Unifarm: A Story of Conflict and Change (Legacies Shared Book Series)

© 2001 Carrol Jaques. All rights reserved. University of Calgary Press 2500 University Drive N.W. Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4

National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication Data Jaques, Carrol L., 1942Unifarm: a story of conflict and change (Legacies shared book series, ISSN 1498-2358 ; 6) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-55238-051-3 1. Unifarm--History. 2. Agriculture--Alberta--Societies, etc.--History. I.Title. II. Series. HD1790.A4J36 2001 630'.6'07123 C2001-911179-7

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Alberta Historical Resources Foundation.

We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program (BPIDP) for our publishing activities. We also gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the following: Agricore Alberta Canola Producers’ Commission Federated Co-operatives Limited Rural Education & Development Association Unifarm History Book Society The Co-operators

______________________________________________________________________________ All rights reserved. No part of this work covered by the copyrights hereon may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means - graphic, electronic or mechanical - without prior permission of the publisher. Any request for photocopying, recording, taping or reproducing in information storage and retrieval systems of any part of this book shall be directed in writing to CANCOPY, One Yonge Street, Suite 1900,Toronto, Ontario M5E 1E5. ______________________________________________________________________________

Printed and bound in Canada by AGMV Marquis. This book is printed on acid-free paper. Cover and book design by Alberta Graphics, Edmonton.

TABLE OF CONTENTS SERIES PREFACE ..........................................................................vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..............................................................vi DEDICATION ................................................................................ix INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................x 1

The Early Years ........................................................................1

2

Farmers’ Union of Alberta ......................................................17

3

Steps to Amalgamation ..........................................................33

4

Time for Decision ................................................................ 45

5 “All Those Peppermints”..........................................................61 6 “Ten Miles Each Way” ............................................................83 7 “Boy,You Really Have to Work to Make Democracy Function” ............................................................99 8

Following a Grand Tradition ................................................117

9

Surface Rights, Land Use, and All That ................................137

10

Women of Unifarm: Half the Sky ........................................159

11 “We Have Got to Get Organized” ........................................175 12

Under the Umbrella ............................................................207

13 “A Great Degree of Misunderstanding” ................................223 14

Showdown .......................................................................... 247

15

Changing Times ..................................................................271

16

What To Do?........................................................................289

EPILOGUE—Wild Rose Agricultural Producers ..........................313 SOURCES....................................................................................319 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................321 v

SERIES PREFACE

T

his volume is part of the Legacies Shared series. The aim of the series is to publish material that either has never been published or is out of print. The mandate of Legacies Shared is broad, as we plan to make available parts of our “legacy” of historical memories that have been overlooked or have disappeared. Each volume is either a work of history, a memoir, collections of letters, photographs, art work, maps or recipes, works of fiction or poetry, or sets of archival documents. Oral history will also have a place in the series. The geographical area covered by this series is the Canadian west and north, but also across the Canada/U.S. border. Janice Dickin, Series Editor, Professor, Faculty of Communication and Culture, University of Calgary, Alberta

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

T

he idea for this book arose in January 1997 at the first annual convention of the fledgling Wild Rose Agricultural Producers, which had evolved out of the respected general farm organization, Unifarm.The credit for this idea goes to past president Stan Bell who proposed a resolution to establish a Unifarm History Book Society to arrange for the writing and publication of a book to tell the story of Unifarm. Dr. Stan Bell’s resolution was supported wholeheartedly by everyone at the convention. It is not a surprise that Stan Bell suggested this book be written. Alberta agricultural producers are aware that their organizations played an important role in the history of Alberta, and they have always been interested in having their story told. Neither is it a surprise that a committee of willing volunteers came forward to do what was necessary to follow through on the idea.There was a job to do, so a committee was formed to get it done. The Unifarm History Book Society—Dr. Alf Petersen (Chair), retired University of Alberta professor of agricultural economics and rural sociology; Dr. Stan Bell (Co-ordinator), veterinarian and former president of Unifarm; Allan Beattie (Editorial Committee Chair), retired director of public relations of the Alberta Wheat Pool; Gerald Schuler, former executive director of the Rural Education and Development Association; Connie Osterman, former Member of the Legislative vi



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS




Assembly and cabinet minister; Dr. Murray Hawkins (Finance Committee Chair), retired University of Alberta professor of agricultural marketing; Bruno Friesen (Publications Committee Chair), former chairman of the board of Calgary Co-op; Gordon and Margaret Blanchard, agricultural producers and Unifarm board members; and Roger Buxton, agricultural producer and Unifarm board member—are to be commended for recognizing the importance of telling the story of one of the most successful farm organizations of the mid-twentieth century. It is hard to credit how much Dr.Alf Petersen has contributed to this project. Alf discovered the Unifarm records stored in jumbled boxes at the Wild Rose Agricultural Producers offices on the third floor of the former Unifarm building. Over a period of two years, he sorted through more than forty years of news releases and farm magazines and then summarized and highlighted ongoing issues and developments. The Editorial Committee of the Unifarm History Book Society (Chair Allan Beattie, Dr.Alf Petersen, Gerald Schuler, and Connie Osterman) provided written material and guidance during the writing of this book.They also read the manuscript several times. Others who read parts of the manuscript and provided valuable comments include Dr. Stan Bell, Hartmann and Eileen Nagel, Paul Babey, Dr. Murray Hawkins, Harry Gordon, Dick Page, Roger Buxton, Des Carney, Gordon and Margaret Blanchard, Sandra Lowman, Bill Loov, and Mike Nikolaychuk. Financial support for the research and writing of this manuscript has been provided by Alberta Historical Resources Foundation, the family of the late Henry Wise Wood, United Farmers of Alberta Co-operative Ltd., Canadian Wheat Board, Alberta Egg Producers Board, Alberta Turkey Producers,The Co-operators, and Federated Co-operatives Ltd. Individual members of Wild Rose Agricultural Producers have been very generous in their support of this project. Office space and administrative support was provided by the Rural Education and Development Association (John Melicher, executive director, Meta Ranger, executive secretary, Donna Watson, controller), and the Nose Creek Valley Museum provided a meeting room and coffee for meetings of the editorial committee. I would like to thank Walter Hildebrandt, John King, Sharon Boyle, Jackie Bell, Sona Khosla, copy editor Eileen Eckert and everyone else at UC Press for their help in the publication of this book. Thanks to Ed Wiens for designing the book and its cover.Thank you also to my husband, Bob Loov, for his support and encouragement during the writing of this book. vii

Henry Wise Wood, Glenbow Archives, Calgary, Canada (NA-2715-4). viii

DEDICATION HENRY WISE WOOD

T

he agricultural settlement of Alberta began in the late nineteenth century, gathering steam in the early decades of the twentieth century with the arrival of thousands of newcomers. Realizing that they could accomplish more if they worked together, new farmers and ranchers formed associations, societies, and organizations. While everyone contributed, there were outstanding leaders in all communities who provided the spark to accomplish the difficult tasks confronting them. The history of Alberta is crowded with strong, determined men and women who saw there was a job to do so they simply went out and did it. Of all the leaders who came to the fore, it was Henry Wise Wood with his philosophy of equity and co-operation who best captured the imagination of western farmers. Henry Wise Wood’s unwavering belief in the importance of cooperation developed during his career as a farmer, first in Missouri and then near Carstairs,Alberta. Henry Wise Wood served as president of the United Farmers of Alberta from 1916 to 1931, keeping the farm association separate from the political entity that formed the government of Alberta from 1921 to 1935. He was also the driving force behind the establishment of the Alberta Wheat Pool and served as president from its beginnings in 1923 until he retired in 1937. In spite of his contributions to the United Farmers of Alberta and the Alberta Wheat Pool, his most important legacy may be his insistence on the importance of education. Henry Wise Wood was not thinking of traditional education, but a special type of education that led to an understanding of how individuals could work together to accomplish what they could not accomplish alone. Under Henry Wise Wood’s guiding hand, United Farmers of Alberta locals became places where farm men and women could come together to learn about farming, history, politics, economics, and most important, co-operation. This book is the story of the men and women who carried the torch passed to them: from Henry Wise Wood to members of UFA locals and later to the locals of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta. It is the story of the organization forged through the amalgamation of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta and the Alberta Federation of Agriculture—the story of Unifarm.

ix

INTRODUCTION

A

s Farmers’ Union of Alberta (FUA) President Paul Babey stood in front of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta convention at the Edmonton Sales Pavilion in December 1969, he was aware of the significance of the process he had set in motion. Delegates to the convention were voting on resolutions that would determine the future of an organization with roots deep in Alberta’s past.As a result of the vote, the FUA amalgamated with the Alberta Federation of Agriculture (AFA) to form a new organization, named Unifarm at its inaugural meeting in 1970. At that historic meeting in 1970, Paul Babey may have given a thought to his past in the midst of his hopes for the future of the organization. Paul’s father Steve had come from Ukraine in 1902 at the age of eleven and later homesteaded in Myrnam,Alberta. His first wife, Kate, died during the influenza epidemic of 1918, leaving him with four small children.The next year, he married Maria Kurelyk, a widow with seven children. Steve and Maria had four more children, born on the homestead near Myrnam, the youngest being Paul, who was born March 29, 1928. After a number of crop failures resulted in bankruptcy, the family moved to the small community of Beaverdam in northeast Alberta in 1938. When Paul was 16, his father died, leaving him a quarter section of land that he began farming in 1944. Paul Babey’s parents had arrived in Alberta with enthusiasm and high hopes like countless thousands before and since; what those newcomers experienced in the raw new land could never have been imagined. At best, the farms and ranches on the prairies and the plains to the north provided space and freedom and wealth; at worst, they promised loneliness (especially for the women), endless work, and bleak prospects. Families arriving from Europe, eastern Canada, and the United States revelled in the bounty when it was offered; when the good times turned to despair, newcomers learned to work together to protect each other and dull the impact of the new country at its most difficult. Not only did the newcomers have to learn to farm in a new land with a difficult climate and soil conditions, they were confronted with the realities of an economic system that appeared powerful and distant. The price of wheat, established on the international market, fluctuated according to world-wide supply and demand. Prices were set in Winnipeg and Minneapolis, far from the wheat fields and even farther from the London money market. Farmers did not see that their predicament might be x



INTRODUCTION




caused by the international economy; they saw the problem as it was reflected closer to home in high transportation costs, powerful elevator companies, and the mechanics of grain exchanges and livestock markets. As they struggled, many looked beyond their own farms and realized they could improve their fortunes by working together. The quest to increase their control over the forces that had such an impact on their lives led farmers and ranchers to form the organizations that have ebbed and flowed through twentieth-century Alberta history. Beginning with the early agricultural societies, Societies of Equity, and the United Farmers of Alberta and on to the Farmers’ Union of Alberta, Alberta Federation of Agriculture, and Unifarm, Alberta farmers sought to work together to control their destiny. The fundamental concepts of equity and co-operation that formed the basis of these organizations developed because most new settlers on the western plains began with a similar amount of land and the same lack of services. Farmers co-operated to build a social and economic infrastructure, including the agricultural associations and businesses that gave them more power to compete in the market place. Norman Priestley and Edward Swindlehurst’s book, Furrows, Faith and Fellowship, covers the history of the Alberta organizations that existed prior to 1966. This book on the history of Unifarm continues the story, tracing the activities of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta and the Alberta Federation of Agriculture as they jousted with the National Farmers’ Union in a three-cornered debate on amalgamation, which was resolved with the formation of Unifarm in 1970. Farm organizations developed from the ground up with the formation of community-based groups or locals that were entirely dependent on volunteer membership. A district and provincial structure then evolved to support the locals and carry out the work of the organization. It was easier to attract members in the early years because everyone remembered the conditions that had given birth to their organization, and everyone remembered that the strength of the group, the collective, made each one of them stronger. Later, as memories of hard times receded, it became necessary to provide incentives for people to continue buying memberships. One of those incentives was the group insurance plan for members of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta and later Unifarm, provided through Co-op Fire and Casualty, renamed Co-operative Insurance Services (CIS) and then The Co-operators. All members were entitled xi



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

to purchase group auto and property insurance at a reduced rate that depended on the insurance experience of participants for the previous year. This was a comfortable fit because the co-operative spirit of the farmers’ organization matched the philosophy that prompted the establishment of co-operative insurance. As conditions improved in the agricultural community, those with historical memories realized that support for farm organizations and cooperative businesses was softening. It was apparent that some type of education was needed to ensure that members continued to be aware of why their organizations were formed and to train new and younger people to take their places among the leadership.Two institutions grew out of this need and continue to exist. Goldeye Centre was built to ensure that rural young people learned about their place in the agricultural community and acquired the leadership skills that would be needed.The Rural Education and Development Association (REDA) was established to ensure that agricultural producers understood the principles on which their co-operative organizations and businesses were based and to provide the knowledge and skills that would be needed to run them. In the same co-operative tradition, rural property owners used the Farmers’ Union of Alberta and then Unifarm to help protect their interests as large industrial and energy companies moved across private land to build transmission and pipe lines and extract the oil, gas, and coal resources of the province. Eventually surface rights associations were formed to continue the work. This collective impulse, which prompted the formation of all types of organizations to gain an advantage in the face of large agricultural and industrial companies, prompted producers to consider collective marketing for certain agricultural products. Marketing boards were established in Alberta as the result of pressure brought to bear on the government by the Alberta Federation of Agriculture and the Farmers’ Union of Alberta, before the formation of Unifarm. The debate within the agricultural community over marketing boards pitted those who believed in co-operation and regulation to improve conditions for all against those who resented the restrictions that prevented them from taking some risks and forging ahead into new territory with the promise of greater returns for themselves. Parallel with the development of farm organizations such as the United Farmers of Alberta, the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, the Farmers’ Union of Alberta, and later Unifarm was the continuation of xii



INTRODUCTION




the individualistic tradition of those who felt smothered and confined by the group activity. Even though they probably benefited from the activities of farm organizations they did not support, many farmers chafed at the restrictions of wheat pools and marketing boards. Even at its strongest, the Farmers’ Union of Alberta could not entice many more than half the farmers in the province to buy a membership. Most of those who were not members supported the organization and its ideas but did not join simply because of inertia or a feeling that they did not want to get involved—or do any work. However, some did not want anything to do with collective action. Just as Unifarm, a general farm organization representing the interests of the agricultural industry as a whole, reached its zenith in membership and influence, groups representing individual interests and specific commodity groups began to spring up. This tension between the collective and the individual also underlay the debate over adjustments to the Statutory (Crow’s Nest) Rates, made necessary because the “rates,” or the cost of shipping some kinds of agricultural produce from the western prairies, had not changed since 1898. The “rates” and their effect on producers of market grain, feed grain, barley, canola, canola oil, and livestock are difficult to understand, but the debate became an argument between two philosophies. On one side were those who wanted to continue applying the benefit of the Statutory Rates to all western farmers by adding qualified products or adjusting the rates paid for certain products; on the other side were those who wanted the benefit of the rates paid out directly to those who would be expected to pay the full cost of shipping their produce. Simplistically, the debate was between those who worried that radical, rapid change would leave some farmers threatened and those who wanted to abandon a system that may have protected a large number of farmers but was seen to stifle the aspirations of livestock producers and some agricultural processors. The conflict between those who believe that, in the long run, collective action protects and enriches the agricultural industry and those who would like to throw off the regulatory shackles was played out in the farmers’ organization, Unifarm.

xiii

FARM ORGANIZATIONS AND BUSINESSES Alberta Farmers’ Association (AFA): Originally formed in Saskatchewan as the Territorial Grain Growers’ Association; became the Alberta Farmers’ Association when Alberta became a province in 1905. In 1909, it joined with the Canadian Society of Equity to become the United Farmers of Alberta “Our Motto, Equity”(UFA). Alberta Farmers’ Union (AFU): Originally the United Farmers of Canada–Alberta Section, formed in 1938.The AFU and the UFA joined in 1949 to form the Farmers’ Union of Alberta (FUA). Alberta Federation of Agriculture (AFA): A federation of Alberta agricultural organizations formed in 1936 to represent Alberta interests at the Western Agricultural Conference (WAC) and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA). Amalgamated with the Farmers’ Union of Alberta (FUA) to form Unifarm in 1970. Alberta Wheat Pool (AWP): Agricultural co-operative formed in 1923 to market grain. Henry Wise Wood served as president from 1923 until 1937. Merged with Manitoba Pool Elevators to become Agricore in 1998. Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA): Originally known as the Canadian Chamber of Agriculture, the CFA was formed in 1935 to speak for agriculture. Canadian Society of Equity: Originally known as the American Society of Equity; joined with the Alberta Farmers’ Association (AFA) in 1909 to become the United Farmers of Alberta “Our Motto, Equity”(UFA). Farm Women’s Union of Alberta (FWUA): Women’s organization of the FUA (1949 to 1970). Farmers’ Union and Co-operative Development Association (FU&CDA): Made up of farm organizations and co-operative businesses to provide education and training for agricultural producers. Now known as the Rural Education and Development Association (REDA). Farmers’ Union of Alberta (FUA): Formed in 1949 from the amalgamation of the Alberta Farmers’ Union (AFU) and the United Farmers of Alberta (UFA). Amalgamated with the Alberta Federation of Agriculture (AFA) in 1970 to form Unifarm.

xiv



FARM ORGANIZATIONS AND BUSINESSES

Interprovincial Farm Union Council: The Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba provincial associations of the United Farmers of Canada joined in 1947 to form the Interprovincial Farm Union Council. British Columbia and Ontario joined later. It changed its name to the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) in 1961.




National Farmers’ Union (NFU): Originally the Interprovincial Farm Union Council, an association of provincial organizations, it became the National Farmers’ Union in 1961. In 1969, the provincial organizations, excluding Alberta, restructured the NFU and it became a national general farm organization based on voluntary individual memberships. Rural Education and Development Association (REDA): Formerly FU&CDA, an organization devoted to education and training for co-operatives and co-operative businesses. United Farm Women of Alberta (UFWA): Women’s organization of the United Farmers of Alberta (1909 to 1949). United Farmers of Alberta (UFA): Formed in 1909 when the Alberta Farmers’Association and the Canadian Society of Equity merged.The political wing of the UFA formed the government of Alberta from 1921 until 1935. The UFA continued as a farm organization until it amalgamated with the Alberta Farmers’ Union (AFU) in 1949 to form the Farmers’ Union of Alberta (FUA). United Farmers of Canada–Alberta Section (UFC): A more radical farm organization formed in 1938. Its name was changed to the Alberta Farmers’ Union (AFU), and in 1949 it amalgamated with the UFA to form the Farmers’ Union of Alberta (FUA). United Grain Growers (UGG): A prairie-wide grain marketing company. Western Agricultural Conference (WAC): A subgroup of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture formed in 1935. The Eastern Agricultural Conference was formed in 1939.The WAC disbanded in 1984. Western Stock Growers: An organization incorporated in 1896 to promote and protect the interests of the ranching industry in western Canada.

xv

CHAPTER ONE

THE EARLY YEARS




“Papa’s cattle shall range on a thousand hills and Elo shall have her pony”

W

ith these words to his wife and his daughter Elo (Edith), my grandfather arrived on the Alberta prairie. Along with thousands of other farmers and ranchers who responded to railway and government advertisements to settle the western Canadian plains, he came with high hopes for the future.The reality that greeted them dashed many of those hopes. Edith did have a pony, a solid farm horse named Babe who took Elo and her eight brothers and sisters to school, but her papa struggled on the soul-destroying prairie. My grandfather and all the other newcomers soon learned that they had to work with their neighbours to solve the problems of making a living in these sparsely populated, remote areas. The organizations they formed have had a great impact on the social and educational development of the province as well as on the health and wealth of its citizens. Early Alberta farm organizations began before the turn of the century with the establishment of the Edmonton Agricultural Society in 1879 and its reorganization in 1882. As population increased and life became more complicated because of frustrations with the weather and the inequities in grain marketing, other more radical independent organizations sprang up to protest conditions that were developing. On November 7, 1891, there was a notice in the Edmonton Bulletin that a meeting would be held on November 19, 1891 in Edmonton to discuss a “means of securing a reduction in the export railway rates on grain and other produce of the district.” On February 6, 1892, the Edmonton Bulletin reported a slight reduction in rates. Organizations under the auspices of the Patrons of Industry were active in the Edmonton area between 1892 and 1894, and the Lacombe area became a hotbed of farm activism for a brief time. Locals of the American Society of Equity grew up in the Edmonton 1



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

area in 1905 at Poplar Lake, Belmont, Turnip Lake, Namao, Spruce Grove, and Stony Plain and then spread quickly to Morinville, Independence, and Bon Accord. The group soon changed its name to the Canadian Society of Equity. At about the same time, a Strathcona area farmer, Rice Sheppard, established a local of a home-grown organization that had originated in Saskatchewan, the Territorial Grain Growers’ Association. It became known as the Alberta Farmers’ Association after Alberta gained provincial status later in 1905. The Alberta Farmers’ Association successfully expanded its membership as a result of the efforts of people like Rice Sheppard who drove their own horse teams twenty or thirty miles to organize a local in a new area. Anyone who has been involved in organizing locals for Unifarm or who has been involved in a membership drive will identify with the story related by Rice Sheppard in his unpublished autobiography.1 I started out with a team and cutter with plenty of snow until the plains north of Beaver Lake were struck, then there was some hard going for very little snow had fallen and the sand trail made it very heavy going. I made the old village of Star on the Beaver Creek after dark. I had advertised a meeting at the school house. After putting away my team I went to the hotel for supper and inquired if they had heard anything of a farmers’ meeting.They said, yes, there was to be a meeting at the school house about three quarters of a mile east.After supper I left for the school house … at last I came to a building all in darkness. It was the school, not a soul to be seen about.A light in the distance suggested a farm.The school was locked. I waited for awhile but no one came. I then started to walk for the light in the distance, it must have been about half a mile. I could find no trail so went straight for the light. Just before I reached the farmyard I fell headlong down through a snowdrift into a small creek among some willows.The cracking of sticks as I fell through brought forth a couple of dogs from the farm. I thought before I could get out they would limb me…. I called them nice dogs and all the pretty names I could think of, all the time wishing I could kill them … at last … I reached the door and was lucky to find it was the boarding place of the teacher of the school … the school key was found. It was now about 1

2

Rice Sheppard, “Twenty-five Years in the Great North-West,” Personal Papers 1922, Glenbow Archives, Calgary: 71–73.



