Letters to the editor

Don’t fight banks

To the Editor:

Where is the Saskatchewan perspective ? Recently, Members of Parliament Lorne Nystrom and Chris Axworthy warned us of the dangers of big bank mega-mergers.

They claim we should watch out for hundreds of branch closures, thousands of employee layoffs, and a loss of service “which will devastate communities.” Their solution is that we must ask federal Liberal Minister of Finance, Paul Martin to stop the bank mergers.

Maybe this is all they can come up with in southern Ontario. But asking an eastern Liberal millionaire to save us here is not only foolish, it’s just not the Saskatchewan tradition.

Read Also

Proactive approach best bet with looming catastrophes

The Pan-Canadian Action Plan on African swine fever has been developed to avoid the worst case scenario — a total loss ofmarket access.

When the eastern corporations failed to deliver in the past, our ancestors responded by starting co-operative businesses that would.

William Wardill, past mayor of Eatonia, writing in the latest New West Review, states: “With the support of local governments, vanished bank branches are being replaced by credit unions. Prairie Credit Union of Rosetown is now a 10-branch operation. Further expansion seems possible.”

Also, if people choose to they can start their own Credit Union. Have not Nystrom and Axworthy heard of the Credit Unions? If the TD, the CIBC, the Royal, and the Bank of Montreal don’t want to serve customers here then try the made-in-Saskatchewan solution. “Don’t fight – switch!”

– Larry James Fillo,

Saskatoon, Sask.

Gophers

To the Editor:

I’ve been meaning to write on this subject for years but I’m getting old and forgetful, but I figured I’d better write soon before the humans were getting too hungry.

I helped my sister poison gophers before I even went to school. That was before I was seven years old.

Until the last few years, we never had the pests bad.

We had Gopher-Cop poison free for years here.

In my time, we never had many gophers when I was young and I was born in 1919.

When tame hay with alfalfa got going, gophers got some worse but nothing compared to the present.

I’m beginning to think the lady was right who wanted the farmers to catch female gophers and remove their reproductive parts.

Our old Gopher-Cop had aniseed smell or flavoring and none without it seemed as good.

– Donald Rogers,

Lashburn, Sask.

Liberal priorities

Jean ChrŽtien along with his minister of destruction, Ralph Goodale, have dealt Saskatchewan yet another blow in their eliminate-the-Prairies campaign.

While urban and rural organizations were anticipating an announcement that would provide funds for the repair of our deteriorated highways, which incidentally are the direct results of Goodale’s “kill the Crow” program, the two announced in Regina that the funds would be used to enhance the internet in schools across Canada.

Once again this shows the lack of common sense which exists in our nation today.

What sense is there in creating jobs if those needing to go to work have no road to get there?

Or would Mr. ChrŽtien perhaps want us all at home sitting in front of an internet site where he can really and truly control us, and make good little submissive citizens out of us?

Any government who allows basic services such as highways, hospitals, schools and railroads to fall apart the way the Liberals have clearly shows a need for new forms of administration.

On the other hand, the province’s NDP provide little or no resistance. The answer lies in the four Western provinces uniting into one, then perhaps looking to the south instead of the east for our fortunes.

– John J. Hamon,

Gravelbourg, Sask.

Dual troubles

It doesn’t make sense to have the CWB if you have dual marketing because one of the main purposes of the CWB is to have orderly marketing so as to make the best use of available facilities and obtain the best price possible. How can the CWB hold out for the best price if others are competing for the same market with the same high-quality produce? Much of the problems at the terminals with ships waiting is caused by non-board grain.

Canadian wheat can and does bring a premium on the world markets due to the quality and the standards maintained by the Canadian Grain Commission, and because the end users have confidence the CWB will supply a reliable product and not be chuted like some marketers of grain have known to do.

The CWB has a world-wide marketing system with up to the minute information on anything that might affect world markets. They have training facilities to train people from around the world on how to use our grain.

The farmers have the freedom to band together to have the best system of marketing grain. If they give into the anti-wheat board propaganda, they will lose that freedom and will have to take whatever the multinationals will give them.

