The Rural Voice, 1987-08, Page 14COMPLETE LINE OF
ANIMAL FEED
— Hog
— Veal
— Dairy
treleaven'
— Beef
— Poultry
— Pet
wed. to wed.
1 1 ■
treleaven's
feed mill ltd.
box 182, lucknow, ont. NOG 2H0
519.528.3000
1.800.265.3006
12 THE RURAL VOICE
ARROGANCE AND THE
COMPULSORY CHECK-
OFF PROPOSAL
It is with special interest that I am
following the progress of the compul-
sory check -off proposal of the Ontario
Federation of Agriculture (OFA) and
the Christian Farmers Federation of
Ontario (CFFO). The special interest
is a result of my once being involved
in developing a similar proposal. The
present one is little different from that
which our OFA committee came
forward with some 10 years ago.
At that time, I talked with Murray
Gaunt, then agricultural critic for the
Liberals, and with Jack Riddell, now
Ontario's agriculture minister. Both
were adamantly opposed to the idea.
When our OFA committee was pre-
pared to speak to the county organ-
izations, OFA president Ralph Barrie
put his foot down and refused further
action. The proposal died quietly.
This may happen again, but this
time it may be Jack Riddell who lets
the idea bleed to death.
I now believe, however, that it
would be best for all concerned if
nothing came of it. The opponents at
that time argued that the easy money
would make for easy policies. They
are increasingly proven correct. Since
the Last OFA convention, the organi-
zation has lost thousands of members.
Part of the loss can be attributed to the
hike in membership fees to $100. Part
is undoubtedly due to the financial
squeeze many farmers find themselves
in. But after talking to a number of
pork producers at the recent Pork
Congress, I found a surprising number
who have decided to let their member-
ship lapse when renewal time comes.
The reason they gave was that the
OFA should assist member organiza-
tions, not fight them. This comment
was in connection with the much-dis-
cussed "Grenville Resolution," which
in effect would declare the commodity
boards non -democratic and demand
that the OFA take over the boards'
decision-making function.
Should there be a compulsory pay-
ment, the OFA and the CFFO would
swim in money. Would that almost
unlimited money be used exclusively
for policy development and lobbying?
Given the arrogance with which the
commodity organizations are treated
already, there is no way to predict how
far the OFA would go if there were no
more fear of losing members.
Like most people, I have followed
the debate on the merits and demerits
of freer trade with the U.S. with con-
siderable interest. I have not written
about the issue before because I have
not been able to find out just what the
proposals are. It has both amused and
irked me that great minds have opp-
osed or supported the concept without
knowing any more than I do.
At a recent professional develop-
ment seminar organized by the Eastern
Ontario Farm Writers Federation,
there was no exception. An academic,
a consultant, a government official,
and a commodity broker all ga', . their
view of what "free" trade would do to
Canada and to agriculture. Only one,
the government official, confessed not
knowing what it is that is proposed.
I believe in trade that is as free as
possible; I believe that Canadian cul-
ture is strong enough to withstand the
shock (if there is one) of American
and Canadian economic merging. But
I agree with those who say that there
must be a binding arbitration system
for disagreements or no deal at all.
It should be clear to the agricultur-
al community that agriculture is not
likely to be affected but will wait its
turn in the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Even a
combined North America can't go it
alone in agriculture.0
ADRIAN VOS, FROM HURON COUNTY,
HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE RURAL
VOICE SINCE ITS INCEPTION IN 1975.