The Rural Voice, 1986-04, Page 12FARM FORUM
Agriculture is in its worst state since
the Great Depression. But there is a
difference. That depression affected all
society more or less equally. Our
depression is selective. After the early
eighties, most of the economy re-
bounded. For example, Christmas
sales last year have been the highest in
history. New car sales are at record
levels. Most Canadians have their
highest purchasing power ever. And
those sectors of agriculture with good
marketing systems are participating in
the general prosperity.
The exceptions to this bright picture
are the 10 per cent of the work force
which is unemployed and those sectors
of agriculture which have little in-
fluence on the pricing of their product.
As more farm operations go under,
and as prospects for the future
deteriorate, the complaints, protests,
anger, and frustration multiply.
Understandably, the victims lash out at
government, the banks, agribusiness,
and the "system." These are
frustrating times, especially for those
who began or expanded their opera-
tions during the past ten years or so. It
is cruel irony that a few fellow farmers,
often because of the timing of their en-
try into agriculture or because of the
commodity area they entered, are now
more favourably situated and pon-
tificate that their less fortunate
neighbours are themselves to blame for
their plight. This is usually unfair and
untrue.
However natural and understand-
able anger may be, solutions will not
be found through the expression of
anger. Our first step is to recognize our
problems. Our next step is to effect
PROBLEMS
AND SOLUTIONS
by Cameron MacAulay
change. We all know that interest rates
have been too high and many com-
modity prices have been too low. The
question is why? The successes and
failures of agriculture today have their
roots in the past. We farmers, and
especially our leaders, have ignored
that past to our great disadvantage.
Modern agriculture, with its
mechanization and technology, dates
back to the second World War. War-
time prosperity gave way to the
depressed fifties, the moderately pros-
perous sixties, the affluent seventies
— when farm income first became
comparable to that of the rest of the
economy — and now, for many, the
depression of the eighties.
Why are we not participating in the
general prosperity that prevails today?
1 direct your attention to two basic
problem areas.
First, a significant development in
our society in the past thirty years has
been the growth of unions, profes-
sional associations, and business
amalgamations and conglomerates. All
these represent a concentration of
power. When the teacher, the auto
worker, or the doctor negotiates his
remuneration, he does so with the
backing of thousands of his fellows.
John Kenneth Galbraith, a noted,
economist, said that even those
paragons of free enterprise, auto
makers and oil companies, compete in
advertising and gadgetry but rarely on
price.
Where do we farmers stand in this
respect? We are in an ambivalent posi-
tion. On one hand, co-operation and
neighbourliness are bywords for
agriculture. Dozens of examples come
FARM FORUM is a new feature in The Rural Voice magazine. A "forum" according to
the dictionary, is a public square used in ancient Rome and a place for public discus-
sion. In FARM FORUM, we will invite articulate members of the agricultural com-
munity to share their viewpoint. The opinions expressed are those of the author and
are not necessarily those of the publisher. Letters in response to the opinions ex-
pressed are welcome and should be addressed to Farm Forum, The Rural Voice
magazine, Box 37, 10A The Square, Goderich, Ontario, N7A 3Y5.
10 THE RURAL VOICE
to mind. On the other hand, in-
dividuality and independence are
likewise so. The fact that the farmer
works by himself on his own farm rein-
forces these traits. This is the antithesis
of farmer concentration.
The second significant development
— and it has been particularly true for
agriculture — has been technological
change, with its resultant increase in
productivity. Industry has dealt with
this situation by reducing hours of
work and restricting production to
what the available market would ab-
sorb. Agriculture, with some notable
exceptions, has done neither. In a
market-oriented economy, the results
have been predictable. Surplus produc-
tion results in lower prices. This is the
way the market works and has worked
since the beginning of time. It will
never change. The challenge we face is
to come to terms with these two
developments as they impact on
agriculture.
Our present condition as farmers
reflects what our organizations have
done over the past thirty years. Farm
organizations, like large ships, don't
alter course quickly.
Until the early seventies, two general
farm organizations dominated the
scene. They were the Farmers' Union
and the Federation of Agriculture.
They disagreed on too many issues, but
their main philosophical difference
centred on how the farmer should get
income. The Federation leaned
towards the marketplace for price
recovery. The Union leaned toward
government subsidies, which they
argued was a Tess inflationary course.
(It should be noted that this difference
has disappeared.) Because the Federa-
tion had more strength in Ontario, the
development of marketing boards
gradually progressed.
In 1966, the province's Agriculture
Minister, William A. Stewart, set up a
special committee on farm income,
which was chaired by Everett Biggs, a
highly regarded deputy minister, along