[CANADA

Figures don’t lie, but liars figure,
you've often heard. It’s a familiar story
here every January, when the governing
Tories are embarrassed by the release of
the ‘“‘Economic Review”’ by the Sask-
atchewan Bureau of Statistics. This time
around, Premier Grant Devine says the
figures show “‘good growth despite gen-
erally difficult conditions’’.

Take anexample. In histypical fashion,
Devine points to a 1985 crop “17 per cent
higher’ than the previous year — with-
out commenting on the Review’s report
that climate and insect damage drasti-
cally reduced the quality and worth of
much of the harvest. _-

Although the Tories pretend the oppo-
site, the facts indicate Saskatchewan re-
mains a “‘have-not’’ province in many
respects for working people. It has been
since the Dirty Thirties, when economic
disaster and bad weather forced hun-
dreds of thousands to move elsewhere.
Since then, the only occasions when per
‘capita income here has surpassed the
Canadian average has resulted from the
coincidence of good harvests with
temporarily rising wheat prices.

Income Share Falling

Overall, the Review notes that the
province’s per capital personal income
fell in comparison to other provinces, for
the third straight year in 1984, to only 89
per cent of the Canadian average. Last
year’s drop in farm income, to the lowest
level in decades, and falling wheat
prices, seem to guarantee that trend will
continue.

Looking at agriculture, the Review
says 1985 farm income was down to
$830-million from $1.1-billion in 1984. It
confirms the ongoing trend toward rural
depopulation, which has been part and
parcel of Tory and Liberal policy for
many years. Only 30 per cent of Sask-
atchewan residents now live in villages
or on farms, compared to 39 per cent in
1969.

Just as disturbing are recent figures on
wages and salaries from the Labor
Department. Their latest numbers, for
August 1985, confirm a recent nosedive
in earnings, especially if inflation is con-
sidered. That month, the average weekly
earnings stood at $389.17, down from
$396.16 in May. Workers’ wages after
inflation have dropped an average of
$12.20 per week since 1983, adding up to
$634 per year in lost income at this point.
Construction and forestry workers are

=SRy400UHUNEEENREUENANUUUOUEREEGUODUUUEEEAEAUOOESAAEAOUOESEDEEOOOUUUEEEERE UO EEEUE OOO EEUE HAUTE OAA TEETH

Farm crisis survival

EDMONTON — Unifarm
president Stan Bell in a recent
news release said ‘that as many
as one-third of Alberta’s farmers
may not have the financial. re-
sources, or the borrowing capa-
bility, to put a crop in this
spring.”

“The over-riding problem is a
massive $6-billion debt hanging
over the heads of about a third of
the province’s farmers, with only
about a half or two-thirds of the
debt covered by equity of those
who borrowed the money on the
strength of high-priced land whicu
has fallen dramatically in value.”

Bell said that in 1984 ‘interest
expenses amounted to about 60
per cent of net farm income.”’ Un-
ifarm estimates that the amount
for 1985 was 54 per cent.

Unifarm has put forward an
‘Agricultural Recovery Pack-
age”’ to help ‘‘farmers survive a

6 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, FEBRUARY 12, 1986

From Regina

Kimball Cariou

hardest hit, having dropped 5 per cent
and 12.3 per cent respectively in the year
up to August, 1985.

Geographically, Moose Jaw and Pr-
ince Albert workers suffered most during
that period, losing 3.5 per cent and 2.5
per cent off their average pay cheques.

Premier Ignores Facts

Never one to backtrack, the premier
still talks about ‘‘employment gains’’.
Again, the facts are different. For a
number of years, Saskatchewan boasted
the ‘lowest unemployment rate in
Canada”’ although that claim was tar-
nished by the failure to take into account
the thousands out of work on Indian re-
serves. It also avoided other problems,
such as the nearly universal joblessness
among Native people in northern Sask-
atchewan, or the fact that most
‘‘employment gains’’ were in part-time,
low-wage jobs at the expense of perma-
nent full-time work. Now, even official
statistics show Saskatchewan above
Manitoba and Ontario in unemployment
rates. From 4.2 per cent out of work in
1979, the figure has risen steadily to
about eight per cent or more during the
last two years. The total number of
employed has risen only 18,000 since
1981, from 432,000 to 450,000, while offi-
cial unemployment rose from 21,000 to
40,000. Some “‘gains”’!

The picture isn’t all gloomy, though.
The wealthy are ‘givin’ “er snoose,
Bruce”’ as the premier is fond of burbling
in his folksy manner. Trends in income
distribution are evident in the Economic
Review. In 1973, for example, wages and
salaries accounted for 47.9 per cent of
Saskatchewan’s domestic income, and
income from farm operations made up
23.9 per cent. By 1981, reflecting the
population shift from farms to the cities,
the figures stood at 52.6 per cent and 14.1
per cent. Then in 1984 it was 55.6 per
cent and ... 2.3 per cent!