CHAPTER ONE: THE EARLY YEARS




8:30 p.m. but (I was told) I will not get anyone there till after nine, although the meeting was called for 8:00…. About 9:30 the farmers began to arrive and about 10:00 we had got a chairman elected and I proceeded to address them on the need of organization and co-operation among farmers. All were very attentive…. I got them organized with a local about 12:30 and then left for my hotel. Alberta had just been established as a new province with a population of about 185,000 in 1905 when Rice Sheppard was busy helping to form locals for the Alberta Farmers’ Association. New farmers were arriving in the province in a steady stream, encouraged by the federal government’s National Policy under which the west was to be settled to provide the agriculture products and raw materials for an increasingly industrialized east. In return, the west was expected to become a market for the goods produced by eastern industries.Westerners were expected to use—and pay for—the infrastructure of railroads and marketing agencies provided by central Canada. On paper, the National Policy may have made sense to eastern lawyers, businessmen, and railway barons, but the reality on the northern prairies was a different matter. Farming north of the forty-ninth parallel was a risky business. The land is arid and the frost-free season is very short.To their credit, the federal government and the railways did extensive agricultural research that resulted in the development of modified seeds and new methods adapted to farming in the challenging but irresistible environment of the prairies. In spite of this help, farmers in the west faced a precarious future. Resentment against the banks, government, railway companies, and farm implement manufacturers and distributors festered and grew. Farmers in debt to the banks for equipment and supplies were required to pay their debts despite weather conditions or the price of wheat. In some cases, they had to pay protected market prices for anything they purchased off the farm with their earnings from a product, usually wheat, that was subject to wild fluctuations on the international market. Alberta’s population increased from 73,000 in 1901 to 374,000 in 1911 when there were 60,559 farms.2 Farmers tried to persuade the Canadian government, which had encouraged them to come west in the 2

By 1921, there were 82,954 farms in Alberta. Statistics Canada, Agricultural Division, Historical Overview of Canadian Agriculture (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 1997), 38.

3



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

first place, to help with subsidies in the bad times. The Liberal government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier,3 with limited sources of revenue, could not always comply. In order to subsidize one sector of an economy, a government must have resources coming from other sectors. Because the eastern manufacturing sector was still very fragile, federal government resources were limited.Western farmers were on their own. As individualistic and competitive as they were—and still are—agricultural entrepreneurs knew that in this hostile isolation, there was strength to be found in community and co-operation. By 1909, the Canadian Society of Equity and the Alberta Farmers’ Association had amalgamated to form a strong and influential organization that called itself the United Farmers of Alberta “Our Motto, Equity.” This cumbersome name indicated that, while the Society of Equity was prepared to join forces with the Alberta Farmers’ Association, it was not prepared to give up the name “Equity,” which was symbolic of its philosophy and belief in working together to achieve economic equality. The Society of Equity was interested in controlling the marketing of produce by encouraging producers not to sell when the price dipped below a set level. Foreshadowing the debate between those who were prepared to use extreme measures and those who sought to approach the market with enough strength to secure the proper price and control input costs, the Alberta Farmers’ Association recoiled at this idea. The formation of the United Farmers of Alberta (UFA) brought the two philosophies under one umbrella, but the debate between co-operative action and allowing for a more individual approach to solving problems continued through the decades. The new organization was recognized in the Edmonton Bulletin of January 15, 1909, with a description of the procession of one hundred UFA members who celebrated the union by accepting an invitation from Liberal Premier Alexander Rutherford to attend the opening of the 1909 Alberta provincial legislative session. A striking assemblage these men made, as they marched down the snowy Sixth Street hill.They proceeded in line, four abreast, this hint of organization in their prosperous ranks indicating strongly the new position which the farmers of the continent are making for themselves in the 3

4

Sir Wilfrid Laurier, a Liberal, was prime minister from 1896 to 1911, followed by Sir Robert Borden, Conservative.



CHAPTER ONE: THE EARLY YEARS




human family.They represented the United Farmers of Alberta, an organization with over 5000 members of this class of the community which is a most powerful factor in the upbuilding of the province. Prosperous, intelligent, alert westerners they all seemed. Their marching was made only the brisker by an atmosphere somewhere about 30 degrees below, for the day was one of still western cold which the true westerner “does not feel.”4 The United Farmers of Alberta was an important organization— important enough to draw Premier A. C. Rutherford; the Honourable Duncan Marshall, minister of agriculture; and four members of the Legislative Assembly to its 1910 annual convention in the Mechanics Hall in Edmonton. The topics discussed at this convention—grain marketing, storage elevators, meatpacking, hail insurance, and money—run like a thread through annual conventions of the UFA and its successor groups. Farmers had begun putting pressure on the government to get involved with grain marketing by building storage elevators in Alberta and on the Pacific coast.The government was prepared to listen to the UFA as long as it was representative of Alberta farmers and consulted with representatives of the two other prairie provinces to come up with good, practical grain marketing policies to place before government. The UFA, accepting the role of a general farm organization, attempted to forge unity from the conflicting philosophies and diverse enterprises that existed in the agricultural community. At the 1910 convention, it persuaded the provincial government to consider getting involved in the internal grain trade. At the same time, the UFA was in discussion with hog producers about a government packing plant. Under an agreement approved at the convention, producers were to deliver all their hogs to a government packing plant for a period of five years, with provision for a two dollar penalty to be levied for each hog delivered contrary to the agreement and for each hog not supplied according to the agreement. In a theme that runs through farm organization debates, many farmers did not like the agreement because of the penalty clauses, so the standing committee on pork packing recommended that the project be abandoned in 1912. In spite of this temporary setback, a successful attempt at co-operative hog marketing was made during 1914–15.5 4 5

Edmonton Bulletin, Jan. 15, 1909: 1. Norman F. Priestley and Edward B. Swindlehurst, Furrows, Faith and Fellowship (Edmonton: Co-op Press Limited, 1967), 38–42.

5



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Henry Wise Wood (centre front) surrounded by the 1919 United Farmers of Alberta board of directors. Back row left to right: A. Rafn, H.E. Spencer, H. Higginbotham, G.D. Sloane, G.F. Root, J. Stauffer. Middle row: G.A. Forster, C.H. Harris, G.G. Huser, L. Peterson, F.W. Smith, H. Greenfield,W.F. Bredin. Front row: P. Baker, Mrs. J.F. Ross, Mrs. P. Carr, H.W.Wood, Mrs. W. Parlby,W.D.Trego, R. Sheppard. By 1920, membership had grown to 30,000 and the UFA was poised to enter the political arena.The UFA contested and won a provincial byelection in Cochrane in 1918 and a federal by-election in Medicine Hat in June 1921.The provincial general election of July 18, 1921 resulted in a victory for the UFA. For the next fourteen years, people committed to the principles of farmer government worked through the UFA to provide the personnel, organization, financial contributions, and energy needed to take part in the democratic and electoral process of government. At the same time, under the presidency of Henry Wise Wood, the UFA continued as a general farm organization to address problems in the farming community. Henry Wise Wood always opposed direct political action and refused to run for political office, but he served as UFA president from 1917 through the early UFA government years until stepping down in 1931 at the age of seventy-one. The UFA was elected to govern in the interests of the farming community at a time when conditions in rural areas had deteriorated because 6



CHAPTER ONE: THE EARLY YEARS




of low returns for the producer and high prices for consumer goods.The years after the end of World War I in 1918 brought dislocation and depression to the agriculture community already suffering the effects of drought and bad weather.The UFA government, on the advice of a commission appointed in 1921, recommended that relief be provided to southern Alberta farmers in the form of cash advances, seed grain, horse feed, food, and clothing. Government-funded irrigation projects were also mentioned as a way to help the south recover, but Attorney General John Brownlee reminded the people of Alberta that the eastern financial houses thought southern Alberta was beyond hope and that the farmers of the region should be moved to some other part of the country. 6 The Canadian government had stepped into the grain marketing business during the war through the Board of Grain Commissioners to stabilize prices to prevent undue inflation or depreciation. A Canadian Wheat Board, established in 1919 in response to action by European and U.S. governments that had also stepped in to protect their farmers, ended in July 1920. The average farm price paid to Alberta producers for the crop year 1919–20 was $2.31 per bushel. By 1921–22, it was $0.77 per bushel and farmers were desperate.7 In spite of demands for the re-establishment of a Wheat Board in 1922 and the passing of required legislation by both Saskatchewan and Alberta, it did not come about, because of opposition from the grain trade, milling interests, and eastern consumers and because it was not possible to find anyone suitable to run it.Without a Wheat Board, farmers desperate to gain some marketing power started discussing a wheat pooling system and insisted that political leaders listen to them. Such was the power of farm organizations that the premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan met with representatives of the United Grain Growers, Saskatchewan Co-operative Elevator Co., and the United Farmers of Alberta in Regina and then Winnipeg in early 1923. The sense of desperation felt by Alberta farmers is explained in the following quotation from Tides in the West, the history of the Alberta Wheat Pool. The Winnipeg meeting accomplished nothing, and the premiers of Saskatchewan and Alberta went back home and announced that a campaign to organize a pool could not be undertaken because a manager 6 7

Priestley and Swindlehurst, Furrows, Faith and Fellowship, 82. Leonard Nesbitt, Tides in the West: A Wheat Pool History (Saskatoon: Modern Press, 1962), 32.

7



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

could not be obtained, even though financial assistance at the start had been offered by the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Prospects for wheat pooling on any basis appeared hopeless. It was getting on towards the summer of 1923; wheat prices had drifted well below the dollar mark; the difficulties of organizing a wheat pool appeared to be insurmountable. The grain trade was opposed, and their elevators were needed to handle grain if a pool was organized. It seemed impossible to obtain the services of experienced and capable men to manage and operate a pool. How could such an organization set up by grain producers obtain the many millions of dollars of bank loans necessary to finance a pool? Little wonder that farm leaders were worried. The pressure from the countryside was insistent; but the undertaking of forming a pool was faced with such formidable obstacles that failure seemed certain.8 At its January 1923 convention, the UFA organization formed a committee that persuaded UFA Premier John Brownlee to set up a government committee 9 to further the establishment of a wheat pool. In spite of the pent-up demand for action, the UFA board of directors, recognizing the difficulties, decided to conduct an educational campaign for another year before launching a drive for a wheat pool.The government committee appointed to help in the effort to form a pool agreed with the decision to delay. Wheat producers would not be stopped, however. The first local wheat pool in all of Canada was organized in Coronation on August 4, 1923, in co-operation with the United Grain Growers, who agreed to act as a selling agency and to finance the initial payment.With incredible strength, foresight, energy, and determination and with the knowledge and experience they had gained through their experience in the UFA, an organizing group coalesced to pursue the idea of establishing a provincial wheat pool immediately, not the next year.With help from the Calgary Herald, which campaigned hard on behalf of co-operative marketing, Aaron Sapiro was brought to Calgary from California. Sapiro was considered an expert on orderly co-operative marketing of farm products because of his success in encouraging California growers to form co-operative associations. His visit and rousing speech 8 9

8

Nesbitt, Tides in the West, 32. The government committee consisted of UFA Premier J.E. Brownlee and two members of his cabinet, George Hoadley and R.G. Reid, as well as UFA President Henry Wise Wood and two members of the UFA organization,W.J. Jackman of Bremner and Stephen Lunn of Pincher Creek. Nesbitt, Tides in the West, 33.



CHAPTER ONE: THE EARLY YEARS




was the catalyst for organizing a provincial wheat marketing pool in Alberta. In a triumph for co-operation, by August 7, 1923, a membership contract had been drawn up obligating farmers to deliver all the wheat that would be marketed from their farms for the next five years to the Alberta Wheat Pool.The UFA infrastructure swung into action to conduct the membership drive, encouraged by President Henry Wise Wood, an avid supporter of farmer-owned co-operatives. Within two weeks, they had signed up over 26,000 Alberta farmers with nearly half the wheat acreage in the province.10 That this happened during a busy harvest season is testament to the commitment of the organizers to the pooling concept. It also shows that thousands of farmers realized the need to protect themselves in the face of the large grain companies. The Alberta Wheat Pool began operations on October 29, 1923, under the chairmanship of Henry Wise Wood. It expanded over the years as more and more Alberta farmers realized the benefits of the pooling concept in bringing stability to farm prices. UFA members continued to be active in all aspects of Alberta operations. Throughout the 1920s they participated in meetings of UFA locals and in the annual conventions, chaired by UFA President Henry Wise Wood, to discuss issues of concern to the farming industry. At the same time, they kept alive the local UFA political associations that successfully contested provincial elections.There was also a concerted effort to establish co-operative buying and selling organizations.As well, members of the UFA became active supporters of the Alberta Wheat Pool and the United Grain Growers.Women were making themselves heard either through the UFA or the United Farm Women of Alberta (UFWA). Meanwhile, events on the world economic stage caused still more difficulty for Alberta farmers. The 1920s had been difficult enough, but the market crash of 1929 and the depression that followed resulted in many changes in Alberta, not the least being the defeat of the UFA government in 1935.To the surprise of many, this defeat did not bring about the dismantling of the United Farmers of Alberta organization. It was true that membership in the locals had fallen drastically, but loyal UFA members continued to patronize their local co-operatives as well as the 10 One

of the charter members of the Alberta Wheat Pool was George Beattie of Rawdonville (which was later renamed Swalwell) whose son, Allan Beattie, went on to become director of public relations of the Alberta Wheat Pool. Allan Beattie was named to the Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame in 1993.

9



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Alberta Wheat Pool and United Grain Growers. At the January 1939 convention, a resolution was passed which officially removed the UFA from politics. The UFA continued as a viable (although greatly weakened) farm organization, gaining its strength from the growth of the UFA Co-operative Association. In addition to the United Farmers of Alberta, two other Alberta groups represented farmers at the time. Both groups grew up partly because many people felt uncomfortable with the political liaisons of the UFA. One of these groups was the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, formed through the efforts of the Alberta Wheat Pool after the inaugural meeting of the Western Agricultural Conference in Calgary in July 1935. British Columbia was represented by its Chamber of Agriculture, while Saskatchewan and Manitoba were represented at the conference by newly formed provincial co-operative conferences. Alberta was the only one of the four western provinces without a provincial co-operative organization. By default, the Alberta Wheat Pool was called upon to represent Alberta issues for this project. The Alberta Wheat Pool felt uncomfortable representing Alberta interests on a western agricultural committee even though it was supported by thousands of farmers across the province. It was now a big grain company in a competitive business, so there were questions about whether it should be representing Alberta farmers at regional or national meetings. Realizing the potential for conflict and misunderstanding, the Alberta Wheat Pool called a meeting to form an alternative co-operative organization to speak on behalf of Alberta farmers. The meeting in Red Deer on March 20 and 21, 1936, was attended by representatives of co-operative livestock shipping and feeders’ associations, consumer co-operatives, dairy pools and co-operatives, wool growers, sheep breeders, poultry marketing boards, the Wheat Pool, and United Grain Growers.11 The meeting produced the Alberta Co-operative Council, which represented one grain, nineteen livestock, seven dairy, nine poultry, three wool, twenty purchasing and distribution co-operatives, and five unclassified co-operative businesses.12 In 1940, the name was changed to the Alberta Federation of Agriculture. Membership was open to organizations engaged in agricultural pursuits.The UFA was represented on this body by the UFA Central Co-operative Association.The 11 United

Grain Growers Ltd. was an interprovincial organization, so it did not become part of the Alberta Co-operative Council. 12 Priestley and Swindlehurst, Furrows, Faith and Fellowship, 144.

10



CHAPTER ONE: THE EARLY YEARS




Alberta Federation of Agriculture became Alberta’s representative to the Western Agricultural Conference and the Canadian Chamber of Agriculture, later known as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Another group, the United Farmers of Canada–Alberta Section, was established in the Willingdon-Andrew-Hairy Hill area in 1938 in response to the need for a non-political organization to agitate on behalf of farmers. This area had always produced strong UFA locals as well as capable leaders who took their places in the provincial and federal farmers’ governments. In 1933–34, a group of farmers in the Myrnam13 area had participated in a direct action strike to protest unfair grading by elevator companies in the area. Farmers alleged that agents representing various grain companies in the community northwest of Vegreville had agreed to grade all wheat as “tough.” To get their point across, they blockaded local elevators and in one instance overturned a load of grain. The Board of Grain Commissioners came to investigate and finally agreed that the grain had been unfairly or incorrectly graded. They advised the grain companies that the grain buyers involved should be removed. Emboldened by the perceived success of strike action, farmers in the area drifted away from the less confrontational UFA and took out memberships in the United Farmers of Canada–Alberta Section. Herb Boutillier of Soda Lake was a loyal UFA member who worked hard to persuade the UFA to study the feasibility of strike action.When the UFA did not respond positively, Herb devoted all his energy to the Saskatchewan-based United Farmers of Canada (UFC). He served on the committee that organized a mass rally in Willingdon on September 4, 1938, which led to the establishment of the Willingdon Central Local, the nucleus of the UFC–Alberta Section.The chair of the meeting that was the focal point of the rally was a member of the Communist party executive, Mr. N.P. Boychuk. Farmers obviously felt a need for an outlet for their frustrations because they organized thirty-five locals within the first few months; by 1940 a total of 146 locals had been formed with 2,400 paid members, mostly in northeastern Alberta. Discussion at all meetings of the UFC–Alberta Section revolved around drastic strike action to be taken if conditions and prices did not improve. Alberta farmers supported three farm organizations even though organizers were aware that they should present a united front during the 13 Paul

Babey, president of the FUA from 1964–1970, was born at Myrnam, Alberta. The name had its origins in the Ukrainian words meaning “peace for us.” Paul’s father participated in the strike.

11



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

1939–45 war to counter government regulations restricting farm income in the interests of the war effort. Recognizing that the three Alberta farm organizations had a great deal in common and very few serious disagreements, a joint United Farmers of Alberta/United Farmers of Canada–Alberta Section Committee had been struck in 1940 to discuss the possibility of amalgamation. The UFC–Alberta Section was also exploring the idea of amalgamation with the Alberta Federation of Agriculture14 because they could see that, in spite of their success in the area between Edmonton and the Saskatchewan border, there was a limit to their appeal in the rest of the province. Three issues kept the United Farmers of Alberta and the United Farmers of Canada–Alberta Section apart.The first was the insistence by the UFA that any new organization would retain “United Farmers of Alberta” as its name and the equal insistence on the part of the United Farmers of Canada that the name be abandoned because it conjured up the political activity of the past. The second point of disagreement revolved around the issue of radical direct action, an important tenet of the United Farmers of Canada. In addition, the UFC felt that the business or co-operative side of the UFA distracted UFA members and diluted their effectiveness when it came to advocating on behalf of farmers. Plans for amalgamation failed, but the UFC-Alberta Section changed its name to the Alberta Farmers’ Union (AFU). By 1946, conditions on the farm were still unacceptable, and the AFU grew increasingly frustrated by the lack of response from the government in Ottawa to AFU delegations and resolutions. The Alberta Farmers’ Union travelled to Ottawa to give Liberal Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King and Agriculture Minister James (Jimmy) Gardiner one more chance to set up a fact-finding board to investigate agricultural product pricing. No action was forthcoming, so AFU Secretary Bob Boutillier, Herb Boutillier’s younger brother, sent out official strike notice to AFU members on September 5, 1946. The strike, involving 50,000 farmers in Alberta and Saskatchewan, ended when Alberta Farmers’ Union President Carl Stimpfle and delegates from the AFU and the United Farmers of Canada travelled back to Ottawa on the invitation of the minister of agriculture, Jimmy Gardiner. Negotiations with the minister and with J.G. McTaggart, chair of the Agricultural Prices Support Board, were productive. The Agricultural 14 Priestley

12

and Swindlehurst, Furrows, Faith and Fellowship, 180–81.



CHAPTER ONE: THE EARLY YEARS




Prices Support Board, established in 1944 to give farmers some protection from fluctuating income by guaranteeing minimum prices for some agricultural produce, agreed to use its powers to address Alberta Farmers’ Union and United Farmers of Canada concerns. Announcement of the end of the strike came after 30 days, on October 6, 1946. Actions during the strike, such as dumping milk and withholding hogs as well as an incident in Beaver Crossing where livestock being driven to stockyards were scattered, caused concern among those who were still working to bring about amalgamation between the Alberta Farmers’ Union and United Farmers of Alberta.The Alberta Federation of Agriculture was opposed to the strike and issued several news releases indicating that they preferred to achieve their objectives through negotiation and consultation with government authorities.There is disagreement as to whether the strike was a success or a failure.To this day, people will say they have reservations about farm organizations because of their—or their father’s—experiences with the strike of 1946. After years of searching for common ground, the Alberta Farmers’ Union finally amalgamated with the United Farmers of Alberta in 1949 to form the Farmers’ Union of Alberta (FUA). It was a momentous decision for the grand old UFA because it meant giving up a name reminiscent of past political activity. Since the Alberta Farmers’ Union had been formed by people who wanted to distance themselves as far as possible from the political associations of the other group, the name had to be changed. Another stumbling block to the amalgamation concerned the business side of the United Farmers of Alberta—the UFA Co-ops— because the Alberta Farmers’ Union wanted to be a farmers’ organization unencumbered by business responsibilities. By the time of the 1949 decision to amalgamate, the process of spinning off the United Farmers of Alberta Central Co-operative Ltd. had been formalized, so when the FUA came into being, the UFA Co-operative carried on to manage the business side of the former organization. The role of the locals in the new organization was an important part of the discussion because everyone realized that the power of the overall organization came from involving individual members. The strength and philosophy of UFA and AFU locals varied across the province.The United Farmers of Alberta locals had evolved into social groups, with some exceptions, while the Alberta Farmers’ Union had been concerned with policy development at larger district or regional organizations.After amalgamation, some of the new FUA locals in northeastern Alberta 13



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

retained the militant flavour of the old Alberta Farmers’ Union, which meant there was substantial support for demanding extreme solutions to problems in the agriculture sector. For better or worse, the newly formed Farmers’ Union of Alberta melded these ideas with the less confrontational philosophy of other members and forged ahead.

