Letters to the editor - October 3, 2013

SOBER SECOND THOUGHTS

Did not all farmers have a business called the Canadian Wheat Board? We paid personnel and paid expenses for the best service in every aspect of grain marketing in the world and we benefitted with all the profits. Then our present federal government saw fit to change the rules and take away the monopoly without a majority farmer vote.

We were closer to a true dual marketing scenario when we had the monopoly than we are now. Now our government is going to privatize what’s left of the new and unimproved CWB. So, who do you think is going to benefit now and pocket the profits? Not farmers. What will become of farmers’ assets once the new CWB is privatized?

Read Also

Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts

As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?

And, what about proroguing parliament? Does Mr. (Stephen) Harper need more personal time to get all his ducks in a row? What is the usefulness of the position of governor general when he/she only has the power to say, “yes prime minister”?

Then there’s the Senate. Quite a bunch. Remember those ducks. How can people who consent to support Mr. Harper before they are appointed give any issue sober second thought? And Mr. Harper has appointed many senators after saying how much he was against doing so. It’s going to be pretty hard to get rid of the Senate when they have to vote themselves out of existence.

But then, would you if you had been set up financially for the rest of your life? And only have to be at work relatively few days a year?

We have an election coming up in a couple of years. All the rearranging and new appointees to cabinet aren’t going to put a new face on anything because Mr. Harper is still in control.

I hope you can be non-partisan and weigh in on the political issues, and who’s involved, that we have been hearing about over the last several years and give them “sober second thought” before voting day arrives.

Lynn Sangster,
Assiniboia, Sask.

MOULDBOARD PLOWING

I think mouldboard fall plowing should be outlawed in Prince Edward Island effective immediately. Mouldboard plowing is the conventional tow behind plowing that leaves moulded furrows … burying all residue and leaving only bare soil exposed.

There are types of conservation fall plowing that some farmers are doing that will be acceptable. P.E.I. is losing its topsoil that it cannot afford to lose. The rivers and bays are full of silt from soil erosion. The fisheries in the rivers and bays are being ruined. This must be stopped. We are having snowless winters and dust bowl soil erosion conditions because there is too much totally exposed topsoil. … It is time for the provincial government to take action. Ban fall mouldboard plowing.

Ranald MacFarlane,
Fernwood, P.E.I.

P3 PLANS PROBLEMATIC

There are stories in newspapers about governments financing infrastructure using P3 (public-private partnerships) financing. There are people for and against P3 financing.

Computers are a good source of information. I checked out which side to take in this debate.

P3s are promoted for hospitals, transportation infrastructure and waste water systems.

In dealing with hospitals, I read when using proper accounting procedures, P3 hospitals are likely to be 10 percent more costly than those that are publicly financed, owned and operated. Also, it seems P3 financed hospitals can result in “a deterioration of hospital services, diminished accountability, an increase in two-tier care, and needless cost”.

In studying P3 proposals for transportation infrastructure, one can refer back to the importance of proper accounting. In reading the examples of how numbers are put together, one gets the idea those promoting P3 proposals “cook the books,” to use that expression. Most analysts do not try to explain why promoters enhance P3 financing reports.

When reading what can happen with P3 waste water systems, I be-come concerned. As an example, it is noted that accounting firms do not seriously examine P3 proposals, so what chance does a council have to make informed decisions? At a local level, in senior living, I read the federal government will give Regina $58.5 million to go forward with the P3 proposal.

There is a study saying it could cost the city $61 million more by using P3 financing. That means it can cost the city more than the subsidy it receives. This tells me the federal government is willing to waste $58.5 million because it is ideologically in favour of P3 development. I do not live in Regina so have no problem if Regina residents vote for the P3 plan and thus pay more taxes to finance the project. As a Canadian taxpayer, though, I do mind when the federal government squanders my tax dollars.

Lorne Jackson,
Riverhurst, Sask.