ie tM UL

Re

Few g ef pr ivile ges

By BRUCE MAGNUSON
On March 11 the Hon. W. A.

ture and Food, moved first reading of
Bill 35, an Act respecting the market-
ing of cattle for production of beef.
The special feature of this Bill is that,
without clearly defining its real pur-
pose, it gives the Lieutenant Governor-
in-Council authority to pass regulations
“. .. respecting the buying and selling,
handling, weighing, measuring, ship-
ping and transporting of cattle and
carcasses.”

In other words, this is one more
example of what has come to be
known as “blank cheque’’ legislation,
in which the government asks unusual
and unwarranted powers. It was such
an omnibus bill in 1964, now known
as “The Police State Bill,” which
brought about the civil rights inquiry
by former Chief Justice J. C. McRuer.
Now that the government has already
tabled the first three volumes of the
McRuer report and promised to abide
by its recommendations as to rules for
establishing regulatory bodies, it ap-
parently proceeds in the opposite di-
rection. Perhaps this is because, as one
prominent Toronto newspaper suggests
editorially, “. . . the Ontario govern-
ment is so used to writing omnibus
legislation that will enable it to do
what it wants, no matter how many
rights it may have to plow through,

Stewart, Ontario Minister of Agricul- .

APRIL 13 1968—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 6

that it can’t get out of the habit.”

The Bill in question, which was
given second reading after a lengthy
debate on March 21, was drafted at
the request of the Ontario Beef Im-
provement Association and in co-
operation with the board of directors
of that organization. This association,
in existence since 1963, represents
relatively few farmers, namely the
large beef producers. It has operated
with a $20,000 per year government
grant.

Under the regulations that are to be
established by The Beef Cattle Market-
ing Act, there is now going to be a
“dues” check-off in which all farmers
who sell beef will participate unless
they make written application to opt
out. This may not be so easy when
Section 2 of the Act stipulates that,
except under authority of a license, no
person shall sell cattle and every per-
son who sells cattle shall be deemed
to be the holder of a license.

The Ontario Farmers Union wants a
universal but democratic marketing
scheme and has collected nearly 3,000
signatures on a petition against Bill
35. The small beef farmer is aroused
by the fact that this Beef Improvement
Association is financed by the govern-
ment: and made up of aristocrats
among beef producers who have been
using some of the money-grant from
the government to conduct a campaign
against a proper marketing plan under
the Farm Products Marketing Act.
Now -all farmers selling beef will be
assessed to provide finances for the
association to dominate the industry.
The amount is estimated at between
$100.000 and $120,000 per year.

The real purpose behind Bill 35 was
stated by the Minister when he intro-
duced it on March 11: “.. . there is a
need for standardized procedures in
the market place. The board of direc-
tors of the Ontario Beef Improvement

_ Assocation, under this legislation, will
:* give priority to this need. In coopera-

tion with the Meat Packers Council,
the meat processing companies and
‘the purchasers of beef, they will turn
their attention to the creation of a
‘standard basis for rail grade settle-
ment, a uniform definition of a dressed
‘carcass and the establishment of a
system of market price reporting. It is
‘not the intention of this legislation to
regulate or control the sale of beef
animals in Ontario. It is the express
‘desire of the membership of the On-
tario Beef Improvement Association to
retain the elements of free market
choice while at the same time securing
the benefits of an orderly marketing
system sc.) |

Following the debate, the Minister
‘made these points again, then added:
“This is the express purpose of the
Bill, and while my hon. friends may
criticize it for not setting out specific-
ally the exemptions in all of these

things — and I must confess, Mr.

Speaker, that their points according to
what their knowledge is of the Beef
Improvement Association, may be well
founded — but let me assure you that
the Beef Improvement Association
want this Bill as it.is, and that to me
is most important .. .”

Again, as one Toronto newspaper
said editorially: “. . . standards should
be imposed on beef marketing, that
the appropriate body for doing this is

a

On July 17, 1967, the Ontario Executive of the Communist
Party of Canada adopted an eight-point program as part of our
contribution to the solution of problems facing Ontario farmers
and rural poor. The Ontario Committee meeting of March 1968 |
again endorsed this program in a slightly amended form: }

|) That the Ontario government be asked to establish a fund of

at least $100 million dollars for eradication of rural poverty:

and to improve standards of education and health in under-
developed areas of the province.

\

; . e e ! |

2) Nationalization of the farm implements industry and food '
processing as the most effective means by which to curb the || |
corporate price squeeze, and to improve the position of both |)
the farmer and the consumer. 2

3) A system of credits and subsidies to maintain prices for agri |
cultural products and to guarantee a basic minimum incom@ | —

for the farmer. Nationalize the C.P.R. a

a

4) Full participation by farmers in policymaking and administra-
tion of marketing boards. ;

5) Grants for capital expenditures to all farmers without income
qualifications.

6) All-inclusive crop insurance.
. |

7) Stop dumping of United States farm products on the Cana
dian food markets.

8) Encouragement and assistance to develop farm co-operatives:

ee

-no means sure this association com-

in since the 1930s .

squeeze between higher production

/mareasiof Ontario: { 2.29 +s sns¥

the Ontario Beef Improvement Asso-
ciation, that he (the Minister) is by

mands the support of the majority of
Ontario beef farmers, and that there-
fore he has written this legislation so
loosely that the association, supported
by the Lieutant Governor-in-Council,
can impose its standard on the unwill-
ing=..

What is involved here is the domina-
tion by a privileged few of the market
and all those who produce for the
market, that these few work in collu-
sion with the processers and the gov-
ernment, and that this is the structure
which assures monopoly domination
over the majority of the farmers.

As one member of the legislature
put it in the debate: “.. . it is the
worst situation agriculture has been
. .” And again
« . . What we need today is not an
Act like this. We need credits from the
government to enable the producers to
build their own processing plants...”

What is needed today is to bridle
the monopolies, nationalize the food
processing industry and control the
prices of those who sell to and buy
from the farmers so that the present

costs and declining farm income can
be eliminated.
That is the basis of the program ad-
vanced by the Ontario Committee of
the Communist Party to help the farm-
ers and eradicate poverty in the rural

wr yt-e