A buyers’ boycott
of farm machinery

lt could bring down prices
for all, says FUA official

By PHYLLIS CLARKE

OMETIME in the next couple

of weeks there will be some-

thing new across the prairies
—a buyers’ boycott of machin-
ery.
Talking to Bill Harper, infor-
mation officer of the Farmers’
Union of Alberta, it was easy to
discover why this was happen-
ing.

Harper explained what is hap-
pening in the cost-price squeeze.
As prices of farm machinery and
parts have steadily increased,
the prices of farm products have
not even held their own. In the
period of time from 1950 to 1965,
outside of a small increase in
the price of wheat, milk and
butter, prices actually came
down. Sees

Eggs, for example, are down
15 percent, oats and barley be-
tween 4 and 5 percent, cattle
and hogs about 1 percent.

For the machinery and parts,
though, prices over the last two
decades (measured in constant
1935-39 dollars) have increased
147 percent.

Harper said there was great
interest in the boycott. On bal-
lots sent out by the FUA the
response was well over 90 per-
cent in favor of the action.

He also told me that this is
not confined to Alberta. The five
provinces from British Columbia
to Ontario and the midwestern
states are also participating.
Where the balloting has been
completed, in all these areas the
response has been the same as
in Alberta.

“How will the boycott work?”

I asked. “Will farmers refuse to
buy durable goods this year?”

“Not quite,” said Harper, “but
what we expect is that a farmer
will look over his machinery and
decide if it can last another year.
If so, he will go to the dealer
and tell him that he will not
buy this year because of the low
prices he’s getting.”

“We hope,” he added, “that
at. least 25-30 percent of what
the dealers expect to sell will
remain unsold.”

What effect will this have?
Well, Harper felt that if dealers
let their companies know how
farmers are feeling about the
low prices they are getting for
their products, this will have ef-
fect also on the government and
assist in getting better prices.

Harper explained that unless
there is the possibility for farm-

‘ers to be able to invest in new

machinery and use the most effi-
cient modern methods, the result
in the future will be even higher
food prices arising out of inef-
ficiency. —

This cooperation between the
National Farmers’ Union in Can-
ada and the National Farmers
Union in the United States
should ensure that the message
gets through loud and clear. —

Harper said that as a result
of the activity around the boy-
cott, and the feeling on the part
of the farmers that the organiza-
tion was doing something for
them, their membership has
grown. Last year they had 27,000
members in Alberta and all signs
point to an increase of 3,000 by
the time they are all in this year.

Harper also told me about the

° POWERFUL CANCER WEAPON —

s This 13-ton Swiss-built betatron demonstrated by technicians
Tillie Mains and Lawrence Oldfield is the latest weapon against
cancer at Victoria Hospital’s cancer clinic in London, Ont. The
$280,000 machine, 30 times more powerful than the standard cobalt
bomb, bombards tumor cells with a stream of electrons and blasts

apart molecules of reproduction.

hearings that the FUA had held

around the province in prepara-

tion for the appearance before
the Royal Commission on Farm
Machinery being conducted by
Dr. Clarence Barber of the Uni-
versity of Manitoba.

In every case farmers came
with examples of the high prices
on parts, the lack of standardi-
zation, the problems created by
the closing of many dealerships
which makes farmers travel
greater distances for repairs, etc.

The union’s submission on
March 15 included many of the
examples, that the hearings had
brought to light.

“We observe,” they conclude,
“that prices of identical parts
have increased between 24 and
94 percent over a period of one
year.” :

The union’s submission includ-
ed a bold new proposal, and
Harper said he hoped that the
Barber commission would give
it very serious consideration.

They ask the commission to
investigate the feasibility of a
new approach in the field of
marketing and servicing farm
machinery, as follows:

“Cooperative retail agencies
owned and controlled by the
farmer in each area could be
established. These agencies
would obtain at wholesale, ma-
chinery from all companies as
it would be the sole agency
through which machinery could
be sold in the area. :

“Costly competition at the
local and retail level would be
eliminated while distribution
costs could be held to a mini-
mum. Comparison of the differ-
ent makes of machinery, by the
farmer, could easily be made as
all machines would be side by
side. Duplication of premises
and exchangeable parts would
be eliminated, and the services
which the farmers of the area
wanted would be entirely with-
in their control. Advertising
would then be carried out by
the competing companies at the
national level only, and, compe-
tition would be on the basis of
price, quality and suitability
only.”

