Hepp go ind they have developed a con-
Bslation Tame of reference for such le-

Mee.

inq : Minister of Forestry has told us
sional Public ‘that nothing short of
i lia ae and economic planning
Tan Door ate the conditions of the agra-
E tecomi 28tee With this approach.
lblyeq oie that poverty cannot be
Waitin Vernight and we are patiently
lion, Bae Introduction of useful legis-
the meantime we give the

stment
; ull marks for stepping off
© right direction. anne

t it j ;
Sano tis One thing to cure poverty; it
ig to prevent it. The pre-

0
it penment promised the people
Steps rrePared to take the neces-

Poverty Prevent the recurrance of
Hive; It promised $2 wheat. It
| promis hational marketing legislation.
Hh Poniseg to preserve the family farm.

i uitah fo pruvide farm families with
bing’ le and decent standard of
ft But :
i en ag Promises have simply not
(tte 1 ieaiag in the meantime the in-
Pieter oe of farm families continues
lg Of f. ate, and the existence and fu-
vec’). co ly farms (even poor family
Stig, ; Ttinues to be undermined by

.

ing, tegrationand corporation

f Since rf
= i 80vernment. took office in
tn? a 4 ot Farmers Union has
be a8 to €r of constructive sugges-
rect ‘What Steps might be taken to
In! very $' Serious situation. In each
A Proposal” we have been told that
Cand ot § are impractical, unecono-
in the national interest.

ty angers might be persuaded that
iy’ tOng the goveri:ment were on
tyest ca Tack. But the government’s
8S of as indifference to the atti-
St to ye Men and women (in con-
3 attitude toward other seg-
nult in . °.COnomy) is beginning to
feeling of resentment and

!

SN

St? th

| neiltion Politicians for promises and
Th on a.teY Were never forced to
Hn, the tawa to make their views
hictioneg” JUSt sat back in their air-
i When Olfices and jacked up the
hoe dia th t suited their interests. And
Miseg © federal government do? It
Al h Mvestigation.

er:
fy a beginning to ask some
8s Taise Ch as: Why can steel com-
Why Prices at will and not far-
th,” the .),it economic, desirable,
hy ahieg to sional interest for steel
tegy it hee rove their income—if,
tig “omical “8 Improving—when it is
Ml inter wdesirable and not in the
“rest for farmers to do so?

| i
pile ang
yen OE example. This year the
hi, ton auttoduced railway legisla-
8S, thi . Bill C-120, Among other
MYO br S what the bill provides.
Nie’ raince lines—A and B. Let us
hi Deratig ny Company loses $10,000
Ne 10,00¢ of line A, and makes a
othe paicd On line B. Let us sup-
Dera, Vay company is required

i] § not require the railway
M0 on APPLY the alleged profit of
) * “"anch line B to cover the

loss of $10,000 on line A. Nor, in the
case of the CPR, does the bill require
the company to cover its losses on one
particular branch line with the profits
it makes in its other operations, includ-
ing mining, timber, real estate, hotels,
airlines, steamships, telecommunications
and trucking. Instead, the bill requires
the taxpayers of this country to cover
the alleged loss through a public subsidy
—that is, out of your pocket and mine.
In the case of the publicly-owned CNR,
the principle is absurd. -In the case of
the ‘CPR the principle amounts to no-
thing more or less than a public swindle.

And what does this mean? It means

the government of Canada has no hesi- .

tation whatsoever in using public monies
and subsidies to fatten the coffers of the
wealthiest corporation of its kind in
Canada. This, presumably, is an econo-
mic proposal; a proposal in the national
interest. But when it comes to doing
somethiug about Canadian farmers who
can’t make ends meet, then the govern-
ment brings out a different set of stan-
dards and a different set of rules. You
can bet your bottom dollar farmers are
beginning to ask questions about this
one.

And can you imagine a parliamentary
assistant to the prime minister going to
bat for a potato farmer in Nova Scotia
who can’t pay his creditors? He would
probably tell the farmer-he was too busy
to see him. Well, he wasn’t too busy to
see the likes of Lucien Rivard. Why the
callous indifference to hundred s of
people across this land who are trying
their best to make an honest living?
This is the kind of question farmers are
beginning to ask.

Farmers have long been aware of the
fact that they must, as a group, turn
to government for the solution of many

of their problems. The Canadian Wheat

Board, provincial marketing board legis-
lation, the Agricultura: Stabilization
Act, are cases in point.

