The gloves are off in a dispute be-tween two organizations vying to be the voice of Saskatchewan farmers.
Earlier this month at its annual convention, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities said it is time for the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan to find a new source of funding.
That salvo wasn’t well received.
“I don’t know where they get off telling us we have to get a different way to fund,” said APAS president Terry Hildebrandt, reacting to comments printed in last week’s Western Producer.
Read Also
Canola oil transloading facility opens
DP World just opened its new canola oil transload facility at the Port of Vancouver. It can ship one million tonnes of the commodity per year.
He is upset with the way his organization has been treated by SARM, like an unwanted child rejected by its parent.
“I would suggest they have taken a turf-protecting role since we started,” said Hildebrandt.
He claims SARM has been “beating us up” at district meetings and has refused requests to provide input on key agricultural proposals put forward by APAS.
The group was born out of a 1999 SARM resolution to establish a broad-based farm lobby in Saskatchewan. The idea was put forward after SARM was turned down for membership in the Canadian Federation of Agriculture because it was deemed to be a level of government.
The SARM board didn’t follow up on that resolution but seven individual RMs used the momentum from the convention to establish APAS, which is now funded by 133 municipalities. Drawing from the same revenue source has created friction between the two groups.
“The biggest problem they have with us is we mimic their association,” said Hildebrandt.
University of Saskatchewan political studies professor Joe Garcea said the butting of heads was inevitable.
“They’re actually both trying to share the same policy space. That’s what is at issue here,” he said.
“The field is too crowded, so it was inevitable that some friction was going to occur.”
He said there is a school of thought that SARM is devoting more attention to agriculture than it does to municipal governance and he wonders if RMs can afford to fund two separate farm lobbies.
Sometimes governments like diversity of opinion because they can choose whichever policy they want to implement, but it can also lead to what Garcea calls “a perpetual loop of consultations,” where nothing gets resolved.
Saskatchewan agriculture minister Clay Serby said the power struggle between the two groups has not arisen at any of the four producer advisory committees he chairs.
“I have seen virtually little or no dissension,” he said.
While he admits it would be helpful to have a unified provincial farm voice, he has been happy with the quality of advice he has received from the farm and commodity groups sitting on his committees.
“They have been pillars of support in helping to drive the provincial agenda on agriculture over the past 21/2 years.”
Serby wouldn’t comment on the rift between the two groups other than to say he views SARM as a municipal organization providing rural government and services.
Hildebrandt said SARM filled a void in the provincial farm lobby for a number of years and now seems unwilling to give up that role.
“They spend most of their time on agriculture trying to defeat us and that’s a shame.”
The two organizations sharply differ on at least one key issue, the agricultural policy framework agreement. SARM wants the province to sign the agreement while APAS wants Serby to wait until a better deal is on the table.
Hildebrandt said APAS is willing to sit down with SARM and work out their differences.
“If we put our backs together on common issues we would have a lobby for producers in this province that would be the envy of all.”
