Letters to the editor – May 11, 2017


Canadian farmers getting trumped

President Trump’s recent war of words on supply management has emboldened several anti-Canadian farmer cheerleaders to emerge.

Chief among them is Sylvain Charlebois, who speaks from his comfortable bubble as the dean of the faculty of management at Dalhousie University.

Charlebois sounds like he comes from the past when he in-dicates that killing supply management would mean lower costs for consumers as competition increases.

What competition? Has he been living in a bubble and not seen what’s happening in the agricultural sector? Machinery dealers, chemical companies, fertilizer companies and grain companies have been consolidating down to two or three companies in the whole world.

These companies are taking more money from both farmers and consumers. And yet there is not one peep from Charlebois on this “non-competitive” force. Why is that?

This so-called expert suggests the ending of supply management is a good thing and yet Wisconsin farmers have clearly stated that the problem in the U.S. is the overproduction of milk, which drops the price farmers receive. And in order for U.S. farmers to stay in business, they need government support from U.S. taxpayers.

Canadian supply management ensures enough milk is produced so the market is not shorted, consumers get a good product, farmers can make a decent living and the Canadian taxpayer does not have to provide any support.

Why would anyone want to give that away? Is it just so some mega corporations could get into the business and skim money from farmers and consumers while providing lower quality products? Or is it so Professor Charlebois can export his fantasy of market competition and free trade from his ivory tower to the real world?


We all know how the Americans followed the free-trade model of the World Trade Organization and country of origin labeling.

Checking the prices of milk, one wonders why supply management can be the cause for excessive milk prices. A four-litre milk jug was priced between $6.40 and $4.63 per jug within a five kilometre radius in Regina.

Producers got the same price when they sold the milk, so why is there almost a 30 percent discrepancy at the retail level between stores? Obviously, one of those stores is gouging its customers or the other store is using milk as a loss leader.

Either way, if supply management was removed, it is pure fantasy to think consumers would get cheaper milk.

Charlebois and others came from the archaic era where they believe the theory of trickledown economics.

It may sound good, but when powerful companies use their dominance of the market to take excess profits, they don’t trickle them down. They trickle them up to shareholders, farmers, consumers and taxpayers get to work harder for less.

Kyle Korneychuk
Pelly, Sask.

Climate change


There is strong opposition to both sides of the discussion on global warming because accuracy related to climate change is difficult.

There are professionals in the field of climate control who lack vital knowledge on the topic, therefore, political amateurs, such as those on Parliament Hill or the Alberta legislature, must excuse themselves from carbon-tax discussions until they are educated on all aspects of climate change.

If there exists such a phenomenon as global warming, political people and our entire food industry would have been in serious trouble decades and centuries ago. We must remember, fossil fuels were generated and mountains erupted long prior to the human invasion of planet Earth.

We must never ignore the fact that Canada produces less than two percent of the global carbon pollution.

Many world leaders attend climate-change meetings for the purpose of demanding trillions of dollars to combat global warming. If foreign aid were an indicator, money would simply disappear down some untraceable path of squandering and embezzling.

If the Canadian prime minister and his government fail to recognize the fallacy of introducing a carbon tax, the Senate or Supreme Court should immediately quash such an act.

Canada must follow the example of the United States by placing a moratorium on any form of global warming taxation. The province of Saskatchewan has taken on a highly acceptable role by rejecting the most unpopular carbon tax.


John Seierstad
Tisdale, Sask.

Kyle Korneychuk 

  • Welderone

    Yes Kyle, I have seen the video also about the Wisconsin dairy farmers. They said the reason for the poor prices in the dairy industry was overproduction. And worse than this is. They said they were told to produce all they could and there would be a market for their products. So the buyers only said this so they would be sure there would be enough dairy products for them to sell to keep their profits going.

  • Harold

    I believe that Canadians have within them resolves and remedies of which can make the current “milk Cartel” obsolete. The milk “Cartel” do more to stand in the way of Dairy farmers and consumers than they do to free them up. To believe that our current prosperity is at its best and owing to the “cartel”, is unproven; their restrictive measures and legislated controls keeps it that way; unproven. Through the office doors of the Canadian Supply Management, you will not find a dairy farmer, a consumer, or even a cheese maker; they (cartel) create nothing but yet have control over those who do and the consumers as well. Kyle asks “Why would anyone want to give that away”? The answer is; “it” has already been given/taken away. The “Cartel” is afraid that the public will find out that the cartel is not so unique so they systematically eliminate the market place of ideas held by Canadians.
    Regarding John’s opinion on Climate Change, there are currently 31,487 climate scientists and of those over 9,000 hold PHD’s who are claiming that climate change is not caused by CO2 emissions and this information can be found at the International Conference on Climate Change at the Heartland Institute. Any media coverage would interfere with Government taxation plans and the death sentence given to the impoverished by banning the use of the cheapest natural resources/fuel, and the Paris Treaty that our less than informed leaders signed us all up to. The illusion of Climate Change gives us a nice warm and fuzzy feeling inside about belonging to something big. Who would ever want to destroy that feeling with facts? The “let down” would be more unbearable to most so we only need to close our minds to prevent it; thank goodness the government and media help us whereby their influence enables us to keep our “happy” thoughts.

  • Bruce

    Yes, with the overproduction of farm grains. The winners then are the machinery companies, the chemical companies, the fertilizer companies and grain companies. The losers are the grain farmers selling their grains cheap and the taxpayers who then have to pay billions of dollars in support programs. Monsanto and GMO firms give grain farmers the spin or better past tense the spun. There is enough food in the world that no one must go hungry. The problem is poverty and people cannot afford to buy the food they wish to have. But Monsanto or GMO firms never say this when they spin numbers as to the reason you should buy their products.