HITHER Canadian farmers? ae question seems to Unt the whol Ce still lef ee ‘- today. It spread its sha- 6: ver the recent Farm Union u Otions held in the four pe pee agriculture is mportant to provincial nomies: Alberta, Saskatche- » Manitoba and Ontario. pressures were 1 - Farmers for a 8 time have been caught in a © grip of a cost-price int of fs from the tr S€s; a tendency to Totective shadows Sales, especially to tries, and to treat huge grain alist coun Se shado ae While not cre- cial : arcs lalist world in help- € the so-called farm cen ction, there lacked the de Bale t for aggressive Sao On the part of the ent, Policies based on cef; tions pursuits and peaceful B worl ith. all countries in ener: ative are. Some positive and S faci ‘ASpects regarding is- ng the conventions. eat Cost-price squeeze was Ned everywhere. N the bat FU Director’s report ce eee out that the ab ie aie the consumer t in ib49 €clined from 6 per- to 40 percent today. ile ri . nitonh Seen output in ae eon 1949 to 1965 in- ized 1 Y 66.8 percent, the sr income of Manitoba etcene Feased by less than an 5 3 emprlutions were adopt- pane it. The National Port at a Council received demang ay convention for aranteeg Of $2.50 per bus. Price to the producer €at on world mar- oor it at the t conventions, Ssideratie im Manitoba, gave vio ‘on to increasing the © Manitoba Farmers t in Canadian agri-— FARM UNIONS CALL FOR MASS ACTION By AN OBSERVER Union further asks for a $2.00 per acre annual payment as a price support to all farmers hav- ing less than 501 acres listed. ‘Unanimous support to resolu- tions on parity prices on farm goods was received everywhere. “The position of the farmer,” said H. J. Andersen,. outgoing MFU President, is his report to MFU delegates, “is a desperate one in more ways than one. He: is being victimized by large cor- porations. He is a victim of price protection for the commodities and services he buys, yet has no guarantee for products he sells.” “The cost-price squeeze,” he continued, “is no longer a prob- lem, but a menace to the future of a family farm and agriculture generally.” The SFU convention called for direct action by the farmers to counteract the cost-price squeeze. Surrendering to the voices of the farmers, Agricul- ture Minister of Alberta Harry Storm was forced to say that “I am in agreement with the sug- gestion that farmers must. get more for their produce if they are going to meet their obliga- tions.” The cost-price squeeze has re- ceived loud protests from other farm organizations. In its year- end round up of opinion the Sas- katchewan Wheat Pool says: “Spiralling land and machinery prices in particular have creat- ed a farm cost structure which could have disastrous effects...” The Alberta Federation of Agri- culture also echoed that chant by its conclusion that ... “The final criteria of farm prosperity is the net cash income received by the farmer” and quoted the Wheat Pool from its annual sur- vey that the farmers’ share of national income is declining. The cost-price squeeze on the farmers immediately - provides for a broad front for ‘action by all farm groups to alleviate the pressures and improve the farm- ers’ income. It could be the basis for a movement unheard of in the history of Canadian agricul- ture. Feeling the rising demand of the farmers, Trade Minister Robert H. Winters told Farmers’ Union of Alberta delegates that every effort would be made to obtain “substantially higher’ wheat prices. From Farm Unions and even from. other groups there is a growing feeling that action by farmers to back their needs must be much stronger than it has been until] now. The 16th Annual Convention of MFU Militant demonstrations such as this one in Ontario and strike action could well be the pattern across western Canada this year as strong resolutions at recent farm union conventions indicate. adopted a resolution for strike action to “obtain just farm prices,” Michael M. Shwaluk of Oakburn, Man., did not mince ~ words when he spoke in support of the resolution. He warned that the farmers had lost faith in the farm unions because they had talked for 16 years and had done nothing direct while the farm position deteriorated. The feeling for stronger action was expressed before. Marches on Ottawa,. non-delivery strikes, demonstrations such as the On- tario Farmers rolling tractors unto Provincial Parliament. This sentiment has been given an extra boost by the rising mili- tancy of the industrial workers and by their victories won on picket lines. The strong position taken by the MFU found its echo on the floors of other FU conventions. The SFU de- cided to consider the . . . “feas- sibility of circulating a ballot among the farmers, whether they are in favour of a buyers’ strike, a sellers’ strike or a com- bination of both? The OFU called