Dual marketing is the first step to get rid of the CWB.

– Alex Olson,

Spy Hill, Sask.

Dairy prices

The June 4 Western Producer article, “Ottawa challenges dairy farmers’ subsidy claims,” refers to the issue of government support to the U.S. dairy industry as relayed by AAFC.

We felt, however, that the following additional information might help the Western Producer’s readers in further understanding Dairy Farmers of Canada’s position on this issue.

Dairy Farmers of Canada has made no secret of the fact that, in its view, the Producer Subsidy Equivalent (PSE) as calculated by the OECD and presented to the House of Commons Standing Committee of Agriculture by AAFC, does not provide an accurate account of the level of government involvement in the U.S. dairy sector.

It should be pointed out that the data used to calculate the PSE of OECD member countries is provided by the member countries themselves.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, for example, provides the OECD with the necessary data and calculation of its PSE. OECD staff are often employees of member countries on leave from their positions.

Hence, when AAFC spokespersons state that Canada’s PSE is “something that was not calculated by Canadian officials, but rather that this was done by the OECD Secretariat,” they are perhaps seriously overstating the degree of independence that can actually be exercised by the OECD Secretariat.

DFC believes that the PSE as a measure of producer subsidy levels and trade distortion is fundamentally flawed.

The PSE basically estimates a level of subsidy by calculating some estimate of market price support and estimating other government expenditures not captured in market price support. In his testimony, Mr. Gifford explained that the market price support calculation is based on the difference between U.S. domestic market returns and a world “reference price” (i.e., the New Zealand domestic price adjusted for transportation.)

Mr. Gifford, however, also claimed to be aware of studies which show that in a world without trade distortions, the world price would be about equal to the U.S. price.

Which, then, is the appropriate price gap to consider in determining the level of subsidy to U.S. producers?

If you use the admittedly “distorted” New Zealand price reference as the world price, your finding is that the level of U.S. subsidy arising from price support amounts to some $10 billion (U.S.) of the reported $11.1 billion total PSE level.

If you use, however, the “undistorted free trade” U.S. price reference as the world price, then the level of U.S. subsidy arising from price support is zero and the overall level of support to U.S. dairy producers falls to about 10 percent or $1 billion of its current PSE level.

T. E. Josling, who first introduced the PSE, acknowledges in a report prepared along with S. Tangermann and S. R. Pearson, that “complete accuracy [of the PSE] is neither achievable nor necessary.”

Rather, in the process of multilateral trade negotiations, Josling et al. explain that “political agreement reached in the negotiations, and the resulting will to accept commitments, is more important than the full quantitative accuracy and precise conformity with economic theory.”…

It should be recognized that the PSE, far from serving as a legitimate measure of subsidization, is simply used as a political tool to justify trade liberalization. In the past, this has been seen in the wild claims by OECD officials that transfers from consumers to producers amount to approximately $135 billion. These types of assertions are, at best, extremely misleading.

Regardless of what the PSE implies about the consumer cost of market price support, there is an accumulating body of evidence that indicates that Canada’s system has been of benefit to Canadian consumers as well as producers.

AAFC spokespersons claimed in testimony that “like most countries, there is a price premium paid by New Zealand consumers for fluid milk relative to the price of milk going into manufacturing. But that being said, certainly New Zealand consumers would be paying substantially less than their counterparts in North America or Europe.”

This assertion is certainly not supported by a recent price survey of a basket of food products sponsored by UPA and FPLQ. That study found that the dairy portion of the food basket cost $17.75 in Auckland, N.Z., and only $15.32 in Montreal, Que.

In the early 1990s, the U.S. introduced policy measures which lead to increased instability in producer prices.

U.S. producers have suffered as a consequence of those policy changes. U.S. consumers have paid a price as well.

DFC has conducted semi-annual price surveys comparing prices in U.S. and Canadian border cities since July of 1996. The study uses a food basket of dairy products used by AAFC in a similar survey in 1991.

The survey results show that despite lower producer prices in the U.S., Canadian consumers would pay more if they had to purchase their basket of dairy products in the U.S.

