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.

Comments

explore

Stories from our other publications