Latest pratfall
To the Editor:
Premier Roy Romanow has tried his damndest to catch up and pass the farm crowd so he can retain his place as ‘leader’. It hasn’t worked.
Somebody keeps tripping him in his headlong dash to be in front. For instance a major pratfall occurred when he sent the farm crises letter to Prime Minister ChrŽtien. Touted by Romanow and the rest of the Saskatchewan NDP government as the ultimate effort we could expect from our premier, the letter was generally seen by farmers as about as effective as a unanimous agreement by the First Ministers to lobby the Europeans to lower their farm subsidies.
Read Also
Topsy-turvy precipitation this year challenges crop predictions
Rainfall can vary dramatically over a short distance. Precipitation maps can’t catch all the deviations, but they do provide a broad perspective.
His latest nosedive into Saskatchewan turf was his failure to show at the demonstration at the Legislative Building. The Premier decided to send the most expendable member of his cabinet, Eric Upshall, Minister of Agriculture.
Upshall, taking on the bravado of a man, certain that he was as good as dead anyway, reacted to the utter disgust for him by the crowd by saying “thank you, thank you, thank you,” and then marching out all the old pre-AIDA lines as though they were new inspiration. The farmers were not convinced but maddened.
Upshall’s fiasco was followed by the messianic appearance of Deputy Premier Dwayne Lingenfelter, the NDP’s Premier in Waiting. Lingenfelter said the government would provide funding to send the farmers to Ottawa by plane or train or bus.
That’s it? I mean, that’s it! A little bit of generosity, so it seems, to get the farmers off the provincial government’s back.
But all joking aside, short days after the August long weekend province-wide demonstrations, Romanow, still unconvinced by displays of farmer frustration, may have suddenly realized that the Saskatchewan economy is really going down the old flooper valve.
Even he realized, finally, that the cash flow from a big crop will be slow to materialize. His advisers may have finally recognized that the big crop is still threatened because of its three-week lateness by frost and possible bad weather. …
In spite of the Saskatchewan government’s reluctance, it is high time it decided to forget its fight to reduce the deficit – rightly blaming the Tories for most of it no longer works. Our provincial government is going to have to make the first move by committing huge financial resources toward matching the federal government’s input to waylay this farm crisis.
The alternative, to hang on in desperation to the provincial purse strings, will only hasten and deepen the economic collapse in Saskatchewan.
– Edwin Wallace,
Pennant, Sask.
Bankruptcy recipes
To the Editor:
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool Vice-President Marvin Shauf stated that his group and others’ traditional methods will cause a breakthrough in this farm crisis.
I’m stating that it’s the fault of the Pool and other farm groups’ ill-advised and misguided direction that has created some of the sad state of affairs we farmers are in.
If Mr. Shauf and the rest of SWP personnel think that changes to AIDA like covering negative margins, simplifying the application process, five-year average, removing links to NISA, etc. (according to August’s Pool newsletter to us farmers) will make a difference, they might as well start paying more attention to the Pool’s own problems instead of the problems of us farmers.
All the Pool’s recommended changes would do is bankrupt 90 percent of us farmers instead of 95 percent.
Until such time as the SWP, other farm groups, and both levels of government start talking about or calling for a cost of production program, either to stand alone or installed into either AIDA or crop insurance, it will continually make all three ad hoc programs recipes to bankrupt all farmers.
The reason AIDA, crop insurance, and NISA do not work is because neither one of these programs has anything to do with the cost of production.
All three programs support us farmers below the cost of production.
It’s what has created the farm crisis and added to the failure of the family farm along with the entire agricultural industry.
– Lloyd Pletz,
Balcarres, Sask.
Little change
To the Editor:
Looking back to 1991 when I was elected as a government MLA for Kelvington-Wadena, I realize not much has changed, especially in agriculture.
One of the first pieces of legislation passed was the six-year lease back of farm land, as many farm families were losing their land and deserved a second chance. At that time the government also chartered a plane, filled it with farm groups and officials and headed for Ottawa. As I recall, not much was accomplished.