Harper said the boycott is re-
ceiving sympathetic understand-
ing from the labor unions and
the dealers. He felt that if the
farmers’ demands would be met
it would be of benefit not only
to them but also to the consum-
ers, because in the final analysis
the price of food would not have
to include all the -wasteful ad-
vertising costs such as the ma-

.chinery companies now include

in their price, and a drop in the
price of farm machinery would
assist in producing food at a
lower price.

“Farm prices are tied to cost,”
said Harper, “and if our action
will bring down the cost then
evervone will benefit.”

THE ONTARIO. LEGISLATUR

IN SESSION

New welfare act
cruel Tory hoax

_ FEW years ago the cost of public welfare
distributed so that the federal gov bye
cent, the provinces 40 percent and the municipa

percent.

Then the federal government raised it
50 percent. But instead of raising its contribution
amount and thus relieving the local govern

Ontario chose to cut its contrib

of public welfare,
palities '

40 -to 30 percent, thus leaving the munici
percent of the cost of public welfare coming un
eral Welfare Assistance Act, which covers
welfare cases. In other words, the Ontario Tory 8
absorbed all the benefit of the federal increase in
tions, and passed not one cent on to the municipal

A WEEKLY COMMENTARY

By BRUCE MAGNUSON
Ontario Leader, Communist Party

Now the same stunt has been pulled once

introduction of the Family Benefits Act of 196
solidates all provincial welfare laws with tl
municipality administered General Welfar

The purpose is to bring provincial-administere

line with the recently adopted Canada Assistan¢
_extract all the benefits from it by substituting the © ict
in place of flat-rate payments, and calculating P

ne excep
e Assistan®
d welfa

used

ernment pal

ities

ry contribull

by a sit!

ments of

tiot

der the

the great

overt
con
iaxp?
more with
ah which
tion °

e Pl
meal?
ye

the basis of family needs rather than individual Ne®™™
ever possible and applicable.

But by refusing to include the bulk of welfare vee
under the Family Benefits Act,
only leaves the municipalities and the
the bill for one-fifth of general welfare cos

the great majority of welfare recipients of. the
Canada Assistance Plan.

This cruel election hoax brought big hea

ac

the Ontario gover’
local taxpaye'
ts, but als®

penelil® y

qv
ho

Res!

“broader coverage” and “welfare payments going and
million in Ontario” in provincial newspapers on af
day Welfare Minister John Yaremko introduced

Benefits Act” on the floor of the Legislature.

At first glance it looked as if the mediev
-at Queen’s Park had suddenly cracked open and

tive to human needs. In fact some people drew

the government was embarking on a spending
taxpayers’ money to buy a brand new Cadillac

al To)
pecome®
the con
spre?
and Pe

luxurious living and trips to the Caribbean for all 0)
welfare recipients. Some workers and small storekeeP

_remarked that “it may be better to quit wor

relief.”

This was, of course, the reaction which the
tions experts of the Tory party counted on. But, as

king

ublic
nis

tried to explain to a few well-meaning but misinfor™ F
the reality of life and Tory politics are not easily ©” (op

The Family Benefits Act provides that an allowa a
on need is to be paid to those who by reason nt U

age, loss of the principal family provider,
ployability, are unable to provide for themse

or permall

1yes

dependents. Mothers’ allowances, widows’ pensions: ra

if
On the other hand, all other temporary °F st

the blind, and so on, comes undér provincial adminis

or

welfare cases and those permanently disabled 0!
care for themselves but not able to qualify under
welfare laws, are cared for by the muncipalities
far

of welfare cases. The amount to be paid t

to be determined by a municipal welfare admin

A New Democratic Party amendment to in

eM
clude ‘et y

welfare recipients under the Family Benefits Act was

It is high time that uniform legislation
public welfare and that a guaranteed annua
vided at a decent level, including people on pu

Cost of public welfare must be taken off t

payer.

‘by the Tory steamroller.

\ \d g ,
shou pe

art
: ae allt

he civ

April 7, 1967—PACIFIC T

eiBuNE