The Rural Voice, 2000-11, Page 21"What we'll obviously have to do
during the election is make sure that
every federal political party makes
the type of commitment required so
that it doesn't matter who is elected,
whether it be a majority or minority,
or a change of government that we
will know full well that we'll have
support."
Representatives of all parties
will be asked continually
throughout the campaign
whether they support the demand of
Ontario farmers for an additional
$300 million in safety net support,
Wilkinson pledged.
While the government claims it
can't afford to fight the treasuries of
the U.S. and the EEC, Wilkinson
says there is much more it can do.
"We rank close to the bottom of
OECD (Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development)
countries, way behind Europe and the
United States."
The U.S. government has a bigger
farm support program in the first
place and in the past year, with an
election in the offing, has topped up
the program four different times,
Wilkinson says. Just one of those
contributions, in mid -summer, was
for $1S billion. Since U.S. agriculture
is about 10 times the size of
Canada's, that would translate into
$1.5 billion here (even without
exchange rates) and that represents
the total farm support from all federal
and provincial safety -net programs in
Canada, Wilkinson says.
But the blame isn't only on the
federal government, Wilkinson said.
Last year net farm income in Quebec,
which has under $5 billion in gross
farm receipts, was $1.1 billion,
while Ontario, with $7 billion in
gross receipts had a net farm income
of $430 million Wilkinson says.
"We rank about number eight in
support for agriculture when you
look at the provinces in this country.
Alberta, for example, weeks ago
announced unilaterally a $225
million increase in support to their
producers."
Ontario merely meets the
requirement safety net agreement to
provide 40 per cent of the total
support to the feds 60 per cent,
Wilkinson says, but Quebec
government spend $2.20 for every
federal dollar.
"So there's much more that both
levels of government can do,"
Wilkinson says. "They both have
large surpluses and if we're to
survive this kind of situation, they
need to move."
But Wilford says Wilkinson and
others are missing the point. It's not
that government policy isn't
working, he claims. "The
government's policy is working. You
just don't know that the government
policy is."
Though he's now a lawyer in the
Durham area and no longer involved
directly in farming, Wilford is still as
strong as ever in his sense that there's
a hidden agenda on the part of
government. The government, he
claims, has an undisclosed policy to
make Canadian farmers competitive
without subsidies by driving down
the cost of land. "If land is $100 an
acre we can compete on the
international market." That can only
be accomplished by keeping financial
pressures on farmers, he says.
If a similar policy was taken to
drive down the cost of housing in
Toronto so workers could afford to
live there at a fraction of their current
incomes there would be a hue and
cry. The problem in the countryside
is that farmers aren't even aware of
the government's policies, says
Wilford, who earlier this year
travelled to western Canada to speak
to farmers there about the crisis on
the farm.
Whether the current situation is a
result of direct government policy, as
Wilford says, or merely indifference,
how do farmers try to change the
tide.
"I'm wondering if it's been too
long since the last tractor parade,"
says Hill. He points out that in the
1960s Bill Stewart, the legendary
Ontario agriculture minister who is
now hailed as one who stuck up for
farmers, said Ontario would never
pay a subsidy to compete in
industrial milk markets. Ontario's
milk producers said they couldn't
compete without one.
"And then we had tractor
parades," Hill recalls. "Shortly
thereafter we had a 50 -cent -per -
hundred subsidy on milk. There is a
time when militant action does get
results."
Perhaps Ontario's highways are
too busy for tractor parades these
days but Hill has another suggestion.
"I'd be looking at warehouses from
which food is shipped," he says. "I'd
be looking at trying to get on the
good side of the Teamsters."
Bailey too, suggests the need for
more militancy. European farmers
are treated better than North
American farmers and they can also
be extremely upset if governments
don't support them, he says. He
points to the Ontario Public Service
Employees Union also wasn't afraid
to take action to get what it wanted
from the government.
"It shouldn't be necessary but it
seems to be," he says.
Wilkinson holds out the election
as an ideal time to put pressure on
politicians, and says much of the
work will be done at the county level
by local federation members. He
doesn't rule out harsher action if this
quieter approach doesn't work.
But are farmers angry enough to
follow a call for action?
Wilford says farmers have been
ground down by too many years of
low prices that put them in trouble
followed by higher prices that don't
quite get them out of trouble. Too
many farmers now have to work off
the farm and they're too tired to get
involved in farm politics, he says.
Ironically, he says, most
revolutions are fought when things
begin to get better. When things are
really bad people have little hope but
when things start to improve they are
willing to fight to make them better.
t also requires something to
galvanize the situation as high
interest rates in the 1980s did,
Wilford says.
Hill too says whether or not
farmers are ready for a more militant
action depends on how much they're
hurting and how much they believe
they can change the situation. A
leader like Wilkinson has to know
before he leads such a move if he has
the support of the members. That's
what he was trying to do at the Huron
County meeting, Hill says, trying to
get ordinary farmers to realize they
had to be willing to fight to achieve
their goals.
"You've got to create the
conditions that will bring about a
change of mind," he says.0
NOVEMBER 2000 17