7" te Time is here for unity — Saskatchewan farmers N enthusiastic 18th annual convention of the Saskat- chewan Farmer’s Union was held from November 28th to December Ist, with 388 register- ed delegates and visitors pre- sent, and with a number more in for some sessions. This was a positive conven- tion, marked specially by many young farmers who called for action, and now. Many delegates had never been to a convention before. President Roy Atkinson, in his report, placed before the con- vention some of the rapidly developing problems facing Can- adian farmers: “The time has come for Sas- katchewan farmers to unite, to protect their legitimate inter- ests . .. by facing the world of business and government as a tight knit, well-organized, pro- fessional group. A major prob- lem (is) to recognize what to do and how to do it .. . The farm- er as an independent business- man, faces a world of highly or- ganized corporate management, - highly organized labor manage- ment, and big government. The kind of business I have just described knows no local boun- dries, and many times no na- tional boundries . . .” He condemned the floor price of $1.95 per bushel for wheat as inadequate, following “cut- throat competition by the Uni- ted States,” and predicted that the minimum would prove inadequate. “We feel it will be necessary, under the circum- stances, for our government to support the wheat producer’s in- ~ come at a higher level than the minimum . . . for cheap wheat would mean cheap meat,” he said. He stated that farmers must recognize “the conflict between the independent farm business and the demands of the indus- trial sector — in particular the corporate business organization which looks upon farmers as an- other market . . . in which to make profit . . . large scale cor- porate firms which both buy pro- ducts we produce and sell us goods and services which they produce.” A high point in the conven- tion, which aroused the enthu- siasm of the delegates,.was an address by Mr. Oren Lee Staley, President of the National Farm- er’s Organization from Corning, Iowa, U.S.A. He told the delegates about experiences in the U.S.A. in struggling for collective bargain- ing type agreements. They had chosen hogs for a_ beginning, signed up all producers in a cer- tain market area, refused to de- liver until a price was negociat- ed with the new marketing or- ganization, which closed it down for a day. The plant began truck- ing hogs in from outside the area, so the farmers extended their organizational work, and nally compelled the plants to deal with their organization. This type of organization re- quires that all official and mem- bers take an active part at all times. 2 An exceptionally large number of resolutions were before the convention, most of which were referred to the incoming Board for attention. They dealt with the cost-price squeeze, new mar- keting problems and prices, rail line abandonment, and subsidies. The convention called for, in effect, a two price system for wheat, asking that the federal government pay $2.75 per bushel number 1, for the first 2,000 bu- shels delivered. Roy Atkinson, in his main ad- dress, opposed the U.S. policy of price cutting, stating that in effect it subsidized the industrial countries, such as ECM, Japan, and the Soviet Union. This, he said, compelled the Canadian farmer to subsidize cheap food exports. However, he recognized that there existed “another kind of demand . . . that of develop- ing nations” which must be met “by specific, specialized pro- grams offered. by industrially developed nations”... A resolution against the war in Vietnam was put forward with very little opposition. In spite of all the positive part of the convention, some pretty big questions facing farm- ers still remain unanswered. With the rapidly deteriorating economic situation, some forms of mass protest may become im- mediately possible, and ought to have been discussed in the con- vention. No doubt proposals made for collective bargaining are sound, and should be worked on organi- zationally. Nevertheless, concen- tration on this area could leave neglected the big squeeze from the monopolies at the cost end for, as everyone well knows, when the price of farm commo- dities go up, especially wheat, so do farm costs. They never seem to go down when prices fall. So we can expect that if we gain at one end, we'll be immediarc -tely robbed at the other. [‘ EVENT of an attack on the United States, Canada will disappear. The Canadian government has signed an agree- ment on civil defence matters with the United States which, in case the United States becomes the innocent victim of an attack, will wipe out the Canada-USA border. The agreement signed in 1967, similar to ones signed in 1951 and 1963, is on the assumption that the U.S. will be the victim of attack. The new agreement has simply added the. feature that Canadian sovereignty will disappear in such an attack. The October, 1967, issue of the Emergency Measures Orga- nization (EMO) National Digest devotes much of its space to this civil emergency measures Agree- ment between the United States and Canada. As background to the nezotia- tions, it points out that the Uni- Students want Carter's proposals The Canadian Union of Stu- dents last week presented a brief to the Minister of Finance in support of the recommenda- tions of Kenneth Carter in his Royal Commission Report on Taxation. Below are excerpts from that brief: “PFIHE CANADIAN Union of Students considers the Re- port of the Royal Commis- sion on Taxation to be excellent. The analysis and recommenda- tions of the Commission indicate a respect for fundamental prin- ciples and a logical application almost unknown to taxation. We particularly endorse the view of the Commission on equity. The acceptance of this principle is essential — its rejection would be a tragic betrayal of the Cana- dian people by their elected re- presentatives. We are confident, however, that the Government will openly and forcefully accept this principle and that even if some aspects of the Carter Re- port are rejected, the overriding principle of equity will permeate whatever replaces the present tax system. “We will focus our attention in this submission on the Re- port’s recommendations on edu- cation. We believe that a future Canada which is independent, free and just to her citizens can best be built by assuring educa- tion of good quality to all who are capable and who wish to pursue it. Such an assurance would provide diverse benefits to the individual and to society: social mobility, freedom of choice