for holding limited strikes by withholding selected products from the market. The FUA backs a slowdown in. the purchase of durable goods. Paul Babey, President of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta said . .. “they (the farmers) might strike because they have no al- ternative.” Various forms of action and various methods of approaching it, but they are going along a single clear direction: more direct action to back their de- mands failing to reach appreci- able success by other means. Perhaps the most encouraging sign of sentiment among the farmers alongside the growing militancy for direct action is the need of adopting co-operative methods in agriculture, to fight off monopoly encroachment and remaining on the land. Much concern has been ex- pressed in the past over the growth of farm units (concen- tration of capital with its own laws of development), the pro- tection of the family farm and the need to help the poorer far- mers, especially, to remain on the land. Most suggestions have been ineffectual. Progressive far- mers on the other hand long ago pointed to co-operative methods in farming, as a means of cut- ting down on their costs. As a first step to greater co-operation in agriculture, the use of ma- chinery was proposed. It is a fact that now three machinery co-operatives exist in Saskatch- ewan and have proven to be very successful. Jack Stephen- son of Toko Coop correctl pointed out that most farmers today have . .. “‘much.too much money invested per acre in ma- chinery. . .. Where wé had six cultivators before, we now have one.” Glen Riemer of South Landing Coop estimates that the operating costs of the three farms forming the machinery coop to which he belongs have been cut by around $4.30 per acre. Prof. H. C. Pentland of the University of Manitoba sees co- operative forms in agriculture as a... “bulwark against for- eign penetration” so long.as the farmers themselves control them on a one-member one-vote basis. The Farmers’ Women’s Week this year proposed to the MFU Convention nationalization of land and that... “all farm land be taken over by the government to be leased to the farmers until they reach the retirement age of 65”. Delegates were not rea- dy to vote for the resolution as yet, neither would they turn it down and referred it to the in- coming Executive Board for further study. The MFU did take the position that all land under government ownership be “sold back to established farmers. ra- ther than large corporations.” Concern for large financial in- terference into co - operative movements was expressed when the SFU convention asked that the Co-operative Act be changed so that ... ‘no director of a chartered bank or a corporate enterprise company can. hold office in a co-operative or credit union.” Co-operation in agriculture is not the total solution to the problems of the farmers. It can nevertheless become an effec- tive means of fighting off the encroachement of monopolies in agriculture, provide a means of farming cheaper, by more effi- cient use of implements and equipment, cut down on costs of production and help to main- tain more of the farm labor force on the land. Co-operation in agriculture is the opposite trend to the big business approach of “more effi- ciency”, meaning bigger farms, less farmers. “Efficiency” theo- ries lead inevitably to greater capitalist forms of farming, squeezing out of the smaller farmers and eventually to growth of corporate farming. While mention was made here and there about the need of trade and markets for our goods, there seemed to be satisfaction with the present position. Not enough was said about the need of a consistantly aggressive trade policy, which would pur- sue all channels of trade with every country willing to trade with Canada with no strings at- tached. While it is gratifying that the Socialist countries are making huge purchases now, and perhaps this will continue for a year or two, this should not be a cause for complacency. Trade Minister Robert H. Winters . expressed such complacency, when he was quoted as saying to Alberta far- mers that, because of significant changes being made in econom‘c management policies in the Com- munist countries, this “should provide opportunities to expand trade”. Rather shortsighted, and not a solid basis for future Can- adian exports. There is no long- range commitment re purchases of Canadian grains on the part of Socialist countries and their needs may change abruptly. The same can be said for the question of peace. Too little was said about it this year. The far- mers need a national policy of ‘peace and friendship with all the world to sell, to exchange, to travel and learn, to grow more and more food to help feed the world’s millions. January 20, 1967—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 7: