ivbinconned: Agriculture in Quebec has succeeded in convincing the taxpayer that there are benefits in supporting their industry. We should figure out how Quebec did it and learn from that.
You mentioned Saskatchewan. I think back to 1988 when Ray Hnatyshyn and a handful of other Tory cabinet ministers were defeated because of opposition to the government's free trade deal with the United States. In 1995, seven years later the WGTA was gone. Coincidence? Maybe not. Saskatchewan was getting the lions share of the multi million dollar WGTA and other federal ag support yet in 1988 voted against incumbent candidates to voice opposition on free trade.
Getting back to Rutherford who said why should he as a taxpayer, be responsible for bailing out cattlemen. It seems like agriculture needs to get the message to two important groups, the taxpayer and government. I think government already knows the importance of bailing out the cattle industry yet will want to see two types of benefits. One benefit is a strengthened industry, expanded tax base, overall growth of the economy. The second benefit is support for their party when they need votes in the next election.
As for the free hay from Quebec, those people could have thumbed their noses at western cattlemen but chose to help. I have often wondered if the shoe were on the other foot would we have done the same for them. My son spoke to the fellow who sent Hay West the hay we received (I can’t speak French) and he didn’t grow barley. He was a dairy farmer and grew corn and hay. I am beginning to wonder why anyone, taxpayer or otherwise should help cattle producers. It seems as if we are an ungrateful bunch.
You mentioned Saskatchewan. I think back to 1988 when Ray Hnatyshyn and a handful of other Tory cabinet ministers were defeated because of opposition to the government's free trade deal with the United States. In 1995, seven years later the WGTA was gone. Coincidence? Maybe not. Saskatchewan was getting the lions share of the multi million dollar WGTA and other federal ag support yet in 1988 voted against incumbent candidates to voice opposition on free trade.
Getting back to Rutherford who said why should he as a taxpayer, be responsible for bailing out cattlemen. It seems like agriculture needs to get the message to two important groups, the taxpayer and government. I think government already knows the importance of bailing out the cattle industry yet will want to see two types of benefits. One benefit is a strengthened industry, expanded tax base, overall growth of the economy. The second benefit is support for their party when they need votes in the next election.
As for the free hay from Quebec, those people could have thumbed their noses at western cattlemen but chose to help. I have often wondered if the shoe were on the other foot would we have done the same for them. My son spoke to the fellow who sent Hay West the hay we received (I can’t speak French) and he didn’t grow barley. He was a dairy farmer and grew corn and hay. I am beginning to wonder why anyone, taxpayer or otherwise should help cattle producers. It seems as if we are an ungrateful bunch.
Comment