Clearly, the PSE approach which incorporates comparisons with the lowest-cost producer, is too theoretical to be relevant.

The Grey, Clark, Shih study looks at real money being spent, not theoretical supports.

As Canada approaches a new round of WTO negotiations in agriculture, DFC trusts consumers will continue to recognize the difference.

– Barron Blois, President,

Dairy Farmers of Canada,

Ottawa, Ont.

Clean grain

Re: deer feces in grain. The farmers are again going to be left holding the bag in the zero tolerance policy adopted.

If the grain is cleaned properly, there should not be any feces left in the grain. We farmers are being charged for cleaning, therefore there should not have been any feces in the grain refused by Japan. I understand dockage may have been reinserted in the shipments by the exporters to allow for dockage tolerance. This practice should be discontinued.

As we the farmers are charged for cleaning when we sell our grain, it should be cleaned grain without dockage exported.

– Charles Grainger,

Ogema, Sask.

Prince’s article

While Prince Charles (June 18) extols the virtues of organic farming, he does not acknowledge that different farmers face different challenges in terms of climate, growing season, soil, pests, and disease.

As a result, they must be able to choose which methods they use to grow their produce.

While some farmers may choose an organic route, others may have difficulties with pest or disease control and prefer to pick more suitable biotech varieties and pest management methods for their farms.

Prince Charles has pronounced that there are ethical problems with progress in agriculture; he feels that technology is “unnatural.” At one time gathering wild berries was considered “natural.” Then methods of cultivation and breeding allowed for the development of better yields. These are the crops we see in our markets today.

Many farmers in developing countries are struggling to grow crops on marginal lands.

I feel that if we are blessed with the knowledge to improve crop yields, then we should use this knowledge.

Prince Charles has expressed concerns about pests evolving resistance to transgenic plants.

Pests can evolve resistance to transgenic crops, to non-modified pest-resistant crops, and to chemical and biological pesticides. That is why sound agricultural practices like integrated pest management, refugia, crop rotation, etc. are applied.

In Canada, transgenic crops are regulated by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which ensures that no toxins or allergens are produced and that plants are assessed for environmental safety.

The labeling of genetically engineered foods is subject to the same regulations that any other novel food is. If the final product is substantially different from a known food, it must be labeled. If it can not be distinguished from its traditional counterpart, then there is no purpose to the labeling.

Labeling to inform the consumer that a crop is no different than before would be futile.

I agree with Prince Charles that the application of any new technology should be open to public debate and its influence on food supply, employment, environment must be considered. However, we should be cautious not to blow minimal risks out of proportion or to trivialize very real benefits.

While biotechnology does not necessarily offer a magic bullet to end hunger, it is a very useful tool to increase agricultural production.

– Lisa Jategaonkar,

Saskatchewan Agricultural

Biotechnology Information

Centre, Saskatoon, Sask.

Unity squabble

I have to believe the comments by Mr. Ronaghan, (“Bilingualism,” June 11), were either foolishness masquerading as good intentions, or satire that never quite got off the ground.

The gentleman seems to believe that Quebec separatism is a “mood” that Quebecers get in whenever they are dissatisfied. After two and a half centuries, Quebec nationalism only seems to wax and wane. Presently it is being institutionalized by a handful of radicals in Quebec City who do not give a fig for friendly gestures or empty phrases in cooked up constitutional documents.

Canada’s so-called “unity crisis” is really a family squabble between those Quebecois who believe all of Canada should be half French, (Trudeau, ChrŽtien), and those who believe that Quebec should be all French, (Bouchard, Parizeau). In both cases, the 22 million Canadians outside this debate are considered a demographic nuisance.

Appeasement of radicals does not work, and bureaucratic versions of culture only breed division and animosity.

Making 50 percent of everything conform to the comfort level of a select group that makes up two percent of the population, (in Saskatchewan’s case), is not fair, equitable or “friendly” but rather expensive, foolhardy, and insulting to all other Canadians.

Better we should ignore government pronouncements of what we are supposed to be, and live as we used to: with mutual respect and an acknowledgement of our differences.