Date: 4/22/01 8:09 AM
Received: 4/22/01 8:15 AM
From: Edwin Wallace, ewallace@sk.sympatico.ca
To: Timothy W. Shire, timothy@ftlcomm.com
Timothy:
You have dealt with the Saskatchewan Wheat Corporation SWC(Formerly the Saskatchewan
Wheat Pool.) in a very fair and generous manner. Your policy of continually listing
a link to the Producer site speaks very well to that.
I am amused as much as I am angered by Glenn Caleval, Producer Marketing Director
- as he calls himself - as he ends his terse note to you with, "Thank you for
your interest."
I'm amused that such an obviously puffed up piece of flotsam would, in that short
sentence, expose his inability to see that the service of providing a link to your
fine publication would enhance the Producer site's overall efficacy. Why? Because
one could well assume the Producer and it's site are for the purpose of disseminating
information. Thus, logic could then only lead to the conclusion that more information
would better serve that purpose. I shake my head in dismay!
My anger stems from the fact that even down to such inconsequential minions as
Caleval, there is extant in the Saskatchewan Wheat Corporation, an arrogance that
tells the floundering, failing, business-bungling, Debacle, that we still need it
and it's propaganda machine. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!
Even as I write this I am getting calls from farmers on the Empress Line (CPR)
inquiring about our strategy for loading enough producer cars to circumvent not only
the Saskatchewan Wheat Corporation but every other grain handling company that thought
we would be glad to pay for more (bigger) elevators even as they destroyed perfectly
good ones in our back yards.
No, Timothy, I (we farmers) don't need the SWC and its Producer and neither do
you.
You have made your point to them. The loss is theirs.
Keep up the excellent work,
I'm Edwin..
|
Letter to Editor
22/04/01
The recent release of the Provincial budget had the Agriculture
Producers Association of Saskatchewan (APAS) front and center as a spokesperson
for Saskatchewan farmers. Just how did APAS become my spokesperson? First off,
all RM Councils appointed a delegate to represent them at the information meeting.
These appointed persons of the participating RM's, then appoint/elected directors
in each of six divisions in Saskatchewan. If I am correct, it was these directors
who appointed/elected the chairman (Keep the structure of the Saskatchewan Wheat
'Pool' firmly in mind).
To my knowledge, none of the directors ever held a meeting of their RATEPAYERS to
discuss these appointments or policies they would promote. Only after ratepayer
outrage was heard, did some RM's consent to a vote. Others arbitrarily made the
decision for their taxpayers.
How does this stack up against other farm organizations? Manitoba's Keystone agriculture
Producers (KAP) is funded by a check-off on grains. This check-off however is refundable
(a nightmare to get back, but none-the-less - refundable). KAP has 12 districts.
Their directors and policies are developed at district meetings by the general
membership.
Alberta's Wild Rose Agriculture Producers (WRAP) is a voluntary membership organization.
WRAP has nine board members elected by the general membership. Their policies
are also developed by the general membership. Their Executive is then elected by
the directors.
The National Farmers Union (NFU) is a National organization. It is a direct farmer-membership
and participation organization. Farmers create the policy at the local, district,
provincial and national level. It has a voluntary, farm family membership and has
a Women's President and Youth Presidents who sit on the National Executive along
with the National President, to insure it remains a farm family organization. These
officials are all elected at the National Convention.
APAS, on the other hand does not have farmers as members, but rather the Rural Municipalities
are the members. Individual farmers, while forced to fund the organization cannot
develop policy, cannot revoke their funding, nor can they even channel their ten
cents per acre/general revenue tax monies towards the farm organization they feel
best represents them. Since APAS's funding is based on ACRES, rather than individual
farmers, policy is not geared towards keeping the maximum number of farmers on
the land.
To be fair, in a March 21, 2001, Leader Post, Letter to Editor column, Ms Christine
Whitaker, A councilor for the RM of South Qu'Appelle states "Membership in
APAS is not compulsory. It is not even open to individual producers. Membership
is open only to rural municipalities, at a fee of 10 cents per acre of agricultural
land within their jurisdiction. Currently, approximately one-third of the RMs in
the province have either paid, or pledged to pay, into the organization. Some have
taken the fee out of general tax revenue; others have imposed the 10-cents-per-acre
levy on individual farmers". Of course, we farmers are so naive as to believe
the imposed 10 cents-per-acre levy or the general tax revenue does not come out
of our pockets!!!
Joyce Neufeld,
Waldeck, Sask
(306-778-2218)
|