Letters to the editor

Send your letters to editor@themanitoban.com or drop them off at 105 University Centre.

Who benefits from not having a wheat board?
This letter is in response to a comment article ‘Canadian Wheat Board not the best option . . . And it shouldn’t be the only one,” by Stephen McCreary in the Nov. 8, 2006 issue of the Manitoban.

For your information, the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) currently supplies approximately 20 per cent of the wheat and barley marketed on earth. The Americanowned corporations Cargill Inc., Bunge, and Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) all (individually as corporate entities) control larger proportions of world wheat markets than the CWB. The CWB can be viewed economically as being a beneficial competitor in a market becoming increasingly concentrated. Tampering with the CWB will actual mean less choice for producers and declining returns.

In other news, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool has recently (Nov. 7) put up a bid to buy Agricore-United. Such a mega-corporation would potentially control 50 per cent of the Canadian market share. The ADM already controls a disproportionately large percentage of the world’s grain. It currently owns 24 per cent of Agricore- United’s shares. Agricore-United formed in 2001 from the merger of Agricore (created in 1998 from the consolidation of Alberta Wheat Pool and Manitoba Pool Elevators) and the United Grain Growers (UGG).

Once upon a time, the three provincial pools and UGG were farmer-owned co-operatives but are now publicly traded companies. It does not take a post-secondary education to figure out who really benefits from these activities and who the real losers are.

Aaron Glenn
PhD student,
department of soil science

Quebec never wanted to be part of Canada
Canada is a colonialist country with multiple founding nations and now, Quebec may be given the recognition as a nation within Canada. This has many anglophones worrying that Quebec will separate and cause the breakdown of their country. However, Canada must realize that Quebec never wanted to be part of Canada, that the Québécois never asked to be within the Confederacy.

They have always wanted to be an independent nation on this continent but it was due to the high number of the British that New France fell in 1763 at which point the francophone nation became part of Canada. Quebec, just like many First Nations, was brought into the Confederacy unwillingly or because they did not fully comprehend what the Confederation represented and what sacrifices would have to be made.

Both the Quebec society and First Nations were distinct societies with own laws, traditions and languages and dialects. No group of people will willingly join another group if they are forced to abandon their identities and autonomy. Based on the premise that their way of life would be preserved, Quebec and several First Nations agreed to sign, but these promises were not fulfilled. Nowadays, maintaining the essence of our francophone identities is in fact une lutte perpetuelle, a perpetual struggle. How can Canada be surprised at the demands Quebec and First Nations ask for? How can Canada be surprised that we are asking for our intrinsic rights to be recognized?

Canada is bilingual, but how many Manitobans in the public service are able to speak French? How many are willing to even learn French? The anglophones are continuously complaining that Quebec is the adversary of national unity, yet they are unwilling to accept the basic rights of Canada’s minorities. Speaking French and maintaining a francophone identity in Canada is not a privilege, it’s my right. And Quebec being recognized as a nation should be considered a national pride to all Canadians.

Agnes P.
Masters student

Jerema doesn’t understand what UMSU does
In regards to Jerema’s recent editorial, “Four editorials for the price of frozen tuition,” it’s unfortunate that Jerema doesn’t appear to be supportive of making education accessible for Manitobans. In the article, Jerema does get one of his facts correct, that UMSU did indeed have a semiannual general meeting, but he was not present to participate or fully understand the discussions. If Jerema would have been present, he would have realized that a number of issues pertaining to UMSU were discussed, not simply accessible education and the tuition freeze.

General meetings are a time for UMSU members to hear what work their students’ union has been doing in all aspects. A number of things discussed included lobby meetings with government officials; UMSU services such as UMSU living, the grocery run and health and dental plan, UMSU businesses, student groups; and various activities to name a few. It is evident that Jerema doesn’t understand what UMSU does, nor does he realize that if UMSU doesn’t advocate for students no one else will, especially not Carson Jerema.

Garry Sran,
UMSU president