14

CHAPTER TWO




THE FUA: FARMERS’ UNION OF ALBERTA

O

n the cusp of the 1950s, the newly formed Farmers’ Union of Alberta looked forward to a successful and prosperous future. Farm incomes were increasing and farms were getting larger and more mechanized, while just less than half of Alberta’s population was rural. Carl Stimpfle, who had served as AFU president for four years before the 1949 amalgamation with the UFA, was elected as the first president of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta, popularly known as the FUA. He was a moderate leader of an organization that still included decidedly more radical members. Henry Young became president of the FUA at the 1950 convention when Carl Stimpfle stepped down. Henry Young was born in England and came to Canada with his parents in 1902 when he was nine years old.The family settled in the Millet district and Young continued to farm in the area, living on the farm until his death at the age of 86 in 1979. He was a supporter of the UFA government from 1921 to 1935 but then joined the fledgling Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) and campaigned as a CCF candidate in provincial elections in 1940 and 1948. He also served as an executive member of the CCF, which eventually became the New Democratic Party (NDP). His concern for the well-being of his neighbours and fellow farmers led him into leadership roles in the farm movement. After serving as director and vice-president of the Alberta Farmers’ Union, he became active in the new FUA. Henry Young was a spontaneous, hardworking man who would do everything he could to help. Long-time FUA and Unifarm secretary Willow Webb remembers the day he dashed up the steps to their home, overcoat flying in the wind, to offer her mother, Bessie (Mrs. Herb) Boutillier, a job in the FUA office after Herb’s death.1 1

Herb Boutillier had died at fifty-two, worn out by his struggle to help his fellow farmers. Mrs. Boutillier, who had just completed a business course, accepted the job and worked there from 1952 until she suffered a stroke in 1959.When work piled up at the FUA office, her daughter Willow did the extra typing at home before going to work for the FUA herself.

17



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

One long-time FUA member, Glenn Lunty of Forestburg, laughs when he says that Henry Young was a slave driver who ran the week-long annual conventions from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. every day. He had everything tightly organized, with something to be discussed or decided every minute from early Monday morning until Friday afternoon.Those were the days when George Friesen of Lacombe would get up at 4:00 a.m. each day of the annual convention to do his chores before the drive to Edmonton to take part in Henry Young’s sessions, returning home at about 11:00 p.m. During the 1950 convention at which Henry Young was elected president, the FUA confronted its “communist” reputation. A full afternoon was spent on the topic during that convention, but it was also part of the underlying discussions at many meetings and conventions over the years.The radicalism of the groups in northeastern Alberta had not gone unnoticed. Frank Maricle, director for District 4, had travelled to Warsaw to attend a supposedly communist-inspired conference, much to the chagrin of many FUA members. As a result of pressure from the general public as well as FUA members, the board brought a resolution to the convention demanding Maricle’s resignation.An amendment to the constitution was proposed that would have given the board of directors the power to expel a member for activity that reflected badly on the organization. Maricle strongly defended his actions, and it was decided to leave the decision to the board of directors. At the next board meeting, four board members resigned, three of them over this issue. The board was constrained by the legality of whether they had the right to expel a duly elected director, so they appointed a committee to draft, with legal advice, a resolution to deal with it.2 The four vacant positions were filled and the board carried on in its duties, although the issue coloured people’s perception of the FUA. Meanwhile, there was a great deal of work to do. In 1951, President Henry Young of the FUA joined his counterparts from Saskatchewan and Manitoba at a meeting in Regina, the first time delegates from these particular organizations had come together in a joint conference.Among 2

18

This eventually became Section 17 of the FUA constitution after much time and money had been spent, but it was repealed without protest at the 1959 convention. The Organized Farmer, January, 1960: 5. Section 17 gave the FUA board powers to expel any member for conduct considered prejudicial to the best interests of the association, provided that the member was given thirty days notice of the next regular board meeting at which the member could appear and object to the expulsion. A two-thirds majority was required in favour of expulsion. Farmers’ Union of Alberta, Constitution and By–Laws, 1954: 36-9.



CHAPTER TWO: FUA: FARMER’S UNION OF ALBERTA




other things, they protested the price of wheat, which had been controlled since World War II by the federal government and had not been allowed to keep up with the cost of products farmers had to purchase. As a result of the Regina meeting, farm organizations from the three prairie provinces formalized their structure as the Interprovincial Farm Union Council. Later in 1951, the farm union presidents travelled to Ottawa to discuss transportation problems with the appropriate federal ministers. At a meeting in Ottawa in 1952, the Interprovincial Farm Union Council persuaded the federal government to consider a floor price for cattle. Very quickly the Interprovincial Farm Union Council gained more respect and was recognized as representing the views of western farmers. The FUA held its conventions in early December where it debated resolutions to take to the Alberta Federation of Agriculture3 (AFA) annual meetings in January.As a member of the Federation along with over thirty other organizations such as the United Farmers of Alberta Co-operatives Ltd., the Alberta Wheat Pool and United Grain Growers, the FUA expected that its resolutions would be considered seriously at AFA meetings. The resolutions dealing with provincial issues that were passed at AFA annual meetings formed the basis of the Federation brief to the Alberta cabinet. Those of national interest went to the Western Agricultural Conference, where they were either accepted in their entirety or altered to accommodate the broader interests of western prairie agriculture. Resolutions that did not receive the stamp of approval from the Western Conference did not succeed at the national level.The resolutions accepted by the Western Agricultural Conference became part of the brief that went to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture for discussion and presentation to the federal cabinet. Through this process, the FUA and AFA were able to inform members of the legislative assembly and members of parliament of agricultural issues and make recommendations on how to deal with them. Membership was in the range of 17,532 (1952) to 23,795 (1953) until 1954, when an organizer hired to run the annual membership drive signed up 60,000 members by December. FUA secretary Pansy Molen4 3

The Alberta Federation of Agriculture was originally formed as the Alberta Co-operative Council in 1936 to represent Alberta at the Canadian Chamber of Agriculture, later called the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.The Alberta Co-operative Council became the Alberta Federation of Agriculture in 1940. 4 Pansy Molen joined the FUA in 1951 and became secretary in 1954.

19



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

remembers all the work involved in recording the names and making up the membership cards. Sometimes they got so far behind she would take a taxi to put all the money in a bank vault until she and the rest of the staff had time to complete the process of recording the memberships.The 1955 membership was 62,445. Not only did the membership increase, but subscriptions to The Organized Farmer doubled.There were 718 delegates at the December 1954 convention and 799 at the December 1955 convention, the highest ever to that date. An organization with 60,000 members has a great deal of potential as well as a great deal of responsibility because members expected to see some evidence that the organization was working on their behalf. The FUA worked hard to communicate with its members through The Organized Farmer, the Official Organ of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta, as well as through the locals. Executive and board members travelled constantly to organize and make presentations to meetings of far-flung locals. The FUA accepted its responsibility to communicate and educate the wider community when it undertook to make a series of weekly radio broadcasts over seven stations in Alberta, beginning in April 1955.The text of the radio broadcasts was regularly reprinted in The Organized Farmer. FUA Broadcast No.1, which went out over CJCA on April 2, 1955, began by saying: These are not easy times for Canadian farmers. Prices of most farm products are falling while farm costs remain high.The average Canadian farmer is caught in a squeeze between rigid costs and reduced income, and his position is deteriorating.The background of this is based on the fact (as shown by Canadian Government figures) that Canadian farmers are not getting nearly their fair share of the National Income.These figures show that in 1954 20% of the population were actually farming, but they received only 9% of the National Income. This means that there is a basic disparity between the position of farmers to other groups in the Canadian economy. It is the purpose of the Farm Union movement to correct that disparity. It is a long slow job, but it must be done before our farm population can take their place as equals in the Canadian economy. I am sure that many people in our towns and cities do not realize the position of the farmer. For example how many city housewives know that when they pay 16 cents for a loaf of bread that the wheat producer gets only about 3 cents for his share? On the other hand when farm 20



CHAPTER TWO: FUA: FARMER’S UNION OF ALBERTA




income is reduced as in the past year, the effect is felt over the whole economy.This fact is appreciated by some of our town friends, but Canadian farmers themselves must take the responsibility for working out a better deal for themselves within our economy. One thing sure is that no other class or group will right the farmers’ wrongs. Nor will it be done merely by talking about it. Action of various kinds is necessary.5 This series of radio broadcasts ran from April to November of 1955, but the idea was revived on December 1, 1958.This time the radio program called “The Voice of Agriculture,” hosted by FUA Director of Member Services W.J. (Bill) Harper, was carried as a daily public service for the FUA by CKXL Calgary, CJDV Drumheller, CKSA Lloydminster, CJDC Dawson Creek, CKYL Peace River, CFGP Grande Prairie, CFCW Camrose, and CHFA Edmonton (French). Even though there were excellent farm radio programs throughout the province, the FUA felt this one would be the only one to reflect the farmer’s point of view. The November 1959 Organized Farmer reported that one of the radio stations had cancelled this public service.The subject matter, referring to the benefits to farmers in using their own co-operatives, conflicted with the interests of the owners of the radio station. Demands on staff and membership increased during the early 1950s, so in 1953 it was decided to acquire land and build a larger, more suitable headquarters. A building committee consisting of Ellen Armstrong, Hussar; Ivy Taylor,Wainwright; Carl Stimpfle, Egremont; Charles Seeley, Cherhill; Henry Young, Millet; and Frank Johnson, Red Deer began to raise funds and make decisions. Financing the new building was a problem, so a plan was devised to raise money through the sale of “bricks” for $1.00 each, with each member responsible for buying three bricks. FUA President Henry Young was relentless in his efforts to raise funds for the building and personally sold “bricks” throughout the province. Locals were encouraged to use every possible opportunity to raise money for the cause.The appeal made to FUA locals for help with funding was relatively successful, so after another year of fundraising, tenders were awarded in May 1955 to the lowest bidder, James C. Haddow of Edmonton, for $69,372.6 President Henry Young and the FUA office staff were able to move into their new, although unfinished, offices on 5 6

The Organized Farmer, April 1955: 16. The Organized Farmer, June 1955: 26.

21



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

November 15, 1955. The Lieutenant Governor, J.J. Bowlen, officially opened the building the next summer on July 18, 1956, when members from further out in the country were able to attend.7 Although there was talk about a constitutional amendment that would have allowed him to serve beyond the five-year limit, Henry Young stepped down as FUA president in 1955. His presidency spanned a difficult time in agricultural politics. Some members, as well as returning war veterans8 whether they were FUA members or not, were suspicious of the left-wing activist politics of others in the organization. These tensions affected the reputation of the FUA and its ability to represent the agricultural community in dealings with government and the public. The new FUA president,Arnold Platt, was born in Innisfree,Alberta, in 1909 and graduated from the Schools of Agriculture in Olds and Vermilion and the University of Alberta with a B.Sc. and M.Sc. in plant breeding and genetics. He had a distinguished career with the Federal Department of Agriculture in Ottawa and at the experimental stations in Swift Current and then Lethbridge, where he was involved in research for breeding insect-resistant crop plants.While he was at Swift Current, he was instrumental in the development of Rescue Wheat using two varieties of wheat he had found in Egypt which he combined with known Canadian varieties. The new wheat enabled farmers to control the wheat stem sawfly. In 1951, he left the Department of Agriculture research station to farm at Spring Coulee, near Lethbridge, and became increasingly involved in farm organizations.9 The election of 1955 that brought Arnold Platt to the presidency of the FUA was a contested election, a reprise of the competing philosophies of radical group action and a more individualistic approach. Running against Platt were men who represented the activist rough-and-tumble element of the Farmers’ Union—Frank Maricle of Hamlin, Carl Stimpfle of Egremont, and Uri Powell of Sexsmith. The FUA showed its respect for Past President Henry Young by electing him as vice-president. Carl 7

One of the officials at the opening was Edmonton Mayor William Hawrelak, formerly an active member of the Alberta Farmers’ Union. 8 Under the terms of the Veterans Land Act of 1942, 25,000 returned veterans purchased land, livestock, and equipment.The Veterans Land Act and the Soldier Settlement Act of 1919 saw many veterans settle in places such as the Peace River Country.There they had many of the same experiences as had earlier settlers in the west, and they coped with them by forming or joining organizations.The FUA had an active veterans’ section to deal with issues pertinent to veterans on the farm. 9 In 1972, both Arnold Platt and Henry Young were admitted to the Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame.

22



CHAPTER TWO: FUA: FARMER’S UNION OF ALBERTA

Stimpfle was elected to the executive. Frank Maricle continued to be active, but his ideas were being submerged by the more moderate majority in the Farmers’ Union. With his academic background as an agricultural scientist and his stature as a speaker and a leader, Arnold Platt helped the FUA move away from the left-leaning image it had acquired. He was a man of the people who was comfortable in boardrooms and ranch houses, a man who could also talk to premiers and prime ministers. The trips to Ottawa with the Interprovincial Farm Union Council continued. Arnold Platt and the president of the Farm Women’s Union of Alberta, Ellen Armstrong, represented Alberta at the 1956 Interprovincial Farm Union Council where they met with the agriculture committee of the Government of Canada as well as individual Liberal, Conservative, CCF, and Social Credit members of parliament. In addition to the large prairie delegation that went to Ottawa a year later in 1957, the FUA ensured that two of its members were present in Ottawa during the legislative session to monitor agricultural legislation as it was introduced and to acquaint eastern parliamentarians with western agricultural problems—an early attempt to deal with ongoing western alienation.




A building fund was established to raise money for a new headquarters for the Farmers’ Union of Alberta. FUA locals raised money while individual FUA members paid $1.00 for a “brick” for the new building.This March 1955 article in The Organized Farmer lists donations and updates the total.

23



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Under the guidance of its visionary new president, the FUA began to offer more services to farmers, including help with tax preparation and estate planning, and particularly insurance pooling when farmers began to believe they were paying more than their fair share of insurance premiums for auto insurance. By December 1959, there were over 11,000 policies sold and the insurance company, Coop Fire and Casualty, was on its way to becoming one of the largest insurance companies in Alberta. Since an FUA membership was required to buy Co-op insurance, Co-op insurance agents sold memberships as well as insurance policies, making the yearly membership drives slightly less onerous. As society changed rapidly during the 1950s, there was a perception that the agricultural community was being left behind. Farmers had a choice: they could passively accept everything that was happening or they could take steps to understand and control it. It was clear that an education program was necessary to develop a widespread appreciation of the benefits of farm organizations and to train people for future leadership roles. Arnold Platt suggested that an all-encompassing program of education and training be undertaken using the FUA structure of local organizations. The Farmers’ Union and Co-operative Development Association (FU&CDA) was formed in August 1959. Coincidentally with these developments, a centre for youth education and training was established at Goldeye Lake. Ed Nelson became president of the Farmers’ Union when Arnold Platt announced at the 1958 annual convention that he would not be able to continue as president because of other commitments.10 Nelson was born in the Usona district in 1910 and farmed at Gwynne and then Brightview in the Usona district until 1978. He graduated from the Olds School of Agriculture with an agriculture diploma in 1928. In addition to being active in rural electrification and in the Ponoka Co-op Association,11 he ran as an NDP candidate in four elections in the Ponoka and Wetaskiwin area. Ed Nelson took over the reins of an organization that had started, but not completed, a number of all-consuming projects.When he served as vice-president of the FUA, Nelson worked with Ivy Taylor to bring about the FUA auto insurance pool. He was the proud president when 10

Arnold Platt had given in to pressure from Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson to serve on the MacPherson Transportation Committee. 11 Ed Nelson would drive many extra miles to buy gas at a co-op.

24



CHAPTER TWO: FUA: FARMER’S UNION OF ALBERTA




This photograph of the 1960 Farmers’ Union of Alberta board includes many of the well-known farm organizers of the 1950s and 1960s. Front row left to right: Leonard Hilton,Ted Chudyk, Henry Young, Jack Muza Second row: Howard Hibbard, Clare Anderson, Ed Nelson, Pansy Molen, Hazel Braithwaite, Laura Gibeau (Hilton), Florence Sissons, George Loree. Standing: Ken McIntosh,Welcome Hansel, Ivy Taylor, Lester Wager,Tom Foster, Ralph Wilson, Dan Whitney, Alex McCalla, Dean Lien, Anders Anderson, George Doupe, Paul Babey.

it came into existence on January 1, 1959. In addition to the insurance pools, Goldeye Lake Camp and the FU&CDA went through their early growing pains and became established as important foundations of the FUA under his auspices. Following the tradition of his predecessors, Ed Nelson led several trips to Ottawa during his tenure as president of the FUA. Many FUA members remember the 1959 train trip to carry the message that the cost/price squeeze was devastating to farmers. Over 1,100 men and women travelled to Ottawa to be there when petitions bearing the signatures of 302,000 western farmers, business, and professional people were presented to Progressive Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker and members of cabinet. Dean Lien, the Junior FUA president in 1959, remembers this trip to Ottawa fondly. He and the Junior FUA vice-president,Alex McCalla, were chosen out of the crowd to have a thirty-minute private interview with Prime Minister Diefenbaker. Lien considers the trip to Ottawa one of the most electrifying and interesting 25



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

experiences of his life where he made friendships that have lasted a lifetime.12 Changes were on the horizon when Ed Nelson was elected by acclamation for his fifth and last year as FUA president at the December 1962 annual convention. Farmers in other farm organizations were also searching for better ways to deal with conditions on the farm and with the federal government in Ottawa. One of the ways to increase the power of the farmers’ voice might be to increase the size of the national organization that spoke on behalf of the rural community. President Alf Gleave of the National Farmers’ Union (NFU), which had just changed its name from the Interprovincial Farm Union Council,13 made a startling suggestion at the 1962 FUA convention to amalgamate their two organizations—the FUA and NFU. He presented a recently developed constitution for a separate national organization composed only of direct dues-paying members.The National Farmers’ Union proposed to change itself from an organization made up of provincial farm unions to a national organization made up of individual farmers. The constitution for the new national organization was developed by a committee composed of Rudy Usick of Manitoba, Doug Yonge of Saskatchewan, and Hazel Braithwaite, president of the Farm Women’s Union of Alberta. National Farmers’ Union President Alf Gleave’s vision for the new organization excluded all commodity groups and co-operatives that he thought could be represented by a parallel organization such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA) and by the Co-operative Union of Canada. He felt that organizing through a strong, unified member group and working alongside an organization of co-operative 12

Dean Lien spoke to the Wild Rose Agricultural Producers annual convention on January 8, 1999, in his capacity as the newly appointed farmers’ advocate. During his speech, he reminded delegates that forty years earlier, almost to the day, he had been sitting in the FUA office board room planning the Farmers’ March to Ottawa that would take place in early March 1959. 13 This was the organization that had originated in 1944 when the farmers in northeast Alberta who had formed locals of the United Farmers of Canada–Alberta Section (later the Alberta Farmers’ Union or AFU) joined with their Saskatchewan counterparts to establish contact between their two organizations. A more formal structure developed in 1947 with Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba as members. Ontario and British Columbia joined later. In Alberta when the AFU and UFA amalgamated to form the FUA in 1949, the FUA became Alberta’s representative on the Interprovincial Farm Union Council. Its name changed to the National Farmers’ Union and its leadership now considered that it was time to grow and become truly national.

26



CHAPTER TWO: FUA: FARMER’S UNION OF ALBERTA




and commodity groups at the national level would be more effective than amalgamating with the commodity groups at the provincial level. In spite of his position as vice-president of the National Farmers’ Union,14 FUA President Ed Nelson spoke to the 1962 annual convention about why he was not recommending approval of the National Farmers’ Union constitution. Nelson’s main objection to amalgamating with the National Farmers’ Union was the conflict and duplication that he thought might result from having two national organizations, the National Farmers’ Union and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Also, since Alberta was represented by two provincial farm entities, the Farmers’ Union of Alberta (FUA) and the Alberta Federation of Agriculture (AFA), Nelson wondered how one of them could enter into a national union. The president of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, Jim Bentley, also spoke out at AFA annual meetings against the amalgamation of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta with the National Farmers’ Union.As long as there was no forum to resolve provincial differences between direct members and the co-ops and commodity groups that existed to represent the business of agriculture, it would be difficult to be a partner in the national organization.There were already problems at the provincial level. While many resolutions passed at FUA conventions in December were usually ratified at the Alberta Federation of Agriculture annual meetings in January, there was no process for resolving the issues when FUA resolutions were defeated by the AFA. After much discussion of the proposed constitution for an amalgamated NFU/FUA at the 1962 FUA convention, it was decided to study the issue for a year and bring it back to the next convention in 1963.The Alberta constitution committee member, Hazel Braithwaite, assumed that the 1962 FUA convention had accepted the proposed NFU constitution in principle and, after a provision for discussing it again at the 1963 FUA annual convention, had given authority to the National Farmers’ Union to proceed with a founding convention in 1964.15 The 1963 convention, held at the Palliser Hotel in Calgary, was a turning point in FUA politics for many reasons.The issue of amalgamation, raised at the previous FUA convention, had to be dealt with. In 14

The FUA was one of the member organizations of the NFU and made financial contributions to the organization well into the 1960s.The other provincial organization, the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, was a member of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. 15 Hazel Braithwaite, The Organized Farmer, April 5, 1963: 7.

27



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

addition, there was no logical successor to Ed Nelson when he stepped down after his five-year term as president ended: Vice-President Clare Anderson of Freedom had announced in August that he would be leaving active involvement in the FUA for health reasons. Of the other members of the executive—Henry Young, a former FUA president; Anders Anderson of Medicine Hat; and Paul Babey of Beaverdam—it was Paul who was encouraged to seek election to the presidency even though he was young and had only served on the executive for one year. In the election for president, Paul defeated Herb Kotscherofski, a loyal, hard-working member of the FUA and District 5 director from Stony Plain. Significantly, Herb’s campaign manager was Henry Young. Many old-timers were surprised when Paul was elected, but people recognized his potential and realized that the organization was changing. The “kid from the north” was given an opportunity to step into the large shoes of former FUA presidents Ed Nelson, Arnold Platt, and Henry Young. Three organizations stood at the crossroads: the National Farmers’ Union, the Farmers’ Union of Alberta, and the Alberta Federation of Agriculture.The National Farmers’ Union was still courting FUA members to join a new NFU while the Alberta Federation of Agriculture was expressing concern and studying the possibility of an AFA/FUA amalgamation.16 As an organization of organizations, the Alberta Federation of Agriculture did not have individual members or local associations to develop loyalty at the grassroots level, but each organization was made up of individual members from the agricultural community. Alberta Federation of Agriculture members such as the Alberta Wheat Pool, United Grain Growers, United Farmers of Alberta Co-operatives Ltd., Alberta Livestock Co-operative Ltd., and Northern Alberta Dairy Pool were in turn made up of individual members who were members or potential members of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta. This relationship made the Alberta Federation of Agriculture very aware of the ramifications of conflict that might develop between the FUA, the AFA, and the National Farmers’ Union.The Alberta Federation of Agriculture was also forced to consider its future in the event of an amalgamation between the FUA and the National Farmers’ Union. A further consideration was the future of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA) if the FUA 16

28

Early discussion of this possibility resulted in a resolution at the 1952 FUA convention to consider a merger with the AFA. Priestley and Swindlehurst, Furrows, Faith and Fellowship, 278.



