Many years ago, I saw a cartoon that caused my cynical inner journalist to chuckle.
A man in a suit sat behind a massive desk, handing a paper to a lackey, saying “Take this, Henderson, and hide it from the public.”
I laughed because even a wet-behind-the-ears cub reporter in the early 1990s could recognize the fundamental truth behind it. Those in positions of power — be it in business or politics — love to manage the message and downplay the data they don’t like.
Read Also
Farming still has digital walls to scale
Canadian farms still face the same obstacles to adopting digital agriculture technology, despite the years industry and policy makers have had to break them down.
If it’s embarrassing, runs counter to their beliefs or goals or just won’t play well, better to bury it.
It’s such a commonplace tactic, there’s even a term for it among those who work in the media or practice public relations: the Friday news dump. It’s the strategy of releasing bad news or documents that you don’t want too closely scrutinized on Friday afternoon, in hopes that by the time Monday morning rolls around, all will be forgotten as a new week dawns.
My inner cynic got another workout recently when the province released the results of its Crown land stakeholder survey.
Amid the backlash against numerous changes to lease allocation in the province, the consultation invited stakeholders to make their opinions known.
However, after the survey concluded, it fell into a months-long limbo where the results were not made available. Despite repeated requests by Manitoba Co-operator staff, there was nothing forthcoming from the province.
When the report was released, it was essentially slipped under the door, in hopes that nobody would notice. Rather than a media release announcing its completion, it simply appeared on the Engage MB portal on the original webpage where the original survey appeared, as a new hyperlink that read “NEW! What We Heard Report.”
Despite our repeated requests for this information, the Manitoba Co-operator was never notified. We can’t even tell you reliably when it was released. The PDF document appears to have been created March 16.
That inner cynic piped up again, and wondered if they were looking for a double dose — the usual Friday inattention, combined with the possibility that a few journalists might have left a bit early to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day down at the local pub.
Either way, there was very little effort made to communicate the findings. And little wonder. It would appear respondents had a major beef with the government.
As reporter Don Norman reports for our Apr. 27 issue, respondents overwhelmingly — to the tune of 84 per cent — want the ability to transfer leases to someone else. Many written comments specifically mentioned the desire to see unit transfers reinstated, after the provision was done away with in 2019.
A further 73 per cent of respondents said they want to see longer lease terms, especially for young farmers. And 55 per cent said they thought young producers should receive a rent discount.
The unit transfer provision has been a hot button topic. Older farmers say their retirement plans are in disarray in areas where Crown land dominates the landscape. Producers were even told at one point, in public meetings, that it would be returning, only to have the government once again change its mind.
And the results of the most recent Crown land grazing lease auction suggest it is mostly larger operations that snap up the land, to the detriment of those less well-heeled.
The government said it had two key reasons for making the changes. It felt the long leases were preventing younger cattle producers from getting access. Plus, the terms of the New West Partnership Trade Agreement required them to open Crown land leases to non-Manitobans.
It would appear the current policies have failed on the first point and overachieved on the second.
I’m left wondering whether the government’s adherence to unfettered free market capitalism was the deciding factor.
That raises a question worth debating. Should Crown land be treated as just another economic resource, used to its maximum utility to enhance the public purse? Or should there be another component that considers the kinds of outcomes we want to see as a society?
Cattle sector participants are aging and herd numbers remain stubbornly low, so I’m making the case that Manitoba needs to take that into account.
Based on the government’s actions to date, don’t hold your breath waiting on it. It seems more likely they’ll try to wait this one out.
In the meantime, we’re all left pondering the obvious question: why did they even bother going to the trouble of looking like they were interested in consulting with Manitobans?