Yet the farmers, along with the public,
are encouraged to believe that so-called

government interference in the social.
and economic affairs of the nation is both.

dangerous and undesirable. This attitude,
fostered and encouraged by. big business
and the mass media as well as the ac-

tivities of some politicizns in Ottawa.

and provincial capitals, is a paradox.

On the one hand we are told that
democratic government is the best form
of government ever devised by man
and to this end we should be prepared
to defend it, even to the point of risking
a nuclear war or,;bombing and gassing
the hell out of a bunch of bewilfered
peasants who happen to live in Vietnam.
On the other hand the same people tell
us that you cannot trust government,
that you should not defer to government,
that government is corrupt and _ ineffi-
cient and itsis best to let somebody else
provide a service than turn it over to
government. You also hear them say
that government is too big, that it is

becoming powerful and that this in it-.

self is bad. .

Let us follow this argument through
to its logical conclusion. If people can-
not govern and provide themselves with
certain kinds of goods and _ services
through government action, then we
should have private roads and highways,
not public roads and highways. We
should have private schools and univer-
sities, not public educational facilities.
We should have private medical institu-
tions and insurance plans, not public
institutions and insurance plans. We
should have a private army; a private
navy; a private airforce—run by Cana-

changes are threaten-
ing to revolutionize
agriculture and rural
.life as we know it. The
poultry and broiler in-
dustry has long since
passed out of the farm-
er’s hands. Today the
hog industry is on the
block, and cattle may
be next.”

“Technological.

dian Pacific Airlines. Can you imagine
what that would be like? And last, but
most important of all, we. should have
a private. goverhmenj, ‘not 4 public
government. And who. would be~your
nomination to run a private govérnment?

If this argument borders’ on absurdity

_we should remember that it hag-become
_ the gospel of those who hold economic

and political power .in this. country. In-
deed, it sometimes seems that those who
praise democracy .the loudest are often
those who have no faith in: it, nor, for
that matter, their fellow man.

I_am not going to suggest that demo-
cratic government is foolproof; that it
doesn’t have its limitations. But in terms
of the alternative, it, is the only choice
we have with which to face the future.
A true democracy can only grow and
flourish in a community in which people
are conscious of one another; in which
people are concerned and involved with
one another; in which people have
learned to live with one another. And
if democracy has failed or had its
shortcomings in Canada it is -because
we, as a people, have failed to build
that kind of community. We still live
in a society which proclaims: “The dol-
lar first.” We need to build, in the words
of one of our past women’s presidents,
a society which proclaims: “Humanity

first.”

For what is the alternative? It is the
kind of society into which we are mov-
ing: a society dominated by large, im-
personal industrial bureaucracies; a so-
ciety geared to the making of. profit and
the making of profit alone; a society
which creates and demands mass con-
formity; a society which places efficien-
cy, economy and the needs of industrial
technolegy ahead of values or culture
or a people’s way of life; a society which
manufactures and merchandizes goods
and services whether’ they are needed
or not; a society without roots and no
soul; a society of myths and shams,
built upon lies and deceptions; a masg
society of unthinking, uncreative, un-
emotiohal, indiscriminating, unimagina-
tive, manipulated robots.

It is not insignificant that ‘the only
province which is: taking some modest
steps to avoid this kind of society is re-
garded with suspicion, distrust, and in
some quarters, outright fear. I refer to
the province of Quebec.

It is not the threat of separatism, I
suspect, which makes most Canadians
feel uneasy. It is rather the fact that
French Canadians have shown the cour-
age and imagination’ which goes with
questioning, and refusing to accept the
status quo. Their actions and determina-
tion make the rest of us feel guilty and
envious. We know our country and the
values it could stand for are going down
the drain. But the will to stand up and
fight is being sapped by the very forces
which pulled the plug. Quebec alone
shows some life and promise, and for
this. reason we need that province in
this country. : :

_Farmers in Canada are slowly begin-
ning to realize that the way of life they

_ cherish and value is on ‘the chopping

block. They have two choices: to fight
or give up. I am no prophet. I can’t pre-.
dict what they will do. But I can tell
You one thing. If we in’ the farm unions
have anything to do with it, the farmers
in this country are going to fight. *

August 20, 1965—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 5