HOW THEY SOLD OUT
- ‘THE PRAIRIES

“Our government is dedicated to the
principle of free enterprise. We are deter-
mined to create an atmosphere that will
induce industry to invest here. We are
convinced that our province will prosper
only if industry is permitted to make rea-
sonable profits and retain a fair propor-
tion of these profits for expansion. I as-
sure industrialists in this country or any-
where else in the world, that our govern-
ment will take any reasonable step to pro-
mote industrial and business develop-
ment.”

‘THIS was said by Premier Ross Thatcher

of Saskatchewan. It could just.as well
have been said by E. C. Manning, premier
of Alberta or Duff Roblin, premier of Man-
itoba. All three prairie premiers have been
involved in the biggest give-away program
of them all—the gift of the natural resourc-
es of their respective provinces to the big
monopolies, mainly American.

@ MANITOBA:

—Roblin government loans a U.S. firm
from Boise, Idaho, $20 million to establish
a $30 million fertilizer plant at Brandon.

—Roblin government loans Monaca AG,

a Swiss forestry firm, $5 million to set up a-

forestry company, Churchill Forestry In-
dustries, to develop a $100 million forestry
industry complex. The firm has been given
an area equal in size to Belgium and is re-
ceiving at public expense surveying, road
building and the lowest stumpage fees in the
country of 37.5 cents per cord.

—Roblin government is putting up $225

million for the development of the Nelson
River Hydro Electric facilities with most of

the power slated for export to midwestern
United States.

© SASKATCHEWAN:

—Thatcher government gives all compa-
nies operating in the province a royalty free
period on certain types of discoveries until
Dec. 31, 1970.

—Thatcher government has a royaly rate
for potash of 60 cents per ton, the lowest
on the North American continent.

—Thatcher government is building a $25
million water pipe line to serve the needs of
the potash companies.

© ALBERTA:

-~Manning government allows for four
biggest oil companies in the world to domi-
nate the province’s oil industry, so that to-
day all the refineries are foreign-owned.

—Manning government leased 2,600,000
acres of the Alberta tar sands at 25 cents an
acre, one-quarter of what is usually charged
to U.S. firms. At present prices this area is
estimated to represent $750 billion in poten-
tial value.

—Manning government has allowed the
great reserves of natural gas, and their by-
product sulphur, to be completely in the

hands of American companies.

It is estimated by an official of the Mani-
toba government that by 1970 capital for-
mation on the prairie will exceed $14 billion.
How will this money be spent? In whose
interest will it be used?

The glowing reports of growth on the

the small farmer's land when it is taken from
him? It’s a safe bet many of them will be
friends of the government that is in power
at the time.

If it is accepted that governments should
buy this land, we propose that it makes such
new Crown land available to the small far-
mers to form cooperative farms. This would
give them the needed size and capital.

@ Rural poverty is among the worst in
Canada. me

The Canadian Centre for Community
Studies of the University of Saskatchewan,
in its publication, Housing and Environmen-
tal Conditions in the Prairie Provinces, of
1966 had this to say:

“Since 1921, more than a million peo-
ple have left rural areas of the prairies. Ad-

- ditional losses are expected . . . Housing
and public services in rural communities
are far inferior to those in urban places.

Rural dwellings are more apt to be dila-

pidated, crowded or lacking in modern

facilities .. . Public services in rural areas

—utilities, streets, schools and so forth—

—-are seldom on a par with those provided

in urban areas... . Economic factors may

account in large measure for the observed
disparity between housing conditions in
rural and urban areas. First, incomes are
lower in rural areas. Second, the future of
most rural areas is clouded with uncer-
tainty . . . Conditions in the rural non-

farm sector are almost as bad .. . In 1961,

12 percent: of all occupied rural dwellings

in the Prairie Region needed major re-

2

ey a
pairs, 23 percent were crowded, 63 pet-
cent lacked running water, and 55 percent
were without central heating. It is clear
- that a large segment of our rural popula-
tion is not enjoying the amenities of mod-
ern living, despite advances in technology
and improvement in economic organiza-
Hon. hee
@ There are new problems of financing.
As a result of the transformation of the
methods of production. larger capital invest-

‘ments and operation expenses are needed.

The farmer requires large sums of money
for operations all year round as never be-
fore, Hence. problems of credit, interest and
financing have increased to a scale never be-
for known.

Bigger machines are being developed. Au-

-tomation is being introduced. Modern hatch-

eries have reached a high technical level—
eggs are sorted, packed in cartons according
to grades, by machine. 2M

The big machinery companies are deve-
loping new machines which would have au-
tomatic pilots, automatic control systems,
corn combines which would harvest and
shell corn in the field, wheat combines
which -gather thresh and clean, wheat in a
single operation.

The cost will be enormous, beyond the
reach of the average farmer. Their applica-
tion calls for bigger spreads. The cumula-
tive total of loans to purchase farm machin-
ery under the Farm Implement Loans Act
between 1945 and 1964 amounts to $1.2
billion.

A PROGRAM FOR
PRAIRIE AGRICULTURE

@ We wholeheartedly support the buy-
ers’ boycott of farm machinery and parts
which the farm unions are promoting.

@ We call for a law to prohibit the sale
of farm land to any absentee U.S. landlord
or US. business concern.

®@ We call for the nationalization of the

farm implements industry. There should be
federal assistance to establish a publicly-
owned, prairie-based farm implements manu-
facturing industry. Farm machinery and

- parts prices should be frozen, with no fur-

ther increase allowed until cause is shown
before a government board. The govern-