CHAPTER TWO: FUA: FARMER’S UNION OF ALBERTA




threw in its lot with the other national organization, the National Farmers’ Union. Recognizing the importance of joining forces, the Alberta Federation of Agriculture passed a resolution at its January 1962 annual meeting to establish a committee to study these issues and consider ways of developing closer working arrangements among Alberta farm organizations. The committee, consisting of Senator Donald Cameron, Leonard Nesbitt, retired superintendent of publicity for the Alberta Wheat Pool, and Arnold Platt, former president of the FUA, was appointed in the spring of 1962. The committee presented a progress report at the Alberta Federation of Agriculture annual meeting in January 1963 that was subject to some discussion during the year.A final report was presented at the Alberta Federation of Agriculture annual meeting a year later in 1964. There was no way for the FUA to escape the issue of amalgamation. It would be up to Paul Babey and his executive to shepherd this issue through to its fulfilment. As Paul Babey stated to all who would listen, “there are three options: amalgamate with the AFA, amalgamate with the NFU, or do nothing.” Doing nothing was never an option for Paul, so there were two choices.

29



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

PAUL BABEY

P

aul Babey was born on his family’s homestead in Myrnam in 1928 and began farming at the age of sixteen when his father died, leaving him a quarter section of land. He married Millicent Yadlowsky in 1952. Paul Babey’s first involvement with the FUA came in 1952 after years of frustration and despair over poor weather and wheat surpluses. In the tradition of many farmers before him, he turned to his neighbours and with their help was instrumental in the formation of the Beaverdam FUA Local. He served as its first secretary until Paul Babey 1959 when he was elected director for District 4 in a dramatic election that pitted Paul Babey against Frank Maricle, the experienced orator and left-leaning former District 4 director. Paul gave a down-to-earth speech on the need for farmers to cooperate so they did not have to go, cap in hand, to the market to sell their products. He won the election and became a member of the provincial board representing the northeast area of Alberta.17 Paul Babey then served as vice-president for one year before becoming president in 1963. He served one year as president of Unifarm after the FUA amalgamated with the AFA in 1970.

17

30

One of the first items on the agenda was for Paul to attend a two-week leadership training course at the Banff School of Fine Arts. Paul considers the course the greatest assistance a greenhorn like himself could have been given.



CHAPTER TWO: FUA: FARMER’S UNION OF ALBERTA




Paul believes strongly in the benefits of co-operation. He was one of thousands of farmers almost destroyed by the unreliable marketing system and learned to work with others to change the system, eventually becoming instrumental in the establishment of marketing boards. He has been a member of the Alberta Wheat Pool, the United Farmers of Alberta Cooperative, the Bonnyville Co-op, and the Alberta Livestock Co-operative Ltd. From 1965/66 until 1969/70, Paul served as vice-president of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, chair of the Farmers’ Union and Cooperative Development Association, vice-president of the National Farmers’ Union, and member of a Provincial Advisory Committee on Consumer Credit. He also served as a director for the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, committee member for Farmers’ Union Insurance Trustees and was instrumental in winning the debate to establish a hog marketing board in Alberta. Paul served as vice-chair of the Environment Conservation Authority of Alberta until he was appointed chair of the National Farm Products Marketing Council. He moved his family to Ottawa and served in that capacity from 1972 until 1979. He was appointed vice-chair of Farm Credit Corporation in 1979 and became Chief Operating Officer in 1986. Paul finished his career in Ottawa as the Senior Advisor to the Assistant Deputy Minister of Agriculture–Development Branch. In recognition of his contributions to agriculture and rural organization, the University of Alberta awarded him an Honorary Doctor of Laws in 1986. In addition, he served on the Alberta Centennial Committee for Canada’s Centennial Celebrations in 1967. He was inducted into the Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame in 1992 and was made an Honorary Life Member of the Agricultural Institute of Canada in 1996.

31

CHAPTER THREE




STEPS TO AMALGAMATION

T

he issue of amalgamation was on the table, prompted by farm leaders who could see that farmers were speaking with too many voices through too many organizations on the provincial and federal scene.The study of farm organization, conducted by the committee established by the Alberta Federation of Agriculture (AFA), released what became known as the Cameron Nesbitt Platt Report at the 1964 Alberta Federation of Agriculture annual meeting. Although the Farmers’ Union of Alberta (FUA) was in the midst of considering an offer of amalgamation with the National Farmers’ Union (NFU), this report recommended amalgamating the FUA and AFA. The recommendation was made, even though many of the key participants in the study and the organizations themselves had expressed reservations about such an action. In his capacity as the new president of the FUA, Arnold Platt, now the chair of the committee to study farm organization, had outlined his concerns about a potential AFA/FUA amalgamation in his address to the 1956 Alberta Federation of Agriculture annual convention.1 In his speech, Platt warned that the only way decisions could be made by one farm organization would be by subjecting all groups to the rule of a majority.While this might create the appearance of unity, Platt thought it could be selfdefeating because it might force some groups to quit the organization if they could not persuade the larger group to see their point of view.2 Another person who had concerns was Nelson Malm, who became president of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture when Jim Bentley moved on to become president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. In his remarks to the UFA Co-op annual meeting about the Cameron Nesbitt Platt Report before it was officially released, 1

Gerald Schuler, former executive director of REDA, theorizes that in some circles in 1956, the FUA was considered to be weaker and less credible than the AFA because its “left-leaning” reputation made it suspect as a partner in a general farm organization. 2 The Organized Farmer, January 1956: 14.

33



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Malm stated: The need for closer co-operation and understanding was what prompted the Federation to appoint a committee to study the needs of Alberta farmers for closer co-operation. No doubt finance and, in their opinion, duplication of effort played a large part in their recommendations.Will there be wide enough acceptance of the recommendations to provide the Province with the kind of organization that farmers really want? Is there much wrong with a direct membership group on the one hand, and a federation of co-ops on the other? In direct amalgamation, will they both lose something? What of the federal field? If amalgamation is attempted, let it not be for convenience only. Let us not be hasty. Is it not possible that some of the smaller co-ops might be submerged completely? Probably I have said too much.This is, after all, a decision the members of the Federation and the FUA have to consider with great care and deliberation.The final decisions must be founded in sound thinking in order that we may not create more problems than are alleviated.3

Nelson Malm, president of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, worked diligently to bring about the amalgamation of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture and the Farmers’ Union of Alberta. 3

By the time the Cameron Nesbitt Platt Report was officially released, Malm had overcome the concerns he originally expressed at the UFA Co-op annual meeting. He commented at the summer FUA board meeting, “We will never get anywhere if we cannot agree among ourselves. I think we are on the right track. If we follow it, we should be able to achieve some worthwhile goals.”4 In spite of their differences and concerns about some groups and ideas losing out in the process of making decisions, there was momentum to work together in a larger agricultural organization

Nelson Malm, “Remarks to the UFA Co-op Annual Meeting,” No date. Nelson Malm Collection, Glenbow Archives, Calgary. 4 The Organized Farmer, July 24, 1964: 3.

34



CHAPTER THREE: STEPS TO AMALGAMATION




because everyone realized the overriding need to present a unified front to the public and the government. The Alberta farm population had declined to 73,212 in 1961 from 84,315 in 1951,5 even though the total provincial population had increased to 1,300,000 from 939,000 in the same time. This was even more reason for farmers to speak with one voice. What was needed was a credible general farm organization—a Farmers’ Parliament—to identify, discuss, and propose solutions to problems in the best interests of the farm community. In the meantime, the farm community was weakened by the perception that there were two policy-making bodies at both the provincial and federal level.The two Alberta organizations—FUA and AFA—could go to the provincial government with contradictory policy.This was also true at the federal level, where the FUA could take policy to the federal government through the National Farmers’ Union during the 1960s if the Canadian Federation of Agriculture did not accept its views. Anything that highlighted differences in the agricultural sector weakened the cause of agriculture and created major problems. The Cameron Nesbitt Platt Report recommended creating an amalgamated organization based on the county or municipal district, but this recommendation caused problems for the FUA because its organization depended on the local, not the county, level. On the other hand, the Alberta Federation of Agriculture was made up of well-organized commodity groups and farmers’ co-operatives that met, not at the local level, but within their own organizations to discuss their own special interests and take resolutions to their provincial annual meetings. Many questions were asked after the Cameron Nesbitt Platt Report was released about how the two types of organizations would reorganize to hold meetings at the county level. Questions were also raised about how members of commodity groups and co-ops would be able to discuss and formulate policy resolutions at the county level with others who were not part of their business. Discussions continued.Although there was some reluctance, as there always is with something new, there was a growing acceptance of the ideas that the organization should have a direct membership component and that the co-operatives should be involved and, more important, should be making a larger financial contribution to the FUA. As Paul 5

Statistics Canada, Agriculture Division, Historical Overview of Canadian Agriculture, 1997: 38.

35



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Babey stated in his 1966 President’s Report,“A close examination of our own record will show that policies which ten years ago were defined as radical are today being accepted as solutions to the current problems.”6 Paul was confident that farm leaders would move in the direction of amalgamation, but he was concerned that it was taking too long. In the meantime, the FUA under the leadership of Paul Babey did not spend all its time on the amalgamation issue. During the 1963 convention that elected him president, a resolution was passed to promote wheat sales to the People’s Republic of China. Widespread discussion during the 1962 convention about what to do with grain piled up in elevators and on farms had resulted in a controversial resolution to explore the possibility of travelling to China to sell some of the surplus wheat. This resolution, passed on the afternoon of the last day of the 1962 convention, prompted a headline in the Edmonton Journal that read, “More Red Trade Urged by FUA.”7 The trip was not organized in 1963, but the resolution was brought back to the 1963 convention, sponsored by some of the farmers from the northeast area of the province who were always in the forefront of direct action: Frank Maricle of Hamlin, Neil Stenberg of Thorhild, Mr. Garneau of Wainwright, and Dan Charron and John Sawiak from the Vegreville area. A decade earlier, this motion would have torn the organization apart, but times had changed.The FUA had become more solidly mainstream, so the proposal to travel to the People’s Republic of China did not threaten its members. The agricultural community was sophisticated enough in the mid-1960s to realize that they should not be worried about trading with a communist country.8 Paul Babey found himself in a difficult situation after the 1963 convention. He was the new, young president of the FUA. It was easy to pass a motion resolving to send a trade delegation to China, but much more difficult to actually carry it out. When the annual convention rolled around again in 1964, he would have some explaining to do if he did not act on the resolution. He began to make inquiries and discovered that the airlines would provide a free ticket to the leader of a tour group of 6

Paul Babey, “President’s Report,” FUA Eighteenth Annual Convention Programme, December 5–9, 1966. 7 Edmonton Journal, December 15, 1962: 34. 8 A Canadian-Chinese wheat agreement had been signed by the minister of agriculture, the Honourable Alvin Hamilton, in June 1961; the executive of the Farmers’ Union passed a resolution in support of this action. FUA Press Release, June 22, 1961.

36



CHAPTER THREE: STEPS TO AMALGAMATION




fifteen or more, so tickets were sold to the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Alberta Wheat Pool, United Farmers of Alberta, United Grain Growers, and others. Representatives from the media accompanied them, and several doctors from the Edmonton area went along to study Chinese medicine. They sold thirty-two tickets and were given two free tickets, one for Paul Babey and one for the president of the FWUA, Louise Johnston. The three-week trip in 1964 was not without its complications, but the Chinese were very accommodating. When the group crossed the river from the New Territory of Hong Kong into China, Paul Babey discovered they needed visas.When Babey explained that they had an invitation from the president of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, the Chinese officials went out of their way to help. As the Chinese had no cameras available at the border stop, Paul’s group was instructed to check in two days later when they arrived in a place where there were cameras. Paul says that he felt very much at home, because he did not own a camera either. The FUA was one of the first Canadian groups to travel to China at a time when China was beginning to look for friends in the west. The Canadians were able to convince the Chinese that it would be to their benefit to export rice and import Canadian wheat in its place. After their return, Paul Babey called William (Bill) McNamara, Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, and Frank Hamilton of the Board of Grain Commissioners and told them to go to China with their order books because it was apparent there was a market there. He encouraged them by saying that, if they did not, the media would want to know why. In less than a year, Canada was selling more grain to China. Paul Babey’s China tour had other positive results in addition to increased quotas and cash flow for farmers. The FUA received positive publicity at home and abroad, in spite of the lingering concern in some quarters about trading with a communist country. Slides of China were shown at local FUA meetings, increasing interest, participation, and membership in the organization. The trip to China was an excellent demonstration of what could be done through co-operation and vividly illustrated the benefits of unity in the agricultural sector. Babey also said that it gave him confidence in himself and the job he was doing. The FUA was very successful and very active during the 1960s.Wilf Plosz was hired in March 1966 as editor of The Organized Farmer and subsequently became communications director and then executive secretary 37



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

of Unifarm in 1970. Plosz had attended teacher’s college and university in Saskatchewan and then Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario.After a brief teaching career, he operated a CBC radio station outlet, CHFR, and a weekly newspaper and print shop in Hay River, Northwest Territories.When he was flooded out, he moved to Edmonton and eventually was employed by the FUA. The credibility of the organization was further enhanced with the hiring of an economist, Elmer Allen, who came on board in 1967. Allen had farmed in the Waskatenau area for seven years after graduating from high school and served as president of the Brighton Local of the FUA during that time. He was completing his master’s degree in agricultural economics from the University of Alberta when he accepted the position with the FUA. His first project was to organize meetings and prepare the FUA brief for the Barber Commission. The Royal Commission on Farm Machinery, chaired by Dr. Barber of the Department of Economics of the University of Manitoba, had been established in 1966 by the federal government to address problems farmers encountered when they dealt with farm machinery companies. The commission announced that it was travelling to Alberta to gather information, so the FUA organized public hearings to help prepare its submission to the Barber Commission. People like Ken McIntosh of Grande Prairie, an FUA vice-president, travelled to all corners of the province documenting farmers’ experiences and policy recommendations. Farmers spoke out angrily at the FUA-sponsored public hearings about manufacturing companies, accusing them of price gouging and making life unnecessarily difficult. The Barber Commission, which released its report in 1971, found that the Canadian farm machinery industry was dominated by a small number of large international corporations of which the Canadian market was a relatively small part. These companies competed on the basis of model changes and marketing strategies rather than price. The commission recommended, among other things, that there should be a high level of research into new technology and that a national, independent machinery-testing agency be established. In 1967, the FUA participated in a continent-wide stop-buying boycott. Frustration with low prices for agricultural products and rising prices for all consumer goods drove the North Dakota Farmers’ Union to take the lead in a farmer boycott of new cars, trucks, and farm 38



CHAPTER THREE: STEPS TO AMALGAMATION




The Farmers’ Union of Alberta supported the “Stop Buying” boycott in 1967 by keeping members informed through notices like this one on page 4-5 in the April 8, 1967, Organized Farmer.

machinery. Iowa joined the boycott quickly while other U.S. states and Canadian agricultural provinces called for a vote on whether members were prepared to take part in a stop-buying campaign. The FUA office swung into action, writing articles, placing notices in The Organized Farmer, and mailing out ballots. By April 1967, Canadian provinces from B.C. to Ontario joined ten American states in a stop-buying boycott.The FUA office kept up the pressure by mailing out decals and pledge cards 39



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

and encouraging every member to enlist the support of a neighbour in the stop-buying campaign.The press covered this boycott and raised the profile of the FUA in the process. The FUA also worked with the Alberta government on a new Farm Machinery Act to replace the existing weak legislation. Saskatchewan had a government testing laboratory that assessed farm machinery and passed results on to farmers.Alberta farmers did not have resources to get information about particular pieces of machinery, but eventually a financial arrangement between Alberta and Saskatchewan made the reports from the testing laboratory available to Alberta farmers.9 As a result of the work of the FUA on farm machinery, Alberta passed stronger legislation, and the FUA gained credibility because of the work they did. In addition to advocating for business equity for farmers, the FUA fought in another arena to ensure that farmers and their families achieved equal access to some of the social and health benefits available to wage earners. In this era before national health care, health insurance was an issue that attracted attention because of the devastating effects of an illness or accident on a family. During the mid-1960s, efforts were made to expand Medical Services (Alberta) Incorporated (MSI), a doctor-sponsored program that had provided comprehensive pre-paid medical care to the people of Alberta since 1948.The most economical rates could be achieved by being part of an industrial or employee group. For farm families, FUA locals were used as the basic entity for the organization of an MSI group. To be accepted as an MSI entity, FUA locals had to be prepared to do some of the administrative tasks. First, a certain percentage of the local membership had to enrol in MSI for the FUA local to be a legitimate MSI group.The FUA local was required to collect a three-month reserve from each member in addition to at least one month’s premium at the time of enrolment. In this way, if a member was away at the time the subscription was due, the reserve could be used instead of having the contract terminated. The executive of each interested local formed the “enrolment” committee and was given an enrolment kit and a list of neighbours to approach to enrol in MSI. At membership renewal time, MSI offered its assistance to FUA locals in renewing memberships and forming MSI 9

40

In 1984, Unifarm President Stan Bell wrote a letter to the minister of agriculture, LeRoy Fjordbotten, urging the provincial government to renew the long-term agreement to support the Prairie Agriculture Machinery Institute in Saskatoon, confirming Unifarm’s support for this program. Unifarm Press Release, February 2, 1984.



CHAPTER THREE: STEPS TO AMALGAMATION




groups. As a result, membership in FUA locals increased substantially. Inactive or “dead” locals were reactivated to take advantage of MSI group coverage. In 1966, 9,000 FUA members had MSI through their local. The rules governing group plans changed when the new national health program came into effect on July 1, 1967. An FUA local could continue to function as a group as long as it did not have any subsidized members. Since it was estimated that between one-half to two-thirds of FUA members received subsidies for health care, it was apparent that the remaining group would become so small that it was not worthwhile to keep the program. Central office was involved in winding down the contracts, ensuring that all the paper work was done and no one lost their coverage.The loss of the MSI group plan as an incentive for joining the FUA was the first big blow to the organization that prided itself on providing services to encourage farmers to buy memberships each year. Another form of health insurance, Blue Cross, became available on an individual basis, but there were advantages to being part of a group plan.As a result of negotiations between the FUA and Blue Cross, FUA locals were accepted in the Blue Cross health insurance program under group rates. The saving of $42.00 per year for families and $24.00 per year for individuals came from the fact that the local FUA secretary performed some of the administration duties for Blue Cross. This was a major undertaking because the secretary was responsible for handling all the inquiries and correspondence to Blue Cross for their local.The local or group secretary was also responsible for maintaining a reserve fund equal to three months’ subscription rates to ensure prepayment of the current monthly subscription charges. FUA members and the FUA benefited from the dedication and loyalty of these unheralded secretaries who provided another reason to belong to the Farmers’ Union of Alberta. In spite of FUA success in raising its profile and increasing membership during the 1960s, the unification debate continued. The FUA had left its strident, confrontational reputation behind and was in a position of strength to negotiate with the AFA on the subject of amalgamation. Every FUA convention passed a resolution calling on the executive to continue investigating the possibility of amalgamation.There had to be a process for establishing policies acceptable to the agricultural community that would then be taken to the government and to the public. Amalgamating the two organizations would at least provide a forum where ideas and information could be exchanged. 41



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture

T

he Canadian Federation of Agriculture was formed to speak for agriculture in the same way that business, labour, and professional groups have their own boards of trade, chambers of commerce, labour unions, and professional associations. An organization known as the Canadian Council of Agriculture, made up of provincial organizations from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and the Maritimes, was active in the early part of the century. The president of the United Farmers of Alberta, Henry Wise Wood, was president of the Canadian Council of Agriculture from 1917 to 1923.Another movement to establish a national organization to speak for all branches of agriculture and all provinces began in British Columbia in 1935 and was known as the Canadian Chamber of Agriculture. Through this organization, farmers hoped to present their point of view to governments, industry, commerce, labour, and international conferences. The Canadian Chamber of Agriculture, later known as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA), held its organizational meeting in Toronto in November 1935. Because there were many issues of concern only to the west or the east, a Western Agricultural Conference was formed in 1935 and an Eastern Agricultural Conference was formed in 1939. Membership in the CFA in 1942 was made up of provincial federations, including the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, plus the United Grain Growers, Dairy Farmers of Canada, and the Canadian Horticultural Council. There were no individual memberships and the provincial wheat pools were included in the provincial federations.

42



CHAPTER THREE: STEPS TO AMALGAMATION




The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is governed by a board of directors with representatives from each of the western provincial federations and directors from the other member organizations plus two directors from the National Women’s Committee—one from the west and one from the east. The annual meeting is held at the end of January to conduct business and deal with resolutions from member organizations.The CFA national office keeps provincial units informed of ongoing activities, facilitates visits to Ottawa of all member organizations, and maintains contact with government departments and government ministers. The CFA seeks to promote the cause of agriculture, maximizing areas where there is agreement and downplaying areas of disagreement. In 1941, the CFA overcame a conflict of interest over the feed grains issue by concentrating on a common cause—Canada’s agricultural war production. Where there is no conflict, the CFA is able to help small agricultural organizations gain the attention of governments and public opinion. Through its annual briefs to the federal cabinet, the CFA represents the views of agriculture on the national stage and has a significant continuing impact on policy development.10

10 Canadian

Federation of Agriculture, Its Organization and Policies (Ottawa: Mutual Press Ltd.), 2-4.

