Fairbairn (Nov. 16).

On Nov. 6, while on my way to the International Durum Forum held in Minot, N.D., I stopped at several U.S. elevators on the way. I had with me two samples of durum which graded a No. 2 CWAD with 13 percent protein and No. 3 CWAD (downgraded because of slight frost) with 13.6 percent protein at a local elevator in Saskatchewan.

Both samples graded No. 1 HAD at all six U.S. elevators and protein varied from a low of 13.9 percent to a high of 14.8 percent. I was quoted net prices varying from U.S. $6.20 to $6.40, or about $8.40 in Canadian funds. These prices have been available for several weeks.

The local initial price that day for No. 3 CWAD was net $4.43; just over half the cash amount available a few miles farther south. The October CWB PRO, which was only 10 days old at the time, for No. 3 CWAD is $6.12 to $6.67.

When freight and handling are included there is at least $3 per bushel difference between delivering my No. 3 CWAD to Congress and the nearest U.S. elevator. One must also consider that I will have to wait another 15 months to receive the final estimated $2 payment from the CWB.

Meanwhile, my fertilizer dealer expects me to pay for my 1996 fertilizer requirements now to protect myself against raising prices next spring. This money is to be spent for the crop to be seeded in the spring of 1996 and hopefully marketed in 1996 and 1997 and if all goes well, I should receive a final payment in January 1998.

This situation is becoming less acceptable to more and more farmers all the time.

This brings a few questions to mind. Are the CWB PROs and initial prices deliberately being kept low so that the CWB has room to increase them whenever it finds itself in a bind? Did the CWB misread the market and forward price a large volume of durum at low prices as happened last year in the feed barley pool?

Is our grading system reflecting the true value of the grain as well as satisfying the requirements of our customers?

Mr. Fairbairn goes on to say that there is no cost to producers for the operation of the CWB. Who does he think pays these costs? The prices I have quoted above include the profits and costs of the American grain buyers. Mr. Fairbairn says Mr. Hehn indicated that the CWB did all it could to get the best returns for prairie farmers.

Indeed, this may be true. However, in my opinion, any time a person’s salary, benefits, perks and pension are not affected by the decisions that person makes, the people who are directly affected by those decisions are in trouble.

– Warren Jolly,

Mossbank, Sask.

Editor’s note: I said there was no net cost to farmers after balancing wheat board administration costs against interest savings from federal loan guarantees.

Nice try, though. – GLF

CFA error

To the Editor:

I’d like to clarify a few things from the CFA perspective in regards to Barry Wilson’s opinion piece “Unintended slights strengthen the separatist cause” which appeared in the October 26 edition of the Western Producer. Mr. Wilson’s column was, in our opinion, inaccurate.

Mr. Wilson took an inadvertent error and turned it into a question of politics for his own ends.

CFA recently produced a resource manual “Agriculture in Canada”. Unfortunately, due to some printing problems an error occurred on page five in the English copy. A chart shows statistics for agricultural produce by province.

Contrary to what is implied by Mr. Wilson, Quebec’s statistics are included on the chart. The error is that they appear next to a New Brunswick label.

New Brunswick also appeared again, properly, next to its own statistics.

Copies of the book were handed out in a meeting at an IFAP co-ops meeting. The error was caught immediately by Claude Lafleur of UPA and immediately corrected. There were no hard feelings and the incident has in no way marred the relationship between UPA and CFA. In fact, no one from the Quebec delegation mentioned the mistake again.

Nor has the topic been raised in subsequent meetings of our organizations. I suppose it is because at UPA they understand that to err is human.

Barry Wilson, on the other hand, seems to subscribe to a different line of thought, the one that says to capitalize on another’s error for your own gain is not only human but also makes for a good column when you can’t think of anything else to say that week.

In closing, I’d like to say that the CFA regrets the error, particularly given the political climate of the day.

– Jack Wilkinson,

CFA President,

Ottawa, Ont.

Few get rich

To the Editor:

“Faith put in futures market,” Nov. 10. The futures market and hedging are a lot like professional sports – if you can get enough people interested, the “heavyweights” will get rich.

Supporting direct sales into the U.S. is like supporting your enemy – more money for those along the border, less for the rest of us.

Is there something wrong with equality?

Equal price for equal product? Equal pay for equal effort?

Isn’t the loss of the Crow bad enough for us distant farmers? The article even suggests we “threaten” the U.S.

Why? So our border friends can show us they are borderline enemies?

– Merlin Wozniak,

Wanham, Alta.

Input costs

To the Editor:

Re:Input costs not out of line. (Nov. 2) Well, they may be not out of line as far as production costs for fuel and chemicals are to companies producing them, but it’s out of line when comparing input costs of years gone by.

When things were normal, No. 2 wheat was $1.545 a bushel, bread was nine cents a loaf. Now bread is $1.80 to $1.85 a loaf, wheat is $5 to $6 a bushel. …

Taxes on farm fuel are to help farmers cope with low grain prices. It’s got so that even Agriculture Canada no longer knows the real cost of food.

Soon they will forget where their food comes from.

What a shame.

– John Pokorney,

Tilley, Alta.

Gun hearing

To the Editor:

As one of the spectators at the firearms legislation hearing held in the Diefenbaker Centre, I would like to take this opportunity to inform George Morin and Norman Martell how much I enjoyed their presentation to the senators.

Hang in there, guys; with any luck at all the voice of Canada’s “third solitude” will be able to save us all from the dubious wisdom of our present powers-that-be (apologies to Hugh MacLennan).

On a personal note, I would also like to ask both sides of the debate to reflect on the historical record.

How does the misery and mayhem caused by firearms in the hands of individuals acting on an individual basis compare to that caused by firearms operated at the behest of our political elites?

The recent brouhaha over the role of firearms in Canada is a fine example of cheap politicking with complete disregard for the root causes of man’s inhumanity to man.

– Tom Lamont,

Maidstone, Sask.

Kubota tractors

To the Editor:

Recently an article appeared in your newspaper (“Japanese-design tractors defended,” July 6), which contains a number of inaccuracies.

We are concerned that people who purchase these tractors will consider that we have been involved in their importation and look to us if injury results from their use.

We have pointed out that we have no responsibility in this regard and that some of these tractors do not conform to the standards which we impose upon the tractors that we import.

Similarly, we do not have parts for these tractors, nor are we in a position to obtain such parts or to determine whether or not the parts that we do handle are satisfactory for these tractors.

Some of the parts may be similar, but we are not in a position to determine if this is the case. Purchasers of these tractors might buy parts from our dealers that do not fit.

We wish the public to be aware of this and have advised our dealers in this regard.

We have never threatened to cancel any dealer who sells parts to an owner of one of these tractors, but we wish them to be aware that they might not work properly and a purchaser of such parts might be dissatisfied if such proves to be the case.