Next was the cancellation of GRIP. Basically put, a group of rural, green as grass MLAs were slickered by bureaucrats, the Premier, and cabinet.
Upon realizing what had happened, a small group of rural MLAs worked countless hours to design a new safety net program, which was approved by Ottawa only to be rejected by the Premier and cabinet.
We were assured at that time there still would be a long-term safety net put in place to offset the effect of weather disasters and low prices.
It is my understanding that Alberta has such a program. If such a program had been in place as promised, one can only imagine that the crisis on the farm would have been somewhat minimized.
I agree that Ottawa must share the responsibility, even though they have been asking Saskatchewan for seven years to help design a long-term meaningful solution. Also when the provincial government is pointing its finger at Ottawa they must look in the mirror and share the blame.
If this provincial government cannot negotiate an immediate cash injection and design a meaningful long-term safety net program, then maybe it is time to call the election.
– Ken Kluz,
Wishart, Sask.
Make a list
To the Editor:
This spring it was widely speculated that Premier Roy Romanow would call an election and take his NDP government to the court of public opinion. As the record shows, he didn’t and all of the speculation was proven false.
The opposition parties all cried foul and claimed Romanow had chickened out because of the nurses strike and both opposition parties claimed Romanow should have called the election for June.
In reality, both opposition parties were thrilled Romanow didn’t call an election because they were able to keep their jobs and their lucrative salaries for a few more months….
Premier Romanow called the election for Sept. 16. Now both opposition parties have claimed Romanow shouldn’t have called the election because the farmers are busy, people are on holidays and the kids are going back to school.
The opposition parties should make up their minds. Do they want an election or don’t they?
Now the reality. Premier Romanow had no valid reason not to call an election in the spring. He broke his promise on general elections, but kept his promise on byelections that were costly and unnecessary.
The Premier decides when a general election will be called, not the opposition parties. If the opposition parties are correct in their belief that Romanow’s NDP government is all messed up and out of touch with the voters, then they should be pleased that the election has been called, never mind when. …
The voters’ decision in this election will be difficult. They have an NDP government and two opposition parties that have failed to meet their reasonable expectations.
This election will be more about who you will not vote for than who you will vote for.
Start with the Saskatchewan Party and mark down all the reasons why you shouldn’t vote for them and then do the same for the remaining two parties.
The choices aren’t great, but how you vote may rest somewhere in this process of elimination.
– Larry Birkbeck,
Regina, Sask.
One way out
To the Editor:
The worldwide disarray and disaster in agriculture presents a global problem, therefore action should be taken before it is too late. The most likely success could be through the three prairie Wheat Pools.
The Wheat Pools’ delegates should be convinced that only with their help would there be a chance of any success at all. The only way out of this serious mess in agriculture, I repeat, only one way out, and that is farmers have to stop producing.
Proof is there to see for everybody that in the past all programs to get agriculture out of such a dire strait failed miserably. And after all, it should not be too hard to do that because the farmers don’t get paid for their cost of production anyway.
So instead of going to the bank for a production loan, he should simply stop producing. Maybe that could be the solution of the very serious problem.
The Wheat Pool delegates, especially the 144 delegates from Saskatchewan, should start the ball rolling. They should meet twice a year just by themselves without the officials. The delegates should hammer out their own policies. …
The delegates should formulate some policy to convince every producer at first (in) this country and finally in the whole world to stop producing food because every producer of food is in deep financial trouble. …
After the delegates formulated their policy they could then synchronize their policies with the Pool officials, and then go ahead, use the Pool’s paper for media purposes.
If only the media attention is fully reached with this endeavor, it probably will send the consumers thinking.
– J.J. Gerger,
Regina, Sask.
Role of WP
To the Editor:
I would like to draw your attention to an article that was published in the July 22 issue of The Western Producer via Reuters, regarding the decision made by the Clinton administration to pay American hog producers millions in U.S. funds to offset the recent and continuing devastating hog prices in the U.S.