43

CHAPTER FOUR




TIME FOR DECISION

A

fter years of study and debate, farm organizations were no closer to resolving the confusion that resulted from having too many groups claiming to speak for the agricultural community.The National Farmers’ Union under its new president, Roy Atkinson,1 continued to court FUA members while the FUA studied the Cameron Nesbitt Platt Report, which recommended amalgamation of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta and the Alberta Federation of Agriculture. The stop-buying boycott was the big news in 1967, as was the 1967 March on Ottawa that drew attention to the crisis in the food industry, particularly in milk production. Twenty-five thousand farmers from Ontario and Quebec as well as some from the FUA and other farm unions descended on Ottawa during Centennial Year to highlight concerns in the agricultural community. During the 1967 March on Ottawa, Liberal Agriculture Minister Joe Greene commented that it was hard for the government to deal with all the farm groups. The editorial in the June 10, 1967, Organized Farmer admitted it was time for farm organizations to go back to the discussion of farm unity: When the delegation of eastern farmers met the Cabinet last month, the Minister of Agriculture, the Honourable J. J. Greene, complained to them that it was difficult for the government to deal with farm groups because there were too many such groups, and they did not always agree. It would be much better, he said, if there was one strong farm group to speak on behalf of all farmers. Every farmer in Canada knows that Mr. Greene is right. Every so often our farm groups start playing footsie under the convention table, but like most games of footsie, it does not seem to mean much, and everyone seems to go home and forget it.

1

Roy Atkinson replaced Alf Gleave as president of the NFU in 1965.

45



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

A few years ago the AFA appointed a committee of three distinguished Albertans to look into this problem and come up with a workable plan for one farm organization in this province. They did so, and no one has ever really disagreed with their plan. Instead, our farm leaders just back away from it.Why? Do they really think it will not work? Or are they each trying to defend their little empire? This may sound “catty” and mean. It is not meant to be.The fact is that the Honourable Mr. Greene put his finger on a very sore spot in the farm picture, and he made the patient squirm. It is high time that farm organizations in Alberta, and in Canada, got back to the convention table and started playing footsie “for real.”2 Greene reiterated his concern about the proliferation of farm organizations during his speech to the 1967 Ontario Farmers’ Union annual convention. He explained that it was not easy to develop policy when there were as many opinions as there were farm organizations. The day of developing policy solely on the advice of public officials was ending, and government was being called on to listen to the voices of producers, consumers, processors, urbanites, and rural residents. Pressure came from other fronts as well, including the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the National Farmers’ Union, the Saskatchewan Farmers’ Union, and politicians of all stripes. The 1967 FUA convention heard Roy Atkinson, president of the National Farmers’ Union, call for farmers to drop their allegiance to specialized groups in favour of one organization while Jim Bentley, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, felt it would be a tragedy if a competing national organization destroyed the effectiveness of the CFA. The stop-buying boycott of 1967 and the presence of many National Farmers’ Union supporters set the tone of the FUA convention that year. The boycott, which ended as the result of a resolution passed at the convention, had been only partially successful. In an indication that not everyone went along with the philosophy of the FUA on this boycott, some farmers had continued to make purchases. However, the boycott gathered enough support at the convention to encourage delegates to pass a resolution to support strong bargaining tactics for increased prices of farm produce, although support was not universal. There were objections to the direction the FUA was taking: 2

46

The Organized Farmer, June 10, 1967: 4.



CHAPTER FOUR: TIME FOR DECISION




away from the CFA and toward the collective bargaining tactics of the NFU. 1968 was an important year in the march toward amalgamation.The Alberta Federation of Agriculture appeared to be having second thoughts about joining the Farmers’ Union of Alberta because some of the co-operatives were concerned about domination by the direct membership. In the meantime, the Farmers’ Union of Alberta hosted the National Farmers’ Union at a joint FUA/NFU board meeting at Goldeye Lake Camp on July 29–31.They were there to discuss the NFU plan to change its constitution completely from one based on an association of autonomous provincial groups to one based on three levels of farm organization—local, district, and national—ignoring provincial boundaries and absorbing provincial groups like the FUA. Under the leadership of Roy Atkinson, the National Farmers’ Union had changed into a more strident organization that made many FUA members and officials uncomfortable. In spite of the fact that the NFU and the FUA agreed on many issues, they disagreed on the process of achieving results. The Alberta group watched in amazement as the National Farmers’ Union spoke out against co-operatives. Part of Atkinson’s campaign platform had been a promise to keep the co-ops in line by preventing them from getting into big business and forgetting the people they served.That stance strained the NFU’s relationship with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Eventually, the NFU went so far as to call for a boycott of all co-ops and commercial farm organizations that supported the Ontario Federation. It appeared that the NFU was attacking government and other farm organizations to attract press coverage, and, although they were successful at that, many farmers were alienated by the message. The FUA had to deal with government bodies eventually, so attacking government did not help. Also, FUA members were involved in co-ops themselves, so problems could be dealt with internally rather than in the media. The National Farmers’ Union’s plan to increase membership by raising its profile in the press seemed to backfire. The executive of the National Farmers’ Union was always reluctant to release membership totals, saying that membership was less important than how active it was in pursuing its objectives. Membership in its home base of Saskatchewan was about 17,000 and only about 3,000 in Manitoba. In Ontario, membership was 7,000, including a handful of radicals who pushed the leadership to make extreme statements. National Farmers’ Union total 47



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

national membership at about 27,000 was less than the membership in the provincial FUA. The National Farmers’ Union under Roy Atkinson approached unification as though the FUA had already decided to throw in its lot with the NFU. It is true that several members of the FUA board appeared to be favourably disposed to joining the NFU, particularly because both organizations had common interests in establishing and maintaining marketing boards. In addition, the basic purpose of both organizations was to promote policies that furthered the improvement of social and economic conditions on the family farm. Until 1968, there was every possibility that the FUA would have given up its provincial structure to join the NFU. The message from the NFU changed as discussion about amalgamation continued. It slipped from being a negotiation between equals to a perception that the triumphant NFU was taking over the membership, assets, and bank account of the FUA. This became apparent during the weekend joint board meeting and planning session at Goldeye Camp in the summer of 1968.This aggressive stance caused the FUA to step back and think seriously about its future.The constitution being proposed by the NFU would remove the provincial level of organization in favour of a national organization based on a network of NFU locals.The FUA had concerns about this aspect of the proposal because it would be difficult to negotiate with the provincial government without a provincial structure.Also, compared to the NFU, the FUA had a very large membership with a healthy cash flow and assets such as Goldeye Camp and the office building in downtown Edmonton.The NFU, with fewer assets than the FUA and possibly in debt, was proposing a merger that would make the NFU the senior organization. The FUA Constitutional Committee was charged with listening to further suggestions and presenting the new National Farmers’ Union constitution to the 1968 FUA convention for approval. It created a great deal of discussion there because of the very real possibility that the FUA would be absorbed by the national organization. Once again, the convention delayed a decision on amalgamation and rejected the National Farmers’ Union constitution. As 1969, the year of decision, dawned, Paul Babey was still FUA president, although this contradicted a previous constitutional requirement that restricted a president’s term to five years. In 1968, the executive had recommended that this restriction be waived because the amal48



CHAPTER FOUR: TIME FOR DECISION




gamation process had not been completed. Dobson Lea3 was vice-president, and the executive consisted of Dick Page of Didsbury, Cornie Versluys of Champion, Jack Muza of Empress, and Junior FUA President Cecil Hoven of Eckville as well as the president of the Farm Women’s Union of Alberta, Paulina Jasman of Three Hills. The vice-presidents of the FWUA were May Huddlestun of Pincher Creek and Elizabeth Pedersen of Standard. In the meantime, the Alberta Federation of Agriculture was quickly coming to the realization that even if there were some disadvantages for it in a merger with the Farmers’ Union of Alberta, it was preferable to seeing the FUA swallowed up into the National Farmers’ Union, a national organization that would be competing for attention with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Nelson Malm, president of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, appeared to be supportive of the concept of amalgamation, in spite of the reservations he had expressed a few years earlier. His executive included Paul Babey and Lalovee Jensen as vice-presidents. The board of directors of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture included Dobson Lea and Howard Falkenberg.4 Nelson Malm represented thirty-seven commodity groups of varying sizes and philosophies but was able to persuade everyone that unification would be beneficial.5 The National Farmers’ Union was still in the process of changing from the Interprovincial Farm Union Council and re-defining itself.The newly restructured National Farmers’ Union held its founding convention in Winnipeg on July 30–31, 1969, to adopt its new constitution and establish the NFU as a national organization rather than an association of provincial groups. The Farmers’ Union of Alberta was represented at the convention by about thirty farmers from District 4, about the same number from District 6, the FUA executive, and about half of the board. Some of the Alberta delegates who attended the NFU founding convention, many of them from the northeast part of the province, considered themselves “renegades.” District 4 Director Robert Cheshire of Ashmont threatened to take his district out of the FUA and place it under the umbrella of the Saskatchewan organization so it could join the NFU. Other Albertans softened their “renegade” stance as they became 3

Dobson Lea would succeed Paul Babey as president of Unifarm. Howard Falkenburg would succeed Dobson Lea as president of Unifarm. 5 Nelson Malm and Lalovee Jensen were inducted into the Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame in 1973 and 1974. 4

49



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

less enchanted with the atmosphere of the NFU inaugural convention. John Sawiak of Vegreville was an early NFU supporter because of his belief that strong measures were needed to assure farmers of a fair return for their efforts, but he changed his mind as a result of exposure to some of its tactics at the convention. The old “communist” label, justified or not, was resurrected by some to describe the perception of what was happening within the NFU, dampening the enthusiasm of Alberta observers at the convention. The Farmers’ Union of Alberta was the only provincial organization that did not pass the necessary resolutions to join the newly established NFU. Members of the FUA had to decide whether they were in favour of amalgamating with the National Farmers’ Union, made up of farmers from across the country, or with the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, composed of agricultural co-ops and businesses.The FUA district organizations were asked to study both proposals at a series of meetings and then make a decision. By the time of the summer 1969 FUA board meeting, two district directors announced that they felt their districts would vote in favour of amalgamating with the NFU, eight were opposed to amalgamation with the NFU and would probably vote to join with the AFA, and four were still undecided. A constitution covering a possible FUA/AFA merger was drafted by Jack Muza, FUA executive member from Empress, assisted by Nelson Malm and Jim McFall6 of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, Gordon Harrold of the Alberta Wheat Pool,7 and Paul Babey and Dobson Lea of the FUA. It was a complicated job because the two organizations had different structures. The FUA was based on individual local members who chose delegates to attend the annual convention at district conventions held during the summer and fall. The president and other executive members were chosen at the annual convention. The Alberta Federation of Agriculture was a federation of co-operatives and commodity groups with no local organization. Delegates to their annual meetings were chosen by the member groups. Any constitution would have to accommodate both of these traditions. While farmers across the country waited through the summer, the FUA planned an intensive educational campaign to prepare members for 6

Jim McFall was secretary of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, a position he held for twenty-five years until the formation of Unifarm, where he served until 1973 as secretary to the commodity sector and as part-time librarian until his death in 1983. 7 Gordon Harrold was inducted into the Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame in 1978.

50



CHAPTER FOUR: TIME FOR DECISION




the crucial vote to take place in Edmonton on December 8–12, 1969.As the campaign continued, the FUA and NFU struck an agreement to present all the information regarding both options when they were invited to speak at information meetings. A special edition of The Organized Farmer was distributed which reviewed all the information from the NFU, CFA,AFA, FUA, and FWUA and included the proposed NFU and FUA/AFA constitutions. FUA President Paul Babey was on the road most of the time before the convention, travelling to meetings in the larger centres. The rest of the FUA executive travelled to meetings in smaller centres to discuss issues and answer questions. Other speakers were trained to make presentations, and sub-districts were encouraged to plan meetings featuring guest speakers on this topic. FUA leaders and executive tried desperately to maintain a neutral position and present all the information without emotion or bias. The Farmers’ Union of Alberta became aware that the National Farmers’ Union was sending speakers into Alberta to explain its position, in contravention of the agreement to present both sides of the argument. Some FUA members who had been impressed with the National Farmers’ Union presentations at the 1968 FUA convention and were genuinely weighing both options were invited to “open secret” meetings in selected parts of Alberta. Notification of the meetings was always at the last minute to avoid the attendance of a strong contingent of obvious FUA supporters. Many FUA members objected to this approach because the FUA was still trying to conduct meetings that presented both sides of the argument while the National Farmers’ Union appeared to be sponsoring meetings to present its own case. John Ross, one of those members prepared to listen to the National Farmers’ Union platform, was caught in the middle. As an FUA subdistrict director, he was fully aware that he was to remain neutral and not influence members one way or the other. He also agreed that the FUA had the responsibility to conduct neutral meetings where the decisions could be discussed openly. He was very troubled to be invited to attend the National Farmers’ Union “open secret” meetings where only the NFU argument was presented. He was not the only one who was troubled. In a “Letter to the Editor” from the board of Sub-District 3, District 6, the NFU was accused of conducting closed-door “secret” organizational meetings.8 The letter called on whoever was organizing 8

The Organized Farmer, October 1969: 4.

51



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

the meetings to declare themselves and state who was attending from outside District 6 and explain their purpose in setting up the meetings. The aggressive campaign by the National Farmers’ Union caused Farmers’ Union of Alberta executive members to become more obvious about which side they were supporting. At the end of October, Paul Babey answered the question that many had been waiting to hear when he stated at an October 28 meeting in Holden that a majority of the FUA board and executive favoured the FUA/AFA amalgamation. His reasons for making this choice included the fact that the business groups associated with the Alberta Federation of Agriculture would bring some financial support and the fact that it would retain the provincial structure that he felt was necessary to deal with the provincial government. The two constitutional amendments that would be voted on at the December 1969 annual convention were printed in the October 1969 Organized Farmer, giving delegates the choice between dissolving the FUA to accept the constitution and by-laws of the NFU or amalgamating with the AFA. Excitement built up through the month of November at meetings held to choose delegates to the fateful convention. FUA members were reminded to choose delegates for the upcoming annual convention who would be sure to represent their views. The fateful 1969 convention opened at the MacDonald Hotel in Edmonton, but moved to the Sales Pavilion because more people arrived than could be accommodated in the meeting rooms at the “Mac.” Many locals could not afford to send all their delegates for the whole week, so they arranged for buses to take delegates for the crucial vote. Margaret and Gordon Blanchard9 of the Whitla-Seven Persons Local boarded the bus in Medicine Hat in the middle of the night along with dozens of others, stopping in Leduc for breakfast on the way to the Sales Pavilion at the Edmonton Exhibition Grounds.The bus from Medicine Hat was not the only one to arrive. A future president of the new organization, Hartmann Nagel of Woking, arrived by bus from Grande Prairie after travelling all night to become part of the largest crowd he had ever seen. The Sales Pavilion was an exciting place to be on December 9, 1969. Of the more than 1,700 people gathered at the pavilion, 1,178 registered delegates were able to vote. Everyone was there to watch history being made. Supporters of both sides distributed brochures outside 9

52

Margaret Blanchard served as secretary of Whitla-Seven Persons Local and then vicepresident and president of Women of Unifarm. Gordon Blanchard served as district chair from 1969–75, alternate regional director from 1971–74, regional director from 1974–76 and on the executive from 1977–85, the last five years as vice-president.



CHAPTER FOUR: TIME FOR DECISION




Seventeen hundred members of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta gathered at the Edmonton Sales Pavilion on December 9, 1969, to watch history being made. FUA delegates voted 947 to 173 in favour of amalgamating with the Alberta Federation of Agriculture to form the general farm organization known as Unifarm.

the pavilion.10 Although Margaret Blanchard was not a voting delegate, she listened to the speeches given by Roy Atkinson and Paul Babey and watched to ensure that the delegates from Whitla-Seven Persons voted in the standing vote for the FUA/AFA amalgamation. Hartmann Nagel also remembers the excitement at the sales pavilion and in particular the speeches of the two leaders, Roy Atkinson and Paul Babey. Atkinson gave a fiery speech attacking two of the speakers who would follow him: Lionel Sorel of the dominant farmers’ group from Quebec, the L’Union Catholique des Cultivateurs (LCC), and Sister Thomas More, who had completed her thesis on farm organizations. The LCC was in favour of a national farmers’ group, but only if lines of communication with commodity groups and co-operatives were maintained.This was not acceptable to Atkinson, nor was the suggestion that someone like Sister Thomas More with her academic background 10

No one claimed responsibility for an anonymous anti-FUA handbill distributed at the convention.The mystery was solved when a receipt for payment for printing the offending pamphlet arrived at the offices of FU&CDA.The receipt was from the Alberta Federation of Labour and was made out to the NFU. Obviously it had been sent to the wrong address, so it was returned to the Alberta Federation of Labour to be forwarded to the NFU.Wilf Plosz, “From the Editor’s Desk,” The Organized Farmer, March 1970: 4.

53



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

would have anything to say to farmers.11 Atkinson also attacked the Farmers’ Union of Alberta for using the National Farmers’ Union as a lever for the past two years to coerce farm organizations into a provincial organization. He warned that a provincial organization would further isolate farmers while the National Farmers’ Union would unite farmers from coast to coast in a strong national organization. Paul Babey’s speech outlined the importance of forming a provincial organization by amalgamating with the Alberta Federation of Agriculture as a first step in the formation of a national organization. He also echoed the sentiment of most Alberta farmers, who supported cooperative businesses and wanted to work with them in the interests of agriculture. Paulina Jasman, Farm Women’s Union of Alberta president, spoke against amalgamation with the NFU for the additional reason that there was no provision for a women’s group within the national structure. Babey’s professional appearance and impressive speech reinforced Hartmann Nagel’s decision to vote against the National Farmers’ Union and for amalgamation with the Alberta Federation of Agriculture. This was a momentous day for Paul Babey. Amalgamation of farm organizations had been in the forefront since his election as president six years earlier. He was ultimately responsible for the details of the convention and for making the move from the MacDonald Hotel to the Sales Pavilion. Babey took the microphone several times during the convention to plead for patience and to explain that no one was trying to prevent anyone from voting; they were just having trouble keeping up with registrations. Babey had a restless night before the vote, so he called one of the executive members who acted as his sounding board and confidante, Cornie Versluys of Champion, at 5:00 a.m. Babey asked Versluys how he could possibly be sleeping at this time when the future of farm organization was at stake. He then asked for a survey to be conducted and the results available for him by breakfast. Babey now marvels that he had the nerve to ask such a thing, but Versluys was able to tell him at breakfast that the FUA/AFA amalgamation proposal was likely to win four to one. A process that began decades before and was jolted into action with the presentation of the National Farmers’ Union constitution at 11

54

The huge meeting was pleasantly surprised because Sister Thomas More understood the problems in the agricultural community and knew how to speak to farmers— which she did at considerable length.



CHAPTER FOUR: TIME FOR DECISION




the 1962 FUA convention was finally drawing to a close. All the presidents who had served since the second year of the life of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta—Henry Young, Arnold Platt, Ed Nelson, and now Paul Babey—had become involved in intense negotiations to bring about some form of amalgamation. Finally it was about to happen. Lively and sometimes rancorous debate, skilfully chaired by Cornie Versluys, on the National Farmers’ Union proposal went on for almost three hours before the vote was called. Speakers for the National Farmers’ Union argued forcefully and used tactics that Paul Babey refers to as “parliamentary gymnastics” to try to upset the procedure. Mabel Barker,12 a well-respected member of farm and co-operative organizations, was upset at the tone of the argument, so she stood to say that she thought farmers as a group were too sophisticated for this and that she would not tolerate the crudity and rudeness of some of the speakers for the National Farmers’ Union. Harry Gordon, the first president of the Rose Lynn Alberta Farmers’ Union Local in 1943 and District 11 FUA director since 1964, was responsible for taking the count, a standing vote, in Section H of the Sales Pavilion. Gordon Blanchard and Hartmann Nagel accounted for two of the 946 votes against the National Farmers’ Union proposal for a national organization while 260 delegates, including Robert Cheshire who was the FUA District 4 director, voted in favour. When the time came to vote on the resolution to amalgamate with the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, 947 voted for and 143 voted against the motion. Roy Atkinson could see that the result was a foregone conclusion, but that did not prevent him from announcing that NFU memberships could be purchased by anyone attending the FUA convention. The amalgamation resolution was not the only resolution to be dealt with at the last FUA convention. Another resolution that was passed as an integral part of the AFA/FUA amalgamation proposal called for compulsory membership in the new organization. To accomplish this, the provincial government would have to be approached for permission to hold a plebiscite to determine if the membership approved the implementation of a check-off on all farm products to finance a general farm organization. This was not a popular concept with the government, so 12

Mabel Barker was a charter member of the United Farm Women of Alberta in 1926 and active president and executive member in her local. In recognition of her work in farm organizations and farm co-operatives, Mabel Barker was elected to the Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame in 1975.

55



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

much time and effort would be expended in the coming years to try to achieve a check-off to provide financial stability in the future. The last annual meeting of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture was held in January 1970.The resolution passed at the previous year’s annual meeting to seek amalgamation with the FUA had been implemented and no groups expressed objections.The decision to amalgamate was reconfirmed.A founding convention was announced for March 24, 25, and 26 in Edmonton to officially adopt the constitution and further the business of the new farmers’ group. The 1970 founding convention was conducted according to the bylaws and constitution that had been the basis of agreement at the last FUA convention. Two hundred and eighty delegates elected at regional conventions from the direct membership side of the organization— active farmers and ranchers who paid the annual membership fee and who carried on the business of the organization at district meetings— participated in the convention, along with the same number of delegates elected by the commodity and co-operative side. According to the constitution, this number would remain constant in spite of fluctuations in membership levels. Paul Babey was elected president, with Dobson Lea and Allan Macpherson13 as vice-presidents. Elizabeth (Betty) Pedersen and May Huddlestun were elected to represent the women’s group. Significantly, a resolution was passed at the founding convention to apply for membership in the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. As a result of a “name the organization” contest, the new entity was named Unifarm while the women’s organization would be known as the Women of Unifarm. About two hundred people submitted suggestions for a name to a judging committee which selected several to be discussed at the convention. After about an hour of debate, the name suggested by Gerard Dufour of Spirit River was accepted. Dufour had entered the “name the organization” contest after seeing advertisements in The Organized Farmer. He considered himself a farm 13

Many people were surprised when Nelson Malm did not run for vice-president of Unifarm, but after going through some heated discussions during the amalgamation battle, he decided not to run for a position on the executive of the new organization. Allan Macpherson, vice-president of the Alberta Wheat Pool, was surprised to be elected vice-president of Unifarm at its founding convention.When Allan’s wife, Mildred, did not answer the telephone when he phoned to tell her about his election, Gerard Dufour teased Allan with the comment that she was refusing to talk to him. Allan Macpherson was inducted into the Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame in 1988. 14 A fifteenth district was added in 1983 in northern Alberta.

