HO BENEFITS FR

M

DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS?

- Criticism of Ottawa’s scheme
xf deficiency payments is not
i@ imply that they are wrong
4 principle. Not at all. It’s a
yuestion of who and what they
afte. used. for.

First of all the established
support price should be one
which will cover the cost of
droduction and permit a
teasonable profit.

Secondly, the limit on the
number of dozen per year on
which deficiency payments are
made should- be high enough
that.it will enable the family
type farm of egg producer to
make a living. (Such a limit
may also serve to discourage
the big commercial producers
_ from creating the surpluses
that the government seems
worried about).

“In short, deficiency pay-
ments should have as their ob-
ject the guarantee of a decent
Standard of living to Canada’s
smaller farmers, to maintain
the family farm.

We may well ask: Why this
thange in government policy?

i The reason given by Ottawa
is that it will not subsidize

the production of farm sur-
4 pluses.

; This self-righteous attitude
- pomes with ill grace from. a
Bovernment that is wasting al-
most 2,000 million dollars a
_ year on.completely useless war
‘expenditures, that wasted $400
million on an Avro project to
build a plane that never left
the ground, that gives $20 mil-
lions a year to the CPR and
CNR which goes directly into
‘the pockets of the bondholders.

The real reason,~ of course,
is that the big monopolies who
behind the scenes decide Tory
singe policies regard the

eral budget as their own

vate preserve for super pro~

and don’t want any of this

_ noney spent on farmers if they
‘can help it.

“There is no reason at all
y farm production should
be subsidized whenever it

necessary. It would
mean some measure of security
this important section of

r population and it would
ikke possible cheaper food for
people. Farmers justly
it out that due to govern-

policies and regulations,

have for years been com-

led to subsidize other coun-

as well a8 the domestic

with produce such as

i by taxing a lower than
price.

As. to surpluses, the whole

request of the B.C.

readers.

This is the second and concluding part of
an article that has been prepared at the

commission of the Communist Party of
Canada. Basic figures are from such
authoritative journals as the Financial.
Post, Country Guide, the B.C. Federation
of Agriculture and other farm sources.
Comment will be welcomed from our

provincial farm

attitude of the government is
an indictment not only of its
policies but also the capitalist
system under which we live.

To speak of forcibly cutting
down the production of eggs
and pork when not only mil-
lions in other countries but
also countless Canadians are
going without is certainly a
crime against humanity.

A solution to the problem of
surpluses is ready. to hand.
The home market can be in-
creased by raising wages, old
age pensions, unemployment
insurance and other steps to
raise living standards. Ending
the dumping of U.S. farm pro-
duce into Canada is a. major
demand of B.C. farmers. For
them this would greatly in-
crease the home market. The

export market can be increas-

ed by developing trade with
the one billion people who live
in the socialist countries, by
accepting - the’ currencies of
other countries in exchange
for Canadian dollars, and by
making barter deals.

There are some problems
which all farmers face, regard-
less of whether they are small
subsistence farmers, family
farms or. big commercial .pro-
ducers. :

Agriculture today faces a
real crisis (and has been in

‘one for some time), a crisis

exemplified by the fact, as
farmers point out, that since}
1947 the cost of production has
increased by 50 percent while
prices of farm produce have
dropped by 21 percent.

In this sense agriculture is
in a depressed state — there is
not the same rate of profit
made in farming as in many
other business undertakings.
But on specific issues and
problems there is a wide dif-
ference of views among farm-
ers based upon their class and
economic position.

The Canadian Federation of
Agriculture and its provincial

| sections, as well as many of

the commodity groups such as

poultry producers - orgahiza-
tions, are dominated by big
commercial farmers. It is not
surprising therefore to find
that their leaders are criticiz-
ing deficiency payments on
eggs because they believe it
will help to keep the “uneco-
mic farmer” (the small farm-
er) in business. Their desire is
to squeeze out the small pro-
ducer’ entirely and leave the
field clear for . themselves,
with a relatively few big far-
mers united to control pro-
duction and dictate high prices.

The voice of the family far-
mer and fo a lesser extent the
voice of the small subsistence
farmer find reflection in the
various Farm Unions across
the country (organizations like
the Farmers Union of B.C.,
Farmers Union of Saskatche-
wan, etc.), and to the extent
that they do there is criticism
of not only the inadequacies of
the deficiency payment but
also of the attitude of the lead-
‘ers of the CFA towards it. As

the full effects of this scheme
are more and more felt, this
criticism is bound to increase.

Egg producers are only the
first victims of this major
change in Tory government
policy from support floor
prices to deficiency payments.

-Hog producers are next on the

list. No doubt others will fol-
low.

Actually the whole future of
the small subsistence farmer

and of the family farm is at —

stake today. The trend in all
branches of farm production
is one of squeezing them out,
a process being hastened by
federal government policies.

There is no one this large
and important segment of Can-

ada’s producers can turn to for,

‘help except to the labor move-
ment. Labor and the farmers
are natural allies. Both of
them are being exploited by
the same giant monopolies.

To effectively combat their
common enemy they need to
unite their forces. If labor far-
mer unity is necessary for
labor to make substantial econ-
omic and political gains, it is
even more essential for the
hard-pressed farmer who is to-

day fighting for his very right

to stay on the land.

The labor movement, which
is the stronger organized of
the two, can and should fake
the initiative in building this
labor-farmer unity. Ii needs to
take up and actively support
the demands and needs of
Canada’s working farmers.

Soviet scientist charges Canada
won't trade weather information

By MARK FRANK

MOSCOW — Soviet weather forecasters regularly send their data to Canada on face
north and Arctic conditions but Canadian meteorological people do not reciprocate, I
‘learned last week in talks with Evgeny Tolstikov, deputy chief of the Soviet Northern

Sea Route Administration.

Tolstikov expressed surprise
that Canadian government
circles were constantly sug-
gesting the Soviet Union was
hedging on exchange of in-
formation about the Soviet and
Canadian north in the ‘ight of
these facts about weather data.

- “Our meteorological service
information is given regularly
to all countries,” he said. “‘Can-
adian’ scientists can freely get
this data but we don’t always
get Canadian weather inform-
ation despite our requests.
Even while I was in Canada

we could not get the required
information about the order
and scheduling of Canadian
broadcasts. I had a talk with
the chief of the meteorological
service on this.”

Tolstikov ciated Canada in
1957, prior to leading an Ant-
arctic expedition. He Iectured
and showed films at the Uni-
versity of Toronto about Soviet
scientific work on the Arctic
and Antarctic.

- Tolstikoy welcomed the re-
cent agreement reached be-
tween the Academy of Sciences
of the USSR and the National

Research Council of Canada
as an important step forward.

“Joint efforts in the study
of the Arctic are of great in-
terest to us, since this part of
the world still keeps many of —
its secrets to itself, he said.
“close co-operation of the
Scientists of many countries is —
very important in probing
these regions.”’

He cited Antarctic work dur- |
ing the International Geophysi- —
cal Year as an example and
said similar co-operation in the
Arctic could give positive re-
sults.

November 27, 1959—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 2