MAIDSTONE, Sask. – First came the black humour.
As a group of northwestern Saskatchewan farmers gathered around a television set to watch national political leaders debate the issues Jan. 9, there was little expectation that agriculture would be mentioned.
At one point, in a spat over competing tax cut policies, Conservative leader Stephen Harper talked about low income Canadians who pay no tax and therefore would not benefit from promised Liberal income tax cuts.
“Now they’re going to have to talk about farmers,” quipped Payton farmer Ross Currie, joining five others in Dave Lundquist’s farmhouse for the political event.
Read Also
European wheat production makes big recovery
EU crop prospects are vastly improved, which could mean fewer canola and durum imports from Canada.
There were guffaws all around.
Shortly after, for the first time in recent campaign debate history, there was a question about desperate farm income conditions and all ears perked up.
Harper, prime minister Paul Martin, New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton and Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe suddenly were talking on national television about how they would improve farm supports.
There was little new.
Martin said his party would enrich and improve the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program. Harper said Conservatives would replace CAIS with a better program, add half a billion dollars a year to safety nets, support supply management and end the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly.
Layton promised the NDP would add $1 billion to farm supports, although the party position had not yet been published.
It left the farmers in the room grateful that agriculture had been mentioned but dissatisfied with the
answers.
As activists for the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, they credited e-mails from APAS and other Canadian Federation of Agriculture affiliates with pressuring the television networks to include an agriculture question in the leaders’ debate.
However, none of the six farmers watching the debate was happy with the response.
Several noted that the leaders all concentrated on flaws in the safety net program and did not mention positive solutions to get farmers off the support cycle.
“It scares me that if they are only talking about improving support programs, I should just call the auctioneer because support programs won’t keep me going,” Lundquist said.
“They all are looking at the weaknesses and this was a chance for them to be positive about agriculture,” Currie added. “I’m disappointed.”
The farmers in the room were divided in their opinions and loyalties.
“We’ve heard from Martin before that they are going to fix things but they have had years to do it and haven’t,” said Bob Guest of Denholm. “I think any of the other leaders are more credible on this than him.”
“When I look at the discussion tonight, I’m going to support Martin,” countered Morris Prescesky from Mayfair. “He is putting a lot of emphasis on the (Wayne) Easter report and giving farmers more market power and I support that.”
Harper’s reiteration of Conservative policy to end the wheat board monopoly launched a lively debate among farmers in the room, all of whom vote in the Battlefords-Lloydminster riding held by prominent Conservative MP and agriculture activist Gerry Ritz.
“I can tell you who I won’t vote for, the Conservatives, because if they get rid of the wheat board monopoly, they just hand the business over to the multinationals,” said Glaslyn farmer Dave Bailey.
Lundquist countered that the CWB is “small potatoes” as an issue because most farmers do not grow crops that depend on wheat board sales.
“For the past 10 years or more, our federal agriculture ministers and the bureaucrats have tried to portray us as inefficient and sitting around waiting for a handout,” said Lundquist, reflecting other comments during the evening. “I think we need a recognition by the leaders that it isn’t true and that we are a vital industry.”