56



CHAPTER FOUR: TIME FOR DECISION




businessperson rather than a farm labourer, so he did not want to see the new name contain the word “union.” To Dufour, with his French background,“uni” meant “one” or “unity,” and farmers were trying to “speak with one voice.” What he did not mention because he knew he would be laughed at is that other words containing the prefix “uni” were becoming popular in the advertising sector, such as “Unifeed” and—the one he would not say on the floor of the convention in 1970—“unisex.” There were fourteen regions14 in the province, each responsible for electing directors to the provincial board and for discussing resolutions for presentation at the annual convention. The annual convention was the governing body of Unifarm, which elected the president as well as two vice-presidents and directed the board on policy and activities for the coming year.The Unifarm executive consisted of the president, two vicepresidents, and six members elected by and from the board of directors. The board of directors consisted of the president, two vice-presidents, two representatives from the Women of Unifarm, and twenty-eight directors. In addition to the fourteen directors from the direct member side elected at regional meetings, there were fourteen directors representing commodity groups elected at their own annual meetings. In 1970, the Grain Division was entitled to three directors; Dairy Division, two directors; Poultry Division, one director; Farm Supplies Division, two directors; Livestock Division, three directors; Sugar Beet Division, one director; Vegetable and Potato Division, one director; and the Municipal Districts Division, one director. Federal Agriculture Minister H.A. (Bud) Olson spoke to Unifarm delegates about the challenge ahead. He stressed that an amalgamated organization like Unifarm provided the best vehicle for dealing with a future in which agriculture was losing its driving political force because of reduced numbers and diverse needs. Farmers are independent and self-reliant, but even within the same commodity, farmers in one region of the country may want a cutback in production while those in other areas would want an expansion. The best place to sort out these differences was an organization like Unifarm. Some Alberta farmers continued to be active in the National Farmers’ Union because they believed in a national organization and had concerns about the umbrella structure adopted by the new group. The difference in approach between Unifarm and the National Farmers’ Union was highlighted by some of the continuing activities of the NFU. The NFU campaigned vigorously against the orderly marketing programs 57



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

being implemented and put forward a plan of collective bargaining for the sale of farm products. In early 1970, nearly 1,500 singing, chanting, shouting NFU members demonstrated at the legislature building in Edmonton, clamouring to see Premier Harry Strom.This action resulted in publicity for the National Farmers’ Union, but criticism from Unifarm, which felt that more could be accomplished by quiet meetings with the premier and his ministers. Region 11 Director Harry Gordon in central Alberta and Region 1 Director Mike Nikolaychuk from northern Alberta both spoke out against the disruptive and destructive tactics of the NFU. Jim Boyd, a director in Region 7, which included people with strong National Farmers’ Union sympathies, also had some concerns about how he could represent his area because of the divergent opinions in the district. The agricultural community in northern Alberta continued to seethe with unrest. As a result of a very aggressive membership drive in the Rycroft area, the National Farmers’ Union was able to sign up almost everyone in the area, even Unifarm members. The NFU staged noisy demonstrations in Grande Prairie in northwest Alberta and consolidated its support in places like Andrew in the northeast. Unifarm took a dim view of its officers joining the National Farmers’ Union and expelled a few people for carrying two memberships. In spite of their support in northern Alberta, the National Farmers’ Union did not gain much support south of Edmonton although there was an active group in New Norway for a few years. Eventually things calmed down and, although many farmers retained their membership in the National Farmers’ Union, Unifarm was eventually able to sign up their sons. Some of these new Unifarm members were still not prepared to risk telling their fathers what they had done. The amalgamation that had been talked about since the resolution passed at the 1952 FUA convention broached the idea was now a fait accompli. It was a bold experiment. Unifarm officials and members enthusiastically looked to the future without a roadmap. Many wondered about the practicalities of melding individuals with organizational members within the same organization and then working with other groups with different structures on the national stage. Other provinces had adopted the concept of a National Farmers’ Union, a national, allencompassing, borderless organization to lobby at the national level.The creation of Unifarm—and then the creation of the Women of Unifarm—went against this trend and caused an unfortunate split with 58



CHAPTER FOUR: TIME FOR DECISION




NFU supporters. Both groups faced tremendous challenges as the business of agriculture changed and as it became increasingly difficult to maintain voluntary membership in any sort of agricultural organization.

59

CHAPTER FIVE




“ALL THOSE PEPPERMINTS” 1

U

nifarm burst onto the scene in 1970. In spite of conflict with the National Farmers’ Union and concerns about combining a direct member organization with an organization of organizations, 30,000 members made a conscious decision to join the new Alberta organization.The tradition of belonging to a local continued in the early years of Unifarm.According to the constitution, a group of at least six farm units could be registered as a local with central office. Locals met at least once a month and followed other requirements such as holding an annual meeting, electing officers, and keeping minutes and financial records. Historically, locals provided the grassroots strength of the organization. During the era of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta, locals were organized into six or seven sub-districts that made up a district. There were fourteen districts in the province which were administered by the district director, alternate director, and board elected at district conventions of the FUA and FWUA, the women’s organization. The annual convention set the activities of the board and determined policy and activities for the board and the association. Each local was entitled to send at least one delegate; larger locals could send one delegate for every twenty members to the annual convention. Each district board was also entitled to one delegate while the alternate director and sub-director had delegate standing. The president and executive were elected at the annual convention, and the board was made up of the fourteen district directors elected at district conventions. Up to 600 delegates from around the province plus many visitors and onlookers attended the annual convention, which in the early years was usually held at Edmonton’s MacDonald Hotel. It was an important part of the social life of many members of the agricultural community. Farm couples paid their own way, often treating it as a week-long working holiday away from the farm. There they socialized with old friends 1

Courtesy of Harry Gordon of Rose Lynn, commenting on the long drives home from FUA meetings through the dark prairie nights, “And I never charged my expense account with all the peppermints that I’ve eaten to stay awake.”

61



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

and enjoyed social events and the powerful and interesting after-dinner speakers. One of the strengths of the FUA, and later Unifarm, was the process of shepherding policy resolutions from the local, through the sub-districts, then the district conventions and finally to the floor of the annual provincial convention. By the time these ideas had been vetted though sometimes-vigorous debate, a resolution was poised to be taken seriously by provincial or federal governments.The farmers’ organization was truly a “farmers’ parliament” when it met at its annual convention. The convention was a busy, intense series of planning sessions, meetings, and speeches that involved an incredible amount of organization and planning. For Unifarm’s executive and board, the convention started with a meeting at 4:00 p.m. Sunday and ended late Friday afternoon after a week of late night meetings and early breakfasts. The Sunday meeting was spent finalizing the list of people who chaired each session and deciding on the order in which policy resolutions would be discussed. In the early years, policy resolutions were discussed in the order in which they had been submitted and printed in the book. As issues became more numerous and complicated, there was an attempt to prioritize them so they could be discussed in some logical order. Delegates who attended the convention represented the local or the district and were duty-bound to argue on behalf of any resolutions that came up from the local or district and to support or oppose any issue based on instructions from the members who sent them. The people chosen as convention chairs were responsible for ensuring that each issue was dealt with fairly and according to Unifarm rules of procedure. It was an honour to be appointed one of the convention chairs—and it was a huge job. Convention chairs worked together, monitoring the debate and assisting in dealing correctly with resolutions and amendments. If one convention chair became snarled in a particularly controversial issue, another took over and was often able to untangle the debate and move forward. Everyone who attended annual conventions fondly remembers some of the delegates who spoke from the floor, presenting their ideas with passion and keeping the convention chairs honest and on topic. Many of them were Alberta Wheat Pool delegates who had just come from their own Wheat Pool annual meeting at the end of November with up-todate information and experience honed in the heat of recent debate. Not to be outdone, Gordon Blanchard, John Ross, Wilmer Oberg, Rudy Knitel, Betty Pedersen, and Leda Jensen were a few of the many grass62



CHAPTER FIVE: ALL THOSE PEPPERMINTS




roots members speaking on behalf of their Unifarm locals who made major contributions to farm organization. They were a joy to hear. As delegates to the annual conventions, they provided the strength of the organization and represented their locals with pride. The history of each local was different. Some were formed as a result of one of the many ongoing recruiting campaigns so important to farm organizations. According to Harry Gordon, the Rose Lynn Local was formed in 1943 when Alberta Farmers’ Union organizers came to Rose Lynn on a recruiting campaign. After dinner with Harry and Agnes Gordon, they all went to the schoolhouse in the village where about fifteen people gathered to hear the organizers talk about the benefits of belonging to a farm union local. Harry Gordon3 became the first president of Rose Lynn Alberta Farmers’ Union (AFU) Local, which became an FUA local when the Alberta Farmers’ Union and United Farmers of Alberta amalgamated in 1949. Other locals grew up spontaneously because of local unrest. The Allingham Local was established in the Didsbury area when Howard Boles of Three Hills contacted Dick Page in 1958 about forming a local to address the general dissatisfaction of agricultural producers.They were anxious to do something about volatile hog prices and the power of the processing companies as well as a recurring grain surplus. Dick Page became the first president of the Allingham Local. John Ross4 of Gadsby was a strong supporter of the structure of the local. One of the locals in John Ross’s district used the FUA process of policy development to solve a local concern.When members of West Big Valley Local, which borders the Red Deer River, encountered problems with the large deer population, they discussed and debated the situation and came up with a resolution for the upcoming FUA annual convention, calling for wildlife insurance for crop damage to be made available 3

Harry Gordon is a member of the Alberta Wheat Pool, Co-op Implements, UFA Co-op, Hanna Co-op, and Hanna Agricultural Society and served on Unifarm’s cattle, animal health, transportation, and convention planning committees. Harry will be remembered for the kilometres of shelter belt (12,000 trees) that he and his wife, Agnes, planted over the years. 4 John Ross and his wife Jean are typical of thousands of hard-working farm organizers. John was a member of the Alberta Wheat Pool, UFA Co-op, FUA, Unifarm, and Wild Rose Agricultural Producers, while Jean was active with the Farm Women’s Union of Alberta and then Women of Unifarm. Jean was a school teacher before she and John were married. In honour of their teacher, Jean’s students put on a skit parodying the upcoming wedding ceremony featuring the “bride” Jean and the “groom” John. On the back of the “groom” was a big sign that read, “JOHN (UFA CO-OP, WHEAT POOL) ROSS.”

63



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

to all farmers without a premium. John Ross, the director responsible for presenting and arguing in favour of this resolution, thought they were being naïve to expect that it would be accepted, particularly without a premium, but he did what was expected of a delegate and argued strenuously on behalf of the members he represented. No one was more surprised than John when the resolution was carried at the FUA convention and then accepted by the government—without the premium.This is the same wildlife insurance plan that was fine-tuned and is still in place today. November was Membership Drive Month, when members of locals were expected to canvass their neighbours and sign them up as members. While a faithful few always renewed their memberships within a few days of the official year-end of October 31, many had to be reminded, cajoled, and charmed into buying memberships. The annual membership drive was a recurring theme in The Organized Farmer and in the memories of those who did the cajoling and reminding.The November issue of The Organized Farmer included the obligatory message from the president or the secretary, Pansy Molen, exhorting the troops to get out and canvass, canvass, canvass. In every imaginable way, the newspaper focused attention on the importance of belonging to the FUA. There was always a wonderful story to tell of the benefits of membership. Another tack was to scold members because of the scandalous amount of time and energy year after year to get the memberships in. When membership was $10.00, the organization spent $7.00 collecting annual dues, and that did not include mileage for the canvassers who drove from farm to farm to persuade people to buy a new membership or renew the old one. Life Memberships were available for $100 covering husband and wife and juniors 14-21. Some years, two-year memberships were sold in an attempt to cut down on the work. Volunteers spent countless hours on the road selling and renewing meberships, in spite of the good will and enthusiasm shown by members such as the ninety-nine-year-old Margaret Ward of High River:

64



CHAPTER FIVE: ALL THOSE PEPPERMINTS




Am enclosing $5.00 for Margaret Ward’s dues.The fact that she is 99 and in a nursing home for the past three years might interest your readers. She still has her farmland and looks after the business. Her husband came from Ontario in 1905 to homestead in the Vulcan district. In 1920 they moved to the Arrowwood district where they farmed until retirement. One son, Milton, farms at Arrowwood, a younger son, Walter, lives in Brooks, and two daughters, Mrs. Fred Burgess and Mrs M.N. Underhill, live in Vulcan and Calgary respectively. N. Myrtle Ward The Organized Farmer, May 1962: 1

The next membership year, this letter appeared in The Organized Farmer: Thought this little story might help to get the drive off the ground: Last Sunday we visited my husband Milt’s mother in High River Twilight Nursing Home. Gran will be 100 in November. She was reading The Organized Farmer and she said to Milt:‘What’s this about paying your dues for two years?’ Milt explained that it was to save the expense of driving around each year to collect the dues. ‘That makes sense,’ said Granny.‘But I’ll never understand why a farmer has to be asked for his dues. If he were engaged in any other business he’d pay his dues ‘or else’ and they wouldn’t be $5.00 a year. Here’s my $10.00’ How’s that for optimism? Granny was a life member of the old UFA and has always maintained a healthy interest in farms and farmers’ problems. . . . N. Myrtle Ward The Organized Farmer, October 15, 1962: 1

Mike Nikolaychuk of Woking,5 one of the foot soldiers of the farm movement, was involved in many membership drives and remembers canvassing in treacherous conditions. As Mike says, “You got involved and you just kept doing it.” Both Mike Nikolaychuk and Alternate Director Peter Poohkay worked hard on FUA membership drives in District One and feel they got good results from the teams they set up in each district, but it was a thankless and recurring job. There were 926 FUA locals in 1960 with 22,672 farm unit memberships, for a total of 48,182 members. In spite of these large and very 5

Mike Nikolaychuk’s father had been a member of the Alberta Farmers’ Union (AFU) prior to the formation of the FUA.

65



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

satisfying numbers, the FUA always confronted the reality that this was less than half the farmers in Alberta. A comment by the executive at the 1961 annual convention that only thirty-seven percent6 of Alberta farmers were members of the FUA prompted an editorial challenging the organization to examine itself. The editorial pointed out that by concentrating on the smallest farmers and criticizing and penalizing larger farmers, the FUA was marginalizing itself. If the FUA did not balance its efforts and represent larger operations along with smaller producers, it should not be surprised that a majority of farmers did not join the organization.The editorial ended by saying: Finally, consider one further resolution, eventually adopted. It called for a price of $4.00 per bushel for No. 1 Northern wheat. A supporting delegate remarked that since the price of bread has risen lately, “it shouldn’t matter if bread prices went up a few cents more.”Yet the same convention railed against freight rates, against electrical power rates, and against still others, and in the case of railway and electricity, and implement manufacturers, urged nationalization. It all seems to depend on whose ox is being gored. The farm movement in Alberta did not reach its earlier heights with that attitude. It won’t regain them until it again speaks as a business rather than as a mystic way-of-life deserving of special privilege without regard to the rest of the populace or the country’s best interest.7 Ed Nelson’s response to this editorial was quick and indignant. He pointed out that thousands of Alberta farmers, large and small, belonged to the FUA, which used its formidable resources to advocate on behalf of all farmers whether they paid their dues or not. Governments listened because the FUA represented the agricultural community, so annual meetings with Premier Ernest Manning and the provincial cabinet to discuss current issues were important occasions. Ralph Jespersen,8 Social Credit MLA for Stony Plain from 1967 to 1971, remembers being impressed with the FUA at these meetings because of the huge membership it represented. 6

According to Ed Nelson, at the time of the 1961 annual convention the membership stood at about 25,000 out of 70,000 farmers in Alberta. 7 The Organized Farmer, January 1962: 11. 8 Ralph Jespersen was president of Unifarm from 1987–90.

66



CHAPTER FIVE: ALL THOSE PEPPERMINTS




This cartoon in the June 1969 Organized Farmer by Vance Rodewalt, editorial cartoonist for the Calgary Herald since 1984, was one of the many ways the FUA illustrated the services it provided to the farming community. 67



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

One farmer had a great deal to be thankful for. In response to a safety article in The Organized Farmer, he had written to the office asking what he should do about a wooden box of sixty percent dynamite that had been in the grain hopper of an old grain grinder in a granary for about twelve years. There seemed to be a sugary substance on the outside which was probably nitro-glycerine. When the FUA member services staff received this letter, they called the Alberta Research Council who marvelled that it hadn’t exploded years ago and suggested they contact the RCMP. The RCMP arranged for an explosives unit from the Canadian Army Base at Suffield to dispose of the dynamite properly. Because the FUA did so much work on behalf of all Alberta farmers, paid for through the memberships of fewer than half those who benefited, the FUA began campaigning for a compulsory fee to be deducted from a particular transaction or collected along with municipal taxes to alleviate the problem of the time-consuming, expensive, thankless job of collecting farm union memberships.Westlock Municipal District #92 made history in 1958 when it became the first MD to officially pass a by-law to collect FUA dues through the Municipal Office. The by-law made it possible for farmers to sign a requisition form addressed to the MD Council requesting that FUA dues be added to their municipal tax notice and collected annually through the Municipal Office. The FUA wrote to forty-eight other municipalities asking them to institute a similar plan. Of the twenty-three replies, fifteen agreed to pursue this method of collecting dues. One year, District 8 managed to establish a universally funded FUA membership plan for approximately 1,400 Stettler-area residents. Eighty-five to ninety percent of area residents signed a request form to transfer $5,000 from the municipality to the FUA instead of selling individual memberships—until an amendment to the Provincial Municipal Act ended the plan. During the 1962 FUA presentation to the provincial cabinet, the Honourable Alf Hooke, Minister of Municipal Affairs, responded to the request for a more workable method of collecting memberships through the municipalities. In an indication of the power and importance of the FUA organization, Hooke agreed to meet with municipal secretaries to urge them to develop a uniform method of putting dues on the tax notice, although they could not be added to the taxes. In another indication of the importance of the Farmers’ Union, Premier Manning stated on one of his regular telecasts that everyone should belong to the FUA.9 68



CHAPTER FIVE: ALL THOSE PEPPERMINTS




One of the more innovative incentives to sell memberships was to reward the most successful canvassers with a complimentary bus tour. Paul Babey, 1962 membership chair, organized the first tour to Ottawa and Toronto and arranged for sponsorships from the United Farmers of Alberta Co-op, Alberta Wheat Pool, United Grain Growers, Federated Co-operataives Ltd., Co-operative Fire and Casualty, Canadian Cooperative Implements Ltd., and Northern Alberta and Central Alberta Dairy Pools. In other years, tours went through British Columbia and one of the most sought-after went to Expo 67 in Montreal.

DON’T LEAVE IT TO JOE! You got that same old feeling again that the winter lasted already too long, and that you want to do something? FEBRUARY 12 IS YOUR DAY! Do the Mop-up Campaign of the Membership Drive DON’T SAY “LET JOE DO IT! That isn’t fair to Joe, nor to all other members of the FUA, yourself included. Joe WILL be out on February 12, but shouldn’t members be ashamed of themselves if they would leave it all to that trusted old workhorse, Joe. Shouldn’t they feel real cheap if they would leave it all to him, who has already done so much? Wouldn’t they be cheating on their own responsibility? Joe’s work does not involve any dangers.We have checked the history of the FUA, and no canvasser has ever been reported missing through acts of cannibalism. Joe has always returned from all his canvassing trips whole and hearty. He has found his neighbours to be friendly. He says:“They listen to me, because I am working for something much greater than me. I am working for the FUA, for every farmer in Alberta.” Go out on February 12 and get memberships for the FUA.You will be proud of yourself when you can say: I WAS JOE! The Organized Farmer, February 5, 1963: 1

9

The Organized Farmer, May 17, 1963: 1.

69



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Not only were people needed to conduct membership drives, willing volunteers were needed to fill executive positions at the local, subdistrict, district, and provincial levels. This was a constant battle because it took so much time and money. It would be impossible to estimate the financial impact on a farm family. J. Ken McIntosh of Grande Prairie, who served as FUA vice-president in 1965 after several years as District 1 director and member of the FUA executive, is one of the many FUA members who agreed to take on leadership positions. He made the very difficult decision not to stand for election for any position in 1967: NOTICE President Paul Babey, Executive and Board Members, and The Membership of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta As your vice-president I have found the past two years very rewarding but fought with continual difficulties on the home front.The type of help with which I have had to contend has been inadequate to say the least and when left for more than a day or two has cost far more than wages.The result has been a neglect of FUA responsibilities and I believe any failure, for whatever reason, is not good enough, and demands remediation action. During the past month in particular, we at home have been going through the torture of the damned in attempting to come to the right decision.We have even conferred with real estate people with a view of selling the farm in order to further serve organized agriculture.The plain fact is that we dare not rent or leave the farm with inadequate management when carrying long term financial obligations of a sizeable nature. Our final decision is that we cannot sell the farm and must therefore reluctantly refrain from accepting any nomination at the forthcoming FUA convention. I make this announcement so that at least some time remains for decisions to be made by others to whom I “throw the ball.” Yours sincerely, J. Ken McIntosh The Organized Farmer, November 25, 1967: 2

The relentless membership drives to maintain and increase membership numbers went against population trends that saw declining rural population.What might be considered a symptom of the changes occurring in rural Alberta happened in 1965 when three radio stations dropped the “Voice of Agriculture” radio program run by Bill Harper of the FUA. The “Voice of Agriculture” had been carried from Monday to Saturday, 70



CHAPTER FIVE: ALL THOSE PEPPERMINTS




including Christmas Day and other holidays, on up to eight radio stations since 1959.The withdrawal left Bill Harper with three stations prepared to carry his programs: two original participants, Dawson Creek and the French station in Edmonton, CHFA, plus a Lethbridge station. It cost the FUA $4,500 per year to do the broadcast which would only be heard by about fifteen percent of the population, so the decision was made to cancel the whole program.The last broadcast was on November 19, 1965.

HE WILL BECOME DISORGANIZED: In answer to our request to Mr.Thomas Harper that he renew his membership, we received the following letter. “I have sold my farm and am retiring from all work, as I am going to the Okanagan to become disorganized for the rest of my life.” Thomas K Harper Manning, Alberta The Organized Farmer, November 27, 1967: 1

The formation of Unifarm in 1970 brought major changes to the structure of farm organizations. Individuals who had supported their local for many years found themselves attending meetings and conventions with representatives of co-op and commodity organizations. Locals might continue to exist, but all direct members were members of the provincial organization and of the district organization, which replaced the local as the basic working unit.10 A district council, consisting of a chair, vicechair, and not more than ten directors, was responsible for looking after local interests, projects, and co-operative activities in the district.The district council also looked after organizational duties such as collecting direct membership fees, preparing resolutions to take to annual conventions, and electing convention delegates. Several districts made up a region.There were fourteen regions, each of which was represented by a director elected annually at a regional meeting to sit on the provincial board. The provincial board was made up of these fourteen regional directors plus an equal number of representatives of the commodity side of the organization and the executive elected at the convention. 10 The

district boundaries were based on county or rural municipality boundaries.