and economic growth are three benefits which cannot be challenged. “The federal tax system can reduce the social and’ financial barriers facing many potential Canadian students. That the Federal Government has been prepared to reduce these bar- riers in the past cannot be doubted. The Canada Student Loans Plan and the deductibility of tuition fees from taxable in- come provide two precedents for federal action. The Federal Gov- ernment ‘has the responsibility to equalize educational oppor- tunity, to stimulate economic growth, to overcome regional disparities and to provide geo- graphic mobility for all of Can- ada. “On the principle of equity, we share the Commission’s pre- ference for tax credits over tax deductions. “The difference between tax credit and exemptions is simple. A tax credit involves a reduc- tion in taxes of a given amount, while an exemption grants a reduction in taxable income. The latter results in a tax re- duction that increases with in- come. Because an exemption excludes from tax the last dol- lars of income received by a taxpayer, the value of an ex- emption depends upon the marginal rate applicable to the taxpayer. A tax credit, on the other hand, in effect exempts a given amount of the first dollars of a taxpayer’s income. A tax credit thus affects all . taxpayers in the same amount, while an exemption provides an ‘VANUARY'5, 198—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 6 JANUARY 5, 1968—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 4 — allowance which increases in value as income increases. To put this in other terms, the revenue loss resulting from the use of exemption is higher than from the use of credits, where credits and deductions achieve the same results for low in- come families. “It is clear however that tax credits are inadequate. They are not effective for those tax units, including students, which pay no tax or only a minimal tax. “As tax credits do not signifi- cantly improve equality of edu- cational opportunity, govern- ments must assume the respon- sibility for providing transfer payments. “Based on an analysis of the costs of education for the aver- age Canadian student, we recom- mend the following refundable tax credits: for the student liv- ing away from home, $1,935; for the independent student living at home, $1,410; and for the depen- dent student living at home, $1,200. “The Commission has defined the family as the basic tax unit in the economy. With this we agree. We are, however, con- cerned that the definition of the family may be too rigid to opti- -mize the realization of our con- ditions for education and the realization of the Commission’s third objective for the tax sys- tem, i.e. the protection of the liberties and rights of the indivi- dual. “Generally, an unmarried in- dividual is considered a part of the family unit until he is 21. The exception to this would be that an unmarried minor who works full-time may establish his own tax unit. In addition, a full-time post-secondary student more than 21, but less than 25 should be permitted to remain a member of the family unit. Both these exceptions are just.— “We are concerned, however,’ for the student who is less than 21 but who is not receiving any support from his family. That there are many such students is clear. It would be unjust to deny them the tax advantages designed for students because of difficult family circumstances. A release provision for these stu- dents is needed. It would prob- ably be largely self-policing. “We are also concerned that some wealthy students may abuse the privilege of extension of dependency until 25. This provision could become a vehicle for tax evasion unless some mechanisms for restricting non- taxable transfers from parents to dependent students over 21 is devised. “We appreciate the difficult task. before you and the Govern- ment in evaluating the Commis- sion’s recommendations and translating them into legislation. We are confident that you and the Government will consider every submission, including this one, in the light of the principles established by the Commission and not on the basis of the num- ber of submissions reaching the same conclusions or on the basis of the political or economic in- fluence of those making the sub- missions. : ‘nel, equipment or other resoul ted States authorities notified their Canadian counterparts that the original agreements of 195! and 1963 “did not in fact con® tain sufficient legal authority” t0 go ahead with the kind of plan ning that was envisaged. The Canadian government agreed and the Americans pro” ceeded to draft the new agree ment that would contain this. The agreement is actually 4 letter and a memorandum sent by the U.S. Ambassador in Otta- wa to the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs, Paul Martin. Martin’s letter acknowl edging and agreeing to the terms, dated August 8, 1967, is Canada’s acquiescence. Martin‘s letter said: “The proposals contained if your Note are acceptable to the Government of Canada and it is agreed that your Note and this reply thereto, shall constitute al Agreement. between, our tw0_ Governments which. shall entet into force on the date of this Note.” Stated first in general terms, the Agreement says that “thé normal application of law” will not apply to the “emergency us? of manpower, material resourc’ es, supplies, systems and sef vices” in the event of an armed attack, and after such an attack “to measure...relating to ec0” nomic stabilization, priorities allocations and other emergency economic controls.” It — als@ makes the same provision fol “the movement of evacuees, ref” ugees, civil emergency persot ces.” Canada has agreed to... e “waive customs, immigr@ tion and other border - crossing requirements. e “to remove (in advance) any serious impediments cross-border assistance, emerg ency operations and the cros# border flow of commodities . .- e “emergency relief, health and welfare services (for a Americans in Canada) .. . # less favorable than for its ow! citizens ... e “avoid a levy of any natio? al tax on the services, equipme? and supplies of the other couf e “transportation, communich tion and related facilities at equipment . . . are made av: able for emergency use to ti other government .. . e “ (provide) adequate secul, ty and care for the personn equipment and resources of th other country. .4 ; e “transportation and ot equipment . . . located in th other country . . . may be tem porarily employed .. . (where the equipment is located. ; e “Perishable or other readi!! consummable supplies . . . mé be disposed of .. .”