The following a a direct quote taken from May 1948 Country Guide
QUOTE
The Garson-Howe Correspondence
The correspondence over coarse grains marketing between Premier Garson of Manitoba and Rt. Hon. C. D. Howe, Federal Minister of Trade and Commerce, placed before the Manitoba legislature on April 1 brings out into the open some features which seem to be conveniently overlooked in the East.
On March 19 the Ottawa House passed a bill providing for the marketing of coarse grains through the Wheat Board, in the anticipation that the prairie provinces would pass complementary legislation as required by the-B.N.A. Act in cases involving provincial jurisdiction.
Premier Garson was not, however, as compliant as Ottawa expected.
He foresaw damaging criticisms which could be directed against higovernment in the event of the Ottawa act becoming effective through his acquiescence.
He thereupon asked Mr. Howe some very pertinent questions.
Mr. Garson observes that while the Wheat Board was set up as an agent of the producers, it became in 1943 the agent of the government, and has been used since then as an instrument for keeping down the cost of living in Canada at the expense of the farmer.
Is the same principle to be applied to the marketing of coarse grains?
Is the price to be set, for example, at a certain level to provide livestock feeders with feed at a satisfactory price? If so, will the resulting loss be left to the producers of coarse grains, or will
it be paid by the whole body of the Canadian people?
On what other products of Canada, Mr. Garson asks, is the government going to fix the price and leave the burden of carrying the difference between the government price and the market price upon the producers of these products?
And if this is good policy for wheat and beef and pork and poultry products, and now oats and barley, why is it not good policy for copper, newsprint, fish, tractors and farm implements?
If complementary legislation is required from the three prairie provinces, why should it not be required of Ontario and Quebec?
Suppose 1948 was to produce a better than average crop of oats and barley in Canada, and a short American corn crop, which would make the sale of Canadian feed in the U.S. an attractive proposition.
Would the absence of complementary legislation in the eastern provinces enable eastern growers to sell for a high price in the open market, while western grain growers were compelled to sell through the Wheat Board at a dictated price?
Mr. Howe's meagre reply does not tend to breed confidence in the West. He acknowledges that the government expects the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to recommend a price satisfactory to both Canadian producers and buyers of feed grains, a responsibility which would by the way, split the Federation right down the middle.
On the other points Mr. Howe is Silent.
On the evidence as revealed in this correspondence it seems quite likely that the western governments will conclude that theirs is an unlhea1thy climate in which to wear the garment with a target over the heart fashioned for them by Ottawa.
UNQUOTE
Notes:
1.Nothing has changed since 1948
2.If Westerners feel the CFA is working in their best interests, they need counseling.
Parsley
QUOTE
The Garson-Howe Correspondence
The correspondence over coarse grains marketing between Premier Garson of Manitoba and Rt. Hon. C. D. Howe, Federal Minister of Trade and Commerce, placed before the Manitoba legislature on April 1 brings out into the open some features which seem to be conveniently overlooked in the East.
On March 19 the Ottawa House passed a bill providing for the marketing of coarse grains through the Wheat Board, in the anticipation that the prairie provinces would pass complementary legislation as required by the-B.N.A. Act in cases involving provincial jurisdiction.
Premier Garson was not, however, as compliant as Ottawa expected.
He foresaw damaging criticisms which could be directed against higovernment in the event of the Ottawa act becoming effective through his acquiescence.
He thereupon asked Mr. Howe some very pertinent questions.
Mr. Garson observes that while the Wheat Board was set up as an agent of the producers, it became in 1943 the agent of the government, and has been used since then as an instrument for keeping down the cost of living in Canada at the expense of the farmer.
Is the same principle to be applied to the marketing of coarse grains?
Is the price to be set, for example, at a certain level to provide livestock feeders with feed at a satisfactory price? If so, will the resulting loss be left to the producers of coarse grains, or will
it be paid by the whole body of the Canadian people?
On what other products of Canada, Mr. Garson asks, is the government going to fix the price and leave the burden of carrying the difference between the government price and the market price upon the producers of these products?
And if this is good policy for wheat and beef and pork and poultry products, and now oats and barley, why is it not good policy for copper, newsprint, fish, tractors and farm implements?
If complementary legislation is required from the three prairie provinces, why should it not be required of Ontario and Quebec?
Suppose 1948 was to produce a better than average crop of oats and barley in Canada, and a short American corn crop, which would make the sale of Canadian feed in the U.S. an attractive proposition.
Would the absence of complementary legislation in the eastern provinces enable eastern growers to sell for a high price in the open market, while western grain growers were compelled to sell through the Wheat Board at a dictated price?
Mr. Howe's meagre reply does not tend to breed confidence in the West. He acknowledges that the government expects the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to recommend a price satisfactory to both Canadian producers and buyers of feed grains, a responsibility which would by the way, split the Federation right down the middle.
On the other points Mr. Howe is Silent.
On the evidence as revealed in this correspondence it seems quite likely that the western governments will conclude that theirs is an unlhea1thy climate in which to wear the garment with a target over the heart fashioned for them by Ottawa.
UNQUOTE
Notes:
1.Nothing has changed since 1948
2.If Westerners feel the CFA is working in their best interests, they need counseling.
Parsley
Comment