71



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

There was great enthusiasm for Unifarm, a fledgling organization of 30,000 with its new commodity and co-operative business members, which gave it stature and new issues to discuss. Farm leaders at all levels of the organization who had been engrossed in the amalgamation issue for seven years could be excused if they relaxed a little after accomplishing a long-awaited but difficult task. Paul Babey, the flamboyant, enthusiastic dynamo who had spent seven years as president, first of the FUA and then for the first year of Unifarm, announced that he was stepping down.The new president,11 Dobson Lea, was from Jarvie, a community 70 miles north of Edmonton. He had a long history with farm organizations, including the Alberta Federation of Agriculture and the Farmers’ Union of Alberta, before he became Unifarm vice-president at the inaugural meeting in 1970. The new constitution established two categories of members: direct members and organizational members.There were direct unit memberships for active farmers and ranchers, with associate non-voting memberships available to those who had retired and for those in related occupations. Organizational memberships included farm co-operatives, commodity groups, and marketing boards. According to the new constitution, the organizational side was financially responsible for matching the portion of the budget raised by the direct membership in the previous year, putting the responsibility for the size of the budget on the shoulders of the membership committee. Organizational members paid a proportional amount of their half of the Unifarm budget, depending on the size of their membership. Thus began a complicated formula for determining how many direct members there were each year in order to assess the amount of the budget to be paid by the organizational side. It was difficult to account for all the potential members of the co-ops and commodity groups who should also belong to Unifarm. One of the premises at the time of the formation of Unifarm was that the government could be persuaded to permit a check-off or similar method of collecting dues so the new organization would be able to depend on a more stable source of funding.The FUA membership committee reported that a one-tenth of one percent check-off on the sale of 11 This

was a contested election. Running against Dobson Lea was Elmer Kure, a young farmer from Innisfail who was unknown to most of the 500 delegates at the convention. Bill Nicol from Kipp was defeated by Dick Page of Didsbury who took over from Dobson Lea as vice-president. Allan Macpherson was returned unopposed as vice-president representing commodity groups. The Organized Farmer, December 1970: 1.

72



CHAPTER FIVE: ALL THOSE PEPPERMINTS




agricultural products in Alberta would yield the substantial amount of $800,000 annually.An attempt was made at the national level, but the federal government was not sympathetic to having farm union dues collected through the Canadian Wheat Board. The Alberta Social Credit government of the time was sympathetic to farm organizations and, although it had not approved a check-off system, it encouraged municipal district offices to facilitate the collection of membership dues. Delegates to the 1969 convention passed a resolution calling on the FUA to make every effort to establish compulsory membership as soon as possible, based on indications from provincial Agriculture Minister Henry Ruste that the government could pass the necessary legislation if a majority of Alberta farmers indicated they would approve. Unifarm came very close to achieving a check-off, but the change in government in 197112 put those plans on hold.The new minister of agriculture, Dr. Hugh Horner,13 indicated at the Women of Unifarm annual convention in 1973 that he had concerns about a check-off. He thought it would be difficult to determine who was a farmer and who should represent the farmer. He worried that with a check-off, Unifarm could become like the organizations in which only about five percent of the people did the work. He felt that if Unifarm was a good organization, it should able to attract a large membership.14 This answer from the minister of agriculture in the new government was disappointing, forcing Unifarm to rely on collecting memberships in the old way. By the mid-1970s when Unifarm officials realized they would not be given the right to a check-off and that they would have to reapply pressure on members to renew their memberships, the momentum of the annual membership drive had been lost and there were fewer people to do the work. The farm population had been decreasing by about 1,000 farm families per year since the mid-1950s, which naturally affected the size and number of locals. The new Unifarm structure recognized the trend by making the district the basic unit, but this robbed the organization of the local members who could persuade neighbours to buy memberships. Many loyal farm union members see this as the weakness of Unifarm, although it may have been unavoidable because the living rooms were just not filling up for local meetings anymore. 12 In August

1971, the Progressive Conservatives under Peter Lougheed replaced the Social Credit party that had governed Alberta since 1935. 13 Hugh (Doc) Horner was a medical doctor with a farm in the Barrhead area. 14 Farm Trends, October-November 1973: 6.

73



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

Mike Nikolaychuk

Dick Page

Harry Gordon

Cornie Versluys

 CARROL JAQUES 

A few of the countless hundreds who toiled in the service of agricultural organizations. Gordon Blanchard 74



CHAPTER FIVE: ALL THOSE PEPPERMINTS




The reality of membership drives had not changed. It was still inefficient because of the cost and effort required to collect the money, but it was a job that had to be done. In spite of Unifarm’s efforts to remind farmers of the importance of supporting their organization and in spite of incentives to farmers to sign up new members, membership levels continued to drop. Field workers to do the membership canvass were scarce. It was difficult to keep in touch with grassroots members and to keep them informed, whether they organized themselves into locals or at the district level. Other means of maintaining membership were tried, including a system of direct mail renewal with some follow-up by district volunteers. By the early 1970s, memberships could be renewed on a continuous basis with twelve months of services available from the date of purchase, eliminating the membership drives that took up so much time in October and November, although by 1976, the expiry date reverted to December 31. Unifarm continued to be a strong, well-respected organization with a changing and updated image, reflected in its professional-looking new publication, Farm Trends, which replaced the newspaper-style Organized Farmer in April 1970. The format for Farm Trends was magazine style, packed with information, and included an insert called “Farm Business” covering national and international issues. Information and articles for the magazine came from academic institutions and government departments, which kept farmers up-to-date on new research as well as economic and political changes affecting the agricultural community. Farm Trends also published results of a price-monitoring service it conducted with financial assistance from the provincial Agriculture Department.The Agriculture Input Monitoring System was put in place to identify any abnormal change in the price or supply of some farm inputs and to compare the situation with other sectors of the economy and other regions of the country. Unifarm arranged for one person in each district to gather local price information on a monthly basis for about forty items such as barn paint, tires, storage batteries, antifreeze, and baler twine. Bonnie Carney of Three Hills was one of the district price checkers who were paid $20 for each complete report sent to Unifarm central office. Unifarm Secretary Willow Webb co-ordinated the project, collecting the information and forwarding it to the Engineering Branch of the Department of Agriculture for analysis by computer. If Unifarm noticed discrepancies that could not be explained or corrected, the minister of agriculture was notified. The Agriculture 75



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Input Monitoring System provided valuable information to local farmers and to the minister of agriculture, but it also strengthened the organizational structure by involving local Unifarm members in a large important project. Five years after the formation of Unifarm, FarmTrends began to carry articles dealing with the serious membership problem. Many farmers were under the impression that belonging to one or more of the organizational members of Unifarm meant that they were automatically members themselves. In an article in the September 1975 Farm Trends, President Dobson Lea asked for assistance in identifying and canvassing areas where membership was declining. In his President’s Address later that year, he admitted that it was possible that the local had provided a more useful method of canvassing because neighbours were more successful in selling memberships—especially in sparsely populated areas. Faced with the very real necessity of maintaining and increasing membership, he admitted that the restructuring of Unifarm on a local, rather than district basis, might deserve consideration.15 Membership fees were increased to $30.00 in 1976 after being $15.00 for a few years, an indication of the inflationary pressures of the 1970s, as well as the need to maintain the budget level. Unifarm had not given up on the idea of a check-off. In its brief to the provincial cabinet in 1976, Unifarm made its case for a check-off on the sale of all agricultural products to finance a general farm organization, or a trust established for agricultural research purposes for those who wished. Since many of Unifarm’s undertakings in the province had been beneficial to the whole rural community, members and non-members alike, it seemed only fair that non-members should contribute their share. Unfortunately, because non-members received the same benefits without the expense of joining, others were reluctant to buy a membership, knowing that it would only benefit the farmer down the road who refused to join the organization. Unifarm was forced to confront the issue of membership that had fallen from 30,000 in 1969 and 23,000 in 1970 to 13,000 in 1976. No one seemed able to solve the problem of maintaining the loyalty of people whose world was changing as farms became larger. A task force was established to examine Unifarm’s structure and objectives, chaired 15 Dobson

Lea, President, Unifarm Sixth Annual Convention Programme, December 8–12: 10.

76



CHAPTER FIVE: ALL THOSE PEPPERMINTS




The FUA depended on volunteers to sell memberships during the annual membership blitz.This cartoon by Vance Rodewalt in the January 11,1969, Organized Farmer implored: “Let’s get at it.”

by President Dobson Lea and made up of representatives from Unifarm and REDA, as well as Alf Petersen of the University of Alberta Department of Rural Economy and former FUA president, Arnold Platt. One of the problems highlighted by the task force was the development of separate organizations or commodity groups.When there was a problem in the agricultural community, Unifarm was often called upon for advice. On occasion, the result was the formation of an educational program, advocacy group, commodity group, commission, or board to deal with the situation. Some of the Unifarm members who brought the issue to the attention of Unifarm then drifted away to concentrate on this particular interest, taking their leadership talents and financial support with them. Some of the new groups were funded through a checkoff, so there was no need to canvass for memberships.The fact that these organizations often qualified for government funding to finance their activities and their conventions provided an incentive—and competition to Unifarm, which funded all its activities out of membership fees. Individuals who could attend well-subsidized provincial meetings and conventions of the Alberta Surface Rights Federation, the Alberta Federation of Gas Co-ops, and the Alberta Rural Electrification Associations were reluctant to pay to attend Unifarm conventions. Some former hard-working Unifarm members and many younger farmers— and prospective Unifarm members—were lost to these new groups. 77



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

DOBSON LEA

D

obson Lea of Jarvie was born in Tryon, Prince Edward Island, in 1913 and came to Alberta at the age of three. Dobson Lea’s father established a dairy farm with the Holstein dairy cattle he brought out by train from Prince Edward Island. Dobson did not start school until he was nine because, until then, the community had no school; later, he attended Strathcona High School in Edmonton, where he boarded with an aunt.After receiving a B.A. from Dobson Lea the University of Alberta in 1935, he went back to farming, bought a threshing machine, and went around the area with a threshing crew. He met his wife Mary when she taught in Jarvie after being evacuated to Canada from her missionary work in China during the Second World War. Because of the hostilities, she was not able to go to her home in Ireland for the duration of the war. Dobson Lea was appointed to the Alberta Hog Producers Marketing Board and became an FUA sub-district director, district director, and then regional director before becoming president of Unifarm in 1971, bringing his wide knowledge of the commodity sector to the position. Dobson Lea served as Unifarm president for seven terms from 1971 to 1977 before moving on to become president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

Unifarm was forced to confront the issue of its budget at the 1976 annual convention.16 Revenue from memberships had declined substantially, compromising the budget process because the amount paid by organizations was based on the amount brought in by the membership side.A constitutional amendment changed the guidelines for assessing the 16 At

78

the 1976 convention, President Dobson Lea defeated Allen Parker, a Two Hills dairy farmer, in the first contested election for president in many years.This was his seventh and last year as Unifarm president.



CHAPTER FIVE: ALL THOSE PEPPERMINTS




Dobson Lea travelled extensively by air and road, often with his briefcase open and a notepad on his knee. After late meetings, he would travel the seventy miles (112 km) home from Edmonton to Jarvie and still be back in the office the next morning after doing the farm chores. He often arrived early at the Edmonton office after a snowstorm in time to shovel the parking lot before the rest of the staff arrived. He continued to milk the cows, descendants of the ones that had come out in the boxcar from Prince Edward Island. In the early days, the Leas took the cream cans to Jarvie where they were sent by train to the dairy in Westlock, but the dairy industry changed along with everything else during the time Dobson was involved, and he eventually made the decision to sell the operation.Dobson was open-minded and fair, with a wealth of agriculture experience, a man totally dedicated to farm organizations. He was an able negotiator who used common sense in his dealings with everyone, which stood him in good stead when he was involved with the Alberta Hog Producers Marketing Board during the years when issues and personalities created some difficult situations. His philosophy of “consultation, not confrontation” meant that doors opened to him that might not have opened to other agricultural producers. When Dobson Lea stepped down after three years as president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in 1981, Federal Agriculture Minister, Eugene Whelan, praised him for his lifetime of dedication to Canadian farmers and for his forty years as an elected official in farm organizations. He was appointed to the Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame in 1980 and made an honorary member of the Agriculture Institute of Canada. He died November 29, 1991, at the age of 78.

amount paid by the organizational side.The first step in the new budget process was to calculate the total budget for running Unifarm and then subtract income from the sale of memberships. The difference between what was needed to run the organization and the income from memberships was paid by the organizations on a proportional basis calculated on their size and profit. Since many organizations had been granted the right to raise funds through a system of check-offs that came out of the 79



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

pockets of Unifarm members and potential members, Unifarm felt justified in assessing a membership fee to these organizations. Unifarm executive member and membership chair Stan Bell launched a campaign to remedy the membership problem with an oldfashioned membership drive. He threatened to use his size 12 boots on any of the nearly 400 delegates to the 1976 annual convention who did not go home and round up more members. Unifarm trained district organizers and then co-ordinated and launched a focused, month-long membership drive for the 1977 membership year.Those who volunteered to sell memberships were encouraged to point to the concrete advantages of holding a Unifarm membership—and there were many advantages. It could even be argued that it was crucial that Unifarm provide these benefits for members because its other activities resulted in benefits for all farmers, not just those who paid their dues. One of the advantages close to the hearts of Unifarm members was the opportunity for members to purchase insurance at lower group rates from The Co-operators. Cooperators insurance agents sold thousands of FUA/Unifarm memberships with the thousands of insurance policies they sold.

80

CHAPTER SIX




“TEN MILES EACH WAY” 1

T

he Farmers’ Union of Alberta had great energy and unlimited conviction in its ability to ensure farmers were treated fairly. As the costs of running a farm escalated, farmers took particular exception to the increasing cost of motor vehicle insurance taking a larger and larger bite out of their income. It was one of the consistent, and consistently rising, input costs of farming that could not be avoided even when farm income was falling. If farmers could not control grain prices, FUA members believed they could work together to reduce their expenses. In earlier attempts to control insurance costs, the FUA had approached the provincial government with the suggestion that public liability and property damage insurance be issued at cost with each car and truck registration. Vice-President Henry Young outlined a plan to add a fee for compulsory motor vehicle insurance to the cost of licence plates, which he believed would keep insurance costs down by eliminating the cost of agents’ commissions, company overhead, and advertising.2 After his proposal was made to the provincial government, the FUA urged all members to contact their MLAs to reinforce these suggestions. In spite of the meetings and the phone calls and letters, the provincial government did not take any action, so the FUA retrenched and used its own formidable resources to bring insurance costs under control. Automobile insurance was not compulsory at the time, and only about half the drivers in the province were covered, putting everyone at risk. In an effort to encourage everyone to take out casualty insurance as well as to reduce its cost, a committee of members of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta and the Alberta Federation of Agriculture held meetings with

1

Co-op Insurance agent Charlie Plank sold insurance to all the farmers “four ways from his home and ten miles each way.” 2 In 1950, a national Fire and Casualty Insurance Co-operative was being organized by Co-operative Life.When Henry Young’s article appeared, the organizers sent a letter to Mr. Murray Demings, treasurer of the Alberta Co-operative Wholesale Association, asking if there would be a conflict between the FUA and Co-operative Life. Letter, June 12,1950.The Co-operators archives, Guelph, Ontario.

83



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

insurance companies and gathered information. A member of the executive, Ivy Taylor of Wainwright, was very interested in setting up an insurance plan for the FUA, although Henry Young, by now FUA president, was more interested in continuing to put pressure on the Alberta government to establish a compulsory government insurance plan. In 1955, the FUA explored the possibility of increasing and maintaining FUA membership by tying it to an insurance plan. FUA/AFA insurance committee members talked to Roy Halen, the new Alberta provincial manager for Co-operative Fire and Casualty, who had been sent out from Regina to expand the Saskatchewan-based company.3 Halen contacted head office in Regina, pointing out the potential in co-operating with the Farmers’ Union, but he was not sure there was any basis for providing auto or fire insurance on a group basis.4 After further discussions with the insurance committee, Co-operative Fire and Casualty was asked to develop a procedure to establish a group or “pooled” motor vehicle insurance plan. With the encouragement of FUA President Arnold Platt, a resolution was passed at the December 1956 FUA convention asking the board of directors to establish a motor vehicle insurance pool. This resolution followed the defeat of a motion by Vice-President Henry Young—who represented a philosophy that was becoming muted in the FUA—urging members to make one more attempt to have the provincial government establish a compulsory government-run automobile insurance plan. FUA executive members Ed Nelson and Ivy Taylor were nominated to serve on the insurance committee that would carry out the resolution.They reported to the 1957 convention that, after negotiating with other companies, Co-operative Fire and Casualty had agreed to administer the FUA motor vehicle insurance pool. Co-op Fire and Casualty, like all other insurance companies, was required to meet provincial regulations and standards. It had been established as a national entity in 1952 through the support of co-operatives and farm organizations across Canada.The only difference between the pooled insurance the FUA hoped to offer and regular insurance was that FUA insurance would be offered at cost.There was no need to do extensive advertising or to make a profit on the transaction for shareholders or 3

Roy Halen’s father had been involved with the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool since its inception in 1924 as well as with other co-ops and credit unions. 4 Roy Halen, Letter to Mr. E.E. Garnett, general manager, Co-operative Fire and Casualty, March 3, 1955.The Co-operators archives, Guelph, Ontario.

84



CHAPTER SIX: “TEN MILES EACH WAY”




agents. It would be similar to insurance for taxi companies and operators of large fleets of vehicles, and offered on the premise that farmers had the lowest accident rate of any group of drivers in Alberta. Co-op Fire and Casualty agreed to activate the FUA group insurance plan once 7,500 policies were sold.This was the minimum needed to ensure that the risk could be shared among enough people so a few large claims would not put the pool out of business. FUA auto pool insurance was sold through a system resembling catalogue sales, with advertising flyers distributed in The Organized Farmer. FUA secretary Pansy Molen was issued an insurance agent’s licence to write up the policies, and the FUA received a commission of $1.50 per policy.5 To increase sales, Co-op Fire and Casualty agents were sent out to district conventions, sub-district conventions, and workshops to fill out applications for FUA members that would become effective on the expiry date of their current insurance policy. By December 1957, only 2,411 firm applications had been received. In typical human fashion, people had expressed an interest but did not take the next step—to switch their insurance coverage to Co-op Fire and Casualty. Ed Nelson was puzzled because people had asked for an FUA insurance pool, but they were not prepared to change their existing insurance policies. Many of these farmers had said, over and over, “The Farmers’ Union must do something for us.” Ed Nelson implored people to “join now” because there would be no other chance to save money on their insurance policies unless everyone joined the pool and established a lower premium rate through their participation and lower accident statistics. If farmers did not sign up soon, Ed Nelson lamented that the time and effort—and money—already expended by the insurance committee would have been wasted. If farmers did not sign up, then what, really, did they expect of their farm organization? The FUA and Co-op Fire and Casualty, assisted by the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, embarked on a program to increase sales. Jim McFall, secretary of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, sent a letter to its member groups asking for assistance in promoting the auto insurance pool. The Alberta Wheat Pool agreed to mention the FUA auto pool during the 10:00 p.m. news broadcasts it sponsored on three radio stations. Roy Halen, Co-op Fire and Casualty Alberta provincial manager, 5

Co-op Fire and Casualty moved from the fourth floor of the Northern Hardware Building to the second floor of the new FUA building in June 1959 where their agents were available to sign insurance policies.When they outgrew that office space three or four years later, they moved into office space in the adjacent office building.

85



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

In an effort to increase the number of insurance policies purchased by FUA members, The Organized Farmer published the current list of FUA auto pool insurance agents like this one in December 1958. Many Alberta Wheat Pool and Co-operative Association representatives became FUA auto pool insurance agents. 86



CHAPTER SIX: “TEN MILES EACH WAY”




did his part. He travelled to every little town and village in Alberta where he explained the advantages of Co-op Fire and Casualty insurance at local FUA meetings. Co-op Fire and Casualty hired and trained local FUA organizers, Wheat Pool agents, and Co-op staff to sell FUA auto insurance. There were 180 agents selling auto insurance by January 1959 when the FUA auto pool officially started operation and 11,000 policies had been sold by the end of that year. Since an FUA membership was needed to become part of the insurance “pool,” Co-op Insurance agents sold FUA memberships along with insurance policies, and FUA annual membership dues were included in the bill to renew automobile insurance. Many of the early Co-op Fire and Casualty agents were FUA members. For people like Charlie Plank of Rimbey, it was a way to supplement their farm income. Charlie took his rate book to FUA meetings to talk to farmers about changing their insurance policy. It usually meant a visit to their farm to compare his rates with the old policy, but eventually Charlie signed up the farms “four ways from his home for ten miles each way.” As Co-op Fire and Casualty agents like Charlie Plank signed up more and more farmers to the FUA auto insurance pool, other local insurance agents lost business. This bothered some farmers, particularly when these agents were friends or neighbours. Regular insurance companies were concerned enough that they struck back by advertising that they were very well established, with knowledgeable and more experienced agents available. Dan Manderson of Ryley, a very active FUA and Unifarm member who sold Co-op pool insurance on a part-time basis, counters this claim by pointing out that many of his neighbours had been sold “Five Point Insurance” by high pressure insurance salesmen that he considered inadequate and inappropriate. Manderson says he took some business from other local insurance agents, but because he only worked at it part-time and because he did not use a lot of pressure, he felt comfortable about it. Farmers were reminded that these other local insurance agents had been well paid for their services in the past and that farmers had subsidized expensive services at a time when farm income was falling. Co-operative insurance was one way the individual farmer could have some impact on rising farm costs. One of the positive results of the FUA insurance pool was the safety education that accompanied it. Ivy Taylor of the insurance committee wrote to all members to impress upon them the importance of preventing accidents because insurance rates were established based on the accident 87



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

The Organized Farmer also ran ads for the FUA auto pool insurance like this one in the December 1958 edition.

experience of FUA members. Members were reminded to stay alert when driving to save money for themselves and the auto pool.6 Taylor placed periodic notices in The Organized Farmer notifying members of free films on automobile safety available without charge from the Alberta Safety Council, Department of Extension, University of Alberta. The FUA auto pool officially went into operation in 1959 with regular rates in effect for the first year until the loss experience of the pool was established.At the end of the year, all costs of operating the auto pool were tabulated and paid with the profits resulting from a lower accident rate for FUA members and lower administration costs returned in the form of reduced premiums for 1960.The actual results of the 1959 auto insurance pool were disappointing because a series of serious accidents 6

88

Arnold Platt, president of the FUA, may have been a little chagrined to see an announcement in the June 1958 Organized Farmer: “Platt Family in Car Accident.” There were no serious injuries, but Arnold and his wife and daughter were hospitalized and the car was destroyed when it careened into a 20-foot ditch near Ranfurly.