Profits Don’t Suffer
While the share going to working
people who create the wealth plunges
sharply, pre-tax corporate profits and

crisis period of failed or lost
crops, increasing costs, and stag-
nant or declining market prices.”’
This program includes:

e an interest-payment reduc-
tion, reducing producer cost to
five per cent, retroactive to March
1, 1984.

e retroactivity of the additional
7-cents-per-litre fuel distribution
allowance, provided by the pro-
vincial government, to Jan. 1,
1984 instead of Jan. 1, 1985.

e a 14-cents-per-litre rebate by
the federal government on farm
fuel purchased after Jan. 1, 1985,
to offset both direct and indirect
taxes and royalties which affect
the consumer.

Unifarm says its proposal
‘*would put significant amounts of
cash into the hands of farmers fac- ~
ing the most serious debt prob-
lem.”

5

AVEGUAUEANUAUEGUEGUOOAEUROGODERUEQUNGEEGUEOOGSUOUOUDECOOOOONOCORT:

investment income have gone up — from
22.4 per cent of the total 1973 domestic
income, to 36.8 per cent by 1984. Pre-tax
profits passed the $1-billion mark for the

first time in 1979, and were due to
$2-billion in 1985. The “‘recessi
caused only a brief dip in profits.
Other figures: could be recited, ab@
ever-climbing numbers on social ass
tance; youth unemployment: o
growth of food banks. But the p
Should be obvious to all honest.

servers. Saskatchewan remai
have-not”’ (

windfall for rich

REGINA — Government ‘‘incen-
tives’’ have fueled a “‘new model’’ for
the cattle feedlot industry in Saskatche-
wan. The results have delighted former
agriculture minister Lorne Hepworth
and aroused considerable interest among
wealthy investors. But the scheme may
well add to the difficulties of family farm-
ers raising beef.

Grasslands Cattle Ltd., is the first
‘‘venture capital feedlot’’ established to
take advantage of four recent pieces of
provincial legislation. Situated at North-
gate, 230 kilometres southeast of Regina,
it is run by Rodney Pandolfo, who owns
the lot and equipment. Investors own the
cattle and feed.

Fat Returns

According to Canadian Press reports,
provincial legislation makes the opera-
tion “‘risk-free’’. An investment analyst
says ‘‘it’s a matter of economies of scale.
It doesn’t pay to feed 40 to 50 head of
cattle at a time ... but if you’ve got the
feedlot and the equipment and the money
to buy and feed 1,000 head at a time, you
can make money.”’

Investors in Grasslands put in a
minimum of $10,501 each. The Venture

While this is the juiciest plum in
affair, other legislation is involved. |
Livestock Tax Credit Act provide
$24-per-head tax credit, and two ofl
acts provide financing. According
Pandolfo, investors are assured at lea
23 per cent after-tax yield after

_ years.

While Hepworth claims the establi
ment of similar operations will help
economy by reducing the numbers.
calves leaving the province for feed
small-scale beef farmers will be wat
with trepidation. Last summer
Saskatchewan Government had to
pieces by a series of angry demons!

ns to provide mini ie!
ae SEE minimal drought reli

And ‘now this developement s 0
that the Tories will be quite happy to!
taxpayers’ dollars to subsidize a

efficient” form of corporate fa
one which threatens to drive more
farms out of the industry. q

NORAD ‘secrets’ threat :

By DAVID WALLIS

to Canadian sovereignty

The Edmonton Peace Network’s Jan-
uary/February newsletter took aim at
the links between NORAD and Star
Wars. In a lead article, editor Stuart
Hertzog stated, ““not even Canadian
parliamentarians — including the Exter-
nal Affairs Committee set up to inves-
tigate defence policy — know the full
extent of secret NORAD agreements be-
tween Canada and the USA.”’ He also
reported that copies of the agreement
given to the committee excluded one
‘pertaining to the stationing of nuclear
weapons in Canada, should the military
desire it.

Hertzog wrote that with such ma-
nipulation abounding, “‘it is hard to be-
lieve that Canada is not being led by the
nose into the defence policies being pro-
moted by President Reagan. Slowly and
inexorably, this country is being drawn
into the expanding tentacles of the Star
Wars -weapons syStems.”’ The article
also pointed out that ‘‘in the event of
hostilities’? U.S. aircraft will be stationed
in “first-line Canadian bases such as Cal-
gary, Cold Lake and Namao, making Al-
berta’s cities prime military targets in the

event of hostilities’’. (Namao is a milit-

t

eee 10 kilometres north of Edmé

In expressing the sentiment of man}
the peace movement Hertzog conclud
his article saying, Falling into Am
Ca S misguided defence plans will i
ably decrease Canadian political sov¥
eignty. At the present time, the 0
belongs to Canada and is being used
peaceful purposes. If we sign an
tended NORAD agreement how |
will this situation continue?”

Losing Control of North ]

; A recent Cal
ticle. claimed

0

profession
ing physic
and artist

ace Network is organi

_ for an Edmonton peace march Jun