This must have been the smallest of articles I have ever seen regarding a problem so paramount in Canadian agriculture.
I feel that as a publication for agriculture The Western Producer should have used a story of this nature as an opportunity to headline the continuing disastrous situation in this industry.
Politicians and the appointed powers continue to treat us as a non-issue and an annoying irritation. There will be no change in government policy until there is blood in the streets to coin a phrase, unless publications such as The Western Producer can use stories such as the American aid program to emphasize to our governments that we are not crying wolf and that agriculture, in its traditional form, is entering the second depression.
United lobby power is the only way we might achieve a more equitable aid program based on a single species.
Regardless of the fact that it might be countervailable, it should be demanded by hog producers immediately.
The tripartite system worked very well in its day and it was fair to all producers as it was based on the number of actual hogs sold.
Therefore the more efficient the producer the better the aid program.
Rightly or wrongly, one member of government told me that he wasn’t in the business of helping the inefficient. Tripartite would therefore satisfy that one arrogant individual. …
The Western Producer, like it or not, has to take a leading role in focusing the lobby power, establishing a workable aid program and demanding that the government implement it with all due haste as I would be willing to bet that Lyle Vanclief couldn’t tell you today’s price for hogs or other commodities in the agriculture sector.
There is no evident leadership in the federal Agriculture department and it falls upon all of us to make sure that we are heard and understood by policy makers.
The Western Producer appears to be in full understanding of the situation judging by the editorials. The volume and the nature of the letters you receive is a testament to the fact that action is essential.
With the insight into agriculture that this publication has, I believe it would be very helpful to our industry for The Western Producer to consider co-ordinating the different lobby groups together into one united voice. …
Perhaps you might, through one of your editorials, discuss the feasibility of taking on such a role. You have suggested before in the editorials, the need for a united voice.
I believe The Western Producer can carry a lot of influence because of its understanding of agriculture and should be knocking on Vanclief’s door in the very near future.
– Ed Larkcom,
Red Deer, Alta.
Drainage rights
To the Editor:
In a year when cropping plans were thwarted by Mother Nature in an unprecedented way, it may be prudent for the farming community in southeast Manitoba to plan its recovery carefully.
Should we be taking a look at some of the systematic drainage programs which have stood the test of time in other areas of the province?
Judicious planning needs to be on the forefront of every project, however should farmers not have a similar right to drain farm land as the citizens of Boissevain, Brandon or Winnipeg have to efficient storm sewers …
Can we agree upon the necessity for both?
Most, if not all of us have hydro, not out of convenience, but out of necessity.
According to a recent Manitoba P.C. caucus news bulletin, we are led to believe that “a strong healthy rural economy is essential to the health of Manitoba’s economy … the backbone of Manitoba.”
The primitive drainage system in many areas (with some notable exceptions like the Red River Valley and The Pas) do not serve the ideal of rural development. Southwest Manitoba has become the infamous example this year … with staggering losses.
Duff’s ditch (floodway) was financed by the taxpayer of this country and constructed out of necessity as evidenced once again by the flood of the century in 1997. Should rural Manitoba not expect similar funding in developing its ag infrastructure?
The backbone of Manitoba needs to be strengthened for the sake of continued urban development. Considering the changes in weather patterns, should we be planning for future years of excessive precipitation?
As a farmer I am keenly aware of the value of water as a resource; however, we need to deal with those inevitable years as they have in other areas of this province. …
And then a thought which may indeed stir some controversy: let us be careful not to attach the same intrinsic value to our feathered friends as we do to the human species … that in my opinion can develop into extreme, even dangerous New Age thinking.
Do we need more wetlands or do we need improved drainage systems? There is a balance to be struck … perhaps there is room for both.
Let’s remember that only 12 percent of Manitoba’s vast area has been developed for agriculture.
If and when our local RM councils need direction, perhaps the Departments of Agriculture and Rural Development should offer their expertise.
And certainly … some sound, well-reasoned political decisions need to be made … I am suggesting that they have not been made to date.
– Bill Hildebrandt,
Caronport, Sask.