CHAPTER SIX: “TEN MILES EACH WAY”




in November and December wiped out previous gains. But because operating expenses were lower than those in other companies, and were expected to be lower in 1960, a five percent benefit on renewals of public liability, property damage, and collision on farm automobiles was announced for FUA members in good standing. A press release of June 13, 1960, announced that the FUA had negotiated an agreement with Co-operative Life Insurance Company to offer group life insurance to FUA members through agents of the auto insurance pool. It proved to be a successful venture for Co-operative Life Insurance Company. After a strong start in 1960, policies increased by thirty percent from 1961 to 1962, adding $2 million to Co-op Life’s total assets in the year. Also in 1960, coverage was extended to legal liability and employers’ liability. Another expansion occurred in 1961 when it was possible to buy fire and floater insurance to insure farm property under the same “pool” operation. Each of these plans provided insurance to FUA members for reasonable rates, with the possibility of a rebate each year when expenses and claims were kept to a minimum. Auto insurance trustees Ed Nelson and Ivy Taylor announced a seven percent dividend for 1961, up from four percent for 1960, which reduced premiums for the next year by that amount.There had been a $50,000 surplus, half of which was held in reserves. This was wonderful news for President Ed Nelson, indicating that farmers were better risks than other drivers. The insurance committee continued to study the subject and monitor the progress of the FUA insurance pool. The committee also continued to promote safety and make recommendations to the government on no-fault insurance, auto insurance ratings, and compulsory cards for policyholders. By 1963, about one-half of FUA members were in the auto pool. The management of Co-op Fire and Casualty was able to refuse some FUA applications for insurance if the applicants had poor driving records or for other reasons that could add to the cost of insurance for everyone in the pool. Four hundred and seventy FUA families took advantage of the life insurance offered by Co-operative Life Insurance on the same pooling concept as auto insurance. When co-op auto insurance rates began to rise again in 1963, The Organized Farmer devoted a column to this topic. Readers were gently reminded that insurance risks were determined for classifications of drivers, not for individuals, and that with more cars on the road even good drivers ran the risk of having accidents.The basic co-operative principle 89



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

of insurance was to spread the premiums of the many over the losses of the few so that no one would be faced with a crushing burden as a result of a car accident. Costs were kept down because profits were used to provide service, not pay dividends to shareholders. Co-op Fire and Casualty Company, which merged with Co-operative Life to become Co-operative Insurance Services (CIS) in 1963 and The Co-operators in 1976, provided a true at-cost service. However, the cost of claims to the auto pool continued to rise, even though the FUA auto insurance pool remained the best deal in the province because members were shielded from many of the administration costs according to the agreement with CIS.As expenses continued to rise, The Organized Farmer declared that the cost of claims was “out of control,”7 so auto pool drivers were exhorted to drive safely. Not only were there more accidents, costs escalated because cars were more expensive to repair, people doing auto body repair were paid more, and parts were becoming more costly. In addition, insurance costs covered advanced and more expensive medical treatments that were being developed to ensure that a person injured in a car accident had a better chance of surviving and returning to a normal life. The FUA 1964 brief to the provincial government asked for a commission to determine if all the present costs were justified and to conduct an unbiased appraisal of a government insurance plan. No dividend was declared for 1964.The lowest dividend since the origin of the FUA auto pool, 3.75%, followed in 1965. However, FUA auto pool members made up for their poor showing in the next year when a nine percent dividend was applied to 1967 premiums, surpassing the seven percent dividend reduction for 1962. By 1965, CIS had become the largest writer of insurance policies in Alberta. In an effort to maintain and improve that position, CIS launched “Project Contact” in 1966 to strengthen its bond with the FUA even though 16,000 of 25,000 FUA members already bought auto insurance from CIS. CIS agents made presentations on FUA insurance services at local FUA meetings and ensured that there was coffee and a time to mingle and socialize later in the evening. Local FUA secretaries were encouraged to announce FUA meetings by using a special meeting notice card provided by and mailed at CIS expense.8 “Project Contact” 7 8

90

The Organized Farmer, February 14, 1966: 1. It was suggested that when committee members gathered to plan the special meeting, they could address these cards that could then be mailed at no charge to FUA members and potential members.



CHAPTER SIX: “TEN MILES EACH WAY”




was an attempt to increase the numbers of FUA members taking out insurance with CIS because larger numbers of policies resulted in larger dividends returned to policyholders. The late 1960s were heady days for the FUA and CIS.Working hand in hand, the FUA and CIS established an office in Lethbridge to strengthen the co-operative insurance company by providing localized insurance services and to raise awareness of the FUA through services to the agricultural community.The FUA hoped to maintain and increase its membership by providing a place where southern Alberta farmers could come to buy their insurance and get information on surface rights, legal issues, and taxation problems. The Lethbridge FUA office, which operated out of space provided by CIS and was managed part-time by CIS agent Ken Newton, handled dozens of inquiries from district farmers. Newton had been active in farm organizations since the late 1940s and had acted as a director of District 14 for two years.When he turned his farming operations at Del Bonita over to his son, he became the FUA representative in Lethbridge. He handled requests from farmers for legal advice and surface rights advice, and helped with writing wills and preparing income tax returns in his CIS office. Technical questions were turned over to a local law firm, Stringham, Steele and Dineby, and an accounting firm, Williams, Tanner, and Bell. An agreement was reached with Visser’s Accounting and Bookkeeping Services to complete income tax returns for the rates advertised in The Organized Farmer by the FUA accounting services in Edmonton. A big sign on the wall in Ken Newton’s office at CIS read, “I will be pleased to accept FUA memberships.” The connection between CIS and the FUA or Unifarm was evident at convention time when the insurance committee, made up of the president and two executive members of FUA/Unifarm, presented a report on farm and auto insurance pools.There was always an opportunity for delegates to the convention to ask questions from the floor to a representative of CIS. The insurance company also provided an information desk at the convention to discuss any problems relating to the insurance pool. In addition, Co-operative Insurance Services provided the coffee for most of the sessions and made the presentation of the “Henry Young Award” to the region that sold the most new memberships up to the time of the convention. The Unifarm insurance pool trustees report to the 1972 Unifarm convention indicated that in its fourteenth year of operation, the auto 91



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

pool had over $1,200,000 in premiums with approximately 13,000 Unifarm policyholders insuring over 17,000 farm vehicles. The previous year, 1971, the auto pool had $1,089,027 in total earned premiums of which $792,850 was paid out in claims, with $120,212 being refunded to member policyholders on renewal. The fire and miscellaneous farm insurance pool had an exceptionally low claims experience, resulting in a refund of twenty-two percent for the nearly 8,000 Unifarm members who participated.9 The insurance industry continued to evolve through the 1970s as it adjusted to inflation and new demands being placed on it.Vehicle insurance was still voluntary, victimizing innocent parties in vehicle accidents where the person who caused the accident did not carry adequate insurance. After a year-long study, a seven-member legislative committee recommended compulsory $35,000 minimum liability insurance coverage for all drivers. The premiums for this basic plan would be the same for all drivers, with additional coverage provided by private firms at competitive rates.To ensure compliance, licence plates would be issued only on the presentation of proof of the minimum insurance coverage. Also, an insurance company would not be able to cancel a policy without the permission of the minister of highways. Two years later, in April 1972, Alberta Compulsory Auto Liability and Accident Benefits legislation came into effect, based on these recommendations. The legislation caused a host of problems for the insurance committee because it was not as easy for the insurance company to refuse to cover drivers with poor driving records. Farm trucks had to be insured, as did snowmobiles operating off farmers’ land. In spite of these problems, Unifarm insurance pools reported a fifty percent Unifarm participation rate in the auto pool and forty percent in the farm (fire) insurance pool. Inflation in the mid-1970s increased farm input costs, including insurance. For only the second time in fifteen years, Unifarm insurance pools were not able to declare a dividend to be rebated on insurance premiums for 1975. The only consolation was that government-operated and private schemes across the country fared no better.The cost of materials, parts, and labour was having an impact at a time when the accident rate was increasing. The insurance industry lost tens of millions of dollars in 1974 alone. 9

92

Unifarm Insurance Pool Trustees’ Report to the 1972 Unifarm convention, Co-operators Insurance archives, Guelph, Ontario.



CHAPTER SIX: “TEN MILES EACH WAY”




Insurance companies had two options: slow down their losses by cutting back on the business they wrote or increase premium rates. Most insurance companies cut down on business, allowing CIS to increase business and maintain its position as the number one auto insurer in Alberta. CIS had experienced losses but was more successful in anticipating rising costs and hiked premiums early for all clients, including members of the Unifarm insurance pool. By sharpening their pencils, CIS was able to reduce premiums by seventeen percent for the Unifarm insurance pool in 1976. This announcement was accompanied by the comment that pool participants had always enjoyed a better claims experience as a group, compared to other drivers insured by CIS in the same rural rating. A few sceptics argued that CIS’s continuing success had more to do with higher rates for pooled insurance than safe driving. Unifarm President Dobson Lea refuted this, saying that all drivers in a given area were charged the same basic rate set by the Alberta Insurance Board, the provincial government watchdog on the industry. Unifarm members outdid themselves when safe driving and good road conditions during an exceptionally mild winter resulted in a twenty-five percent dividend when they renewed their auto insurance for 1977.This would be the last dividend. The legislation that made it compulsory for all drivers to carry a minimum level of liability insurance affected all insurance companies, particularly CIS. Because CIS was the largest writer of auto insurance in the province, it was expected to take a proportionally large share of the “assigned risk” drivers who had been refused insurance in the past. Consequently, overall CIS rates were increased to cover the company’s share of the drivers with poor driving records. The Unifarm insurance pool was still calculated separately, but there was an impact that drove up the cost of insurance even with the pooling system. Pressure began to build. Other insurance companies, unhappy with the success of CIS, drew the government’s attention to the whole pooling system. In addition, the animosities that had built up between the old Farmers’ Union of Alberta (FUA) and the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) during the amalgamation campaign resulted in other pressures on Co-operative Insurance Services. Farmers who had not become Unifarm members because of their allegiance to the National Farmers’ Union complained to CIS that their organization should have the same group privileges as Unifarm. A letter to CIS from an NFU member in Vermilion asked for an explanation for the “deal which Unifarm has 93



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

made with Co-op Insurance to be able to use this (10%) discount as a membership gimmick.”10 The reply indicated that Unifarm did not have a monopoly on this type of program, but that they were the only organization that had promoted the idea successfully and had enough members insured with CIS to allow such a pool to operate. The bombshell that ended the Unifarm insurance pooling system dropped in May 1978. A new Unifarm president, Howard Falkenberg, was obligated to write a letter to all Unifarm members notifying them that the auto and fire insurance pools were being discontinued as a result of a decision by the Alberta Superintendent of Insurance and the Automobile Insurance Board. Unifarm’s insurance committee had been in discussion with the superintendent and with representatives of The Co-operators,11 but had discovered that there was no basis for continuing with the pools. Howard Falkenberg’s letter also confronted rumours that had persisted over the years that farmers who were not members of the FUA were subsidizing pool participants. The letter explained that only FUA members’ premiums were put into the pool from which claims and expenses were paid.12 Notices of termination were sent out by The Co-operators along with the payment of benefits effective May 1, 1978. It appears that the system employed to operate the pools was in contravention of provincial legislation. Some Co-operators’ agents believe that private sector insurance companies had put a great deal of pressure on the government to get rid of the FUA insurance pool. Many Unifarm members were convinced the government was trying to weaken their organization by eliminating one of the advantages of membership. The Superintendent of Insurance tried to help by providing an alternative for consideration by Unifarm.The new system would involve initially paying reduced premium rates with further reductions based on experience with each renewal.This system would have required constant monitoring to determine whether Unifarm members had a better record than other farmer drivers. Research by The Co-operators at the time indicated that there was very little difference between members of Unifarm and other farmer drivers, so a decision was made to accept the decision of the Superintendent of Insurance and terminate the Unifarm 10

Letter (1973) on file in Co-operators’ Insurance archives in Guelph, Ontario. Co-operative Insurance Services (CIS) had changed its name to The Co-operators in 1976. 12 Howard Falkenberg, Letter to Unifarm members, May 1978. 11

94



CHAPTER SIX: “TEN MILES EACH WAY”




insurance pools. Other insurance pools were also affected, but it was the auto pool that had attracted attention because auto liability insurance had recently become compulsory. Members of the Unifarm insurance committee continued to investigate some of the discrepancies that surfaced as a result of this decision. Research showed that Unifarm drivers had driving records similar to other farmer drivers, but the calculations showed that the Unifarm driver was rewarded year after year with dividends based on a better driving record compared with all other drivers in the province. Premiums paid by Unifarm members were based on the provincial driving record and rebated to Unifarm insurance pool members on the basis of a safer driving record and on at-cost administration expenses. In the absence of any statistics to show that the pooling system would work in the future, the Unifarm insurance committee decided to abide by the original decision. With the end of the insurance pools, Unifarm members lost one of the benefits of membership while Unifarm lost an efficient way of renewing memberships.The Unifarm memberships that were automatically collected by The Co-operators with insurance renewals were in danger of being lost unless Unifarm volunteers were prepared to contact each member personally on an annual basis. Medical Services (Alberta) Incorporated (MSI) benefits for Unifarm members had ended in 1967 with the introduction of national health care. MSI had also collected some Unifarm memberships at the time MSI insurance was renewed. Another reason to belong to Unifarm ended in 1973 when Helmut Entrup, the expert on surface rights who was also member services director for Unifarm, was hired away from Unifarm to become the farmers’ advocate in the provincial Department of Agriculture. The bond between the FUA and Co-op Fire and Casualty, now The Co-operators, is long and deep. From rather humble grassroots beginnings,The Co-operators has grown to be a major nation-wide insurance company, with agents in nearly every community. Many farmers who bought their first insurance policies from an agent who was also an active FUA/Unifarm member, Alberta Wheat Pool agent, or UFA Co-op employee continued to renew their insurance with the co-operative insurance company. Dan Manderson of Ryley, who served as Unifarm district director, member of the executive committee and vice-president over the years, has a plaque from the management and staff of CIS (Alberta) honouring him for serving as a Co-op insurance agent from June 1962 to February 95



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

1975. Manderson still buys his insurance from The Co-operators. Gerard Dufour, the Spirit River farmer who suggested the name “Unifarm” for the organization formed in 1970, turned his farm over to his son in 1973 and took over as the CIS agent in Rycroft. He continued to be a proud farmer and spokesperson for the Alberta Wheat Pool during his time as a CIS agent and welcomed many Unifarm and Wheat Pool members as clients. Not only does Bill Loov of Bluffton continue to renew the insurance policy first purchased from Charlie Plank in August 1959, he serves as a Federated Co-op delegate to The Co-operators Alberta regional committee.13 The Co-operators still contribute generously to organizations that are closely tied to the history of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta and Unifarm.

13

96

The Alberta directors on The Co-operators 2000 board of directors were Maurice Campeau, Ken Hoppins, and John Lamb. Agricore Co-operative Ltd., Agrifoods International Co-operative Ltd., Credit Union Central of Alberta, Federated Cooperatives Ltd., Lilydale Co-operative, United Farmers of Alberta,Wild Rose Agricultural Producers, and Co-operative Housing Federation send delegates to the Alberta regional meeting.

CHAPTER SEVEN

GOLDEYE




“Boy, you really have to work to make democracy function!” 1

T

he momentum that carried the Farmers’ Union of Alberta and its co-operative philosophy into all aspects of farm life began to stall. As conditions improved, it was easy to forget that many of the improvements had come as the result of pressure from determined and caring men and women who spoke on behalf of the farming community. No one wanted to re-live the conditions that led to the formation of farm organizations or business co-operatives, but somehow the new generation had to be made aware of the importance of working together. FUA President Arnold Platt recognized the problem and saw a possible remedy in a special type of education and training for young farmers. After visiting young farmers’ camps in Montana and Saskatchewan, he passed on his enthusiasm to the Junior FUA executive for the idea of a camp in Alberta where young farmers could come together to plan and learn leadership skills.A resolution to look into establishing a junior camp was passed at the Junior FUA annual general meeting during Farm Young Peoples’Week at the University of Alberta in June 1958.2 The Junior FUA executive and board led by President Dean Lien of Warner and Vice-Presidents Alex McCalla and Tom Nisbet of Bremner set out to fulfil the June resolution, proceeding with youthful confidence and determination to find an appropriate site. Alex McCalla, Dick Schroter, and Arnold Platt searched in vain through central Alberta for suitable lakefront property until they were led a short distance from a forestry trail through dense forest up a fairly steep incline to look down at Goldeye Lake,3 bathed in light from a September sunset.Arnold Platt’s 1

A remark overheard at a Goldeye citizenship camp, from the Louise Johnston Papers, Glenbow Archives, Calgary, Alberta. 2 The resolution was moved by Alex McCalla and seconded by Walter Scheidt. 3 The name of the lake changed from Pine Tree Lake to Goldeye Lake in about 1940 when it was stocked with goldeye trout.

99



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

very tired but enthusiastic response was, “My God, this is where it is going to be,” probably because Arnold could not walk another step. Junior FUA President Dean Lien announced at the December 1958 FUA convention that plans were being made to establish a junior camp. By the time he made his presentation, the Junior FUA had acquired 15.3 acres (6.2 hectares) of land on the east side of Goldeye Lake through a lease arrangement with the provincial government.4 Lien showed slides of the Goldeye Lake location and informed members of the FUA that the camp committee had set an objective of $35,000 to be raised through the FUA, FWUA, and Junior FUA local organizations.Alex McCalla calculated that if each of the 400 locals contributed $100, the junior camp project would raise $40,000, well over its objective. FUA convention delegates voted to give financial support to the project and were warned to expect Junior FUA directors to come calling at every FUA local. Goldeye Lake was situated in the Rocky Mountains six miles (9.6 km) west of Nordegg in the Clearwater Forest Reserve, served by the forestry road to Cochrane in the south and the Banff-Jasper Highway to the west, and by a gravel road to Rocky Mountain House and then blacktop to Red Deer to the east.The condition of the roads depended on the season, but could be treacherous in snow and rain. Road bans were a factor during construction because if materials and equipment were not on site before winter set in, work could not begin until late spring. The camp committee, consisting of Dean Lien, Tom Nisbet, Alex McCalla, Arnold Platt, George Loree, and Laura Gibeau, envisioned an educational, recreational, and leadership training centre for farm youth. The program reflected Arnold Platt’s concerns that changes taking place in society meant that the next generation of farmers would need different skills to compete in the agricultural industry. Based on these concerns, the FUA was also establishing an educational incentive called the Farmers’ Union and Co-operative Development Association—or FU&CDA—to provide programming for the rural community. Goldeye was developed to offer training programs for rural youth in leadership, public speaking, debating, conducting meetings, and organizing clubs. Leadership training modelled on the leadership courses offered at the Banff School of Fine Arts would be provided as well as farm safety courses and adult education programs in citizenship. Junior FUA members toured the province with a collection of slides, 4

100

This eventually became a twenty-one-year renewable lease agreement.



CHAPTER SEVEN: GOLDEYE




Announcement in the June 1959 Organized Farmer encouraged FUA families to join the caravan to Goldeye Lake FUA Camp on July 12, 1959.

site plans, and blueprints for the main building to raise money for Goldeye Camp. Some groups held fundraising buffet suppers and card nights, donating the profits to the Junior FUA Camp. Other locals organized fundraising curling bonspiels, dances, whist drives, bingos, and concerts, although they varied in their ability to raise money. Goldeye Camp fieldworker (and future REDA executive director) Gerald Schuler remembers returning home at about 6:00 p.m. one day to be greeted with the message that he was the guest speaker that evening at an FUA local meeting about 130 miles (209 km) away. He jumped in the truck and drove madly to the meeting where he showed slides and spoke to the local about the junior camp project. At the end of the evening, $10 was collected and presented to him as a donation to the Goldeye Camp.5 5

Schuler never did submit his expenses for this trip because they would have been more than the $10 he collected.This happened often to many people in this and other FUA activities.

101



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Farmers’ Day, June 12, 1959, was a day of celebration at the undeveloped campsite. Advertisements in The Organized Farmer announced that a caravan of cars would assemble at the junction of Highways 11 and 2, just north of Red Deer, at 10:00 a.m. for the two-and-a-half hour drive and then the one-mile walk to Goldeye Lake.The week before, a group including Gerald Schuler and Alex McCalla had worked feverishly to cut a walking trail through the dense forest into Goldeye from the forestry road so they could carry plywood to the campsite for the construction of toilets. Visitors to the Farmers’ Day celebration were instructed to bring box lunches for dinner and supper, after which everyone would head home at about 5:30 p.m. Farmers’ Day at Goldeye Lake was a success.The caravan of seventeen cars gathered as instructed at the junction and headed down Highway 11 carrying representatives of districts from Edmonton, Tofield, Sedgewick, Big Stone, south of Youngstown, Calgary and many points in between. By the time the caravan reached Goldeye Lake, there were thirty-nine cars and about two hundred excited supporters who participated in a sodturning ceremony among the evergreens beside the clear green mountain lake.The Honourable Alf Hooke, Minister of Municipal Affairs, turned the sod to kick off the Goldeye Lake building program and announced that the provincial government would make a donation of $1,500. Mr. Hooke also pledged a personal donation of $50 for the project. Total donations to the Goldeye Camp building fund stood at $7,000 by July, a far cry from the $35,000 the Junior camp committee had hoped to raise by spring. Calls for volunteer workers to help with camp construction went unheeded, so the Junior FUA hired a contractor from Rocky Mountain House to clear a firebreak and build a cook shelter and wash house. This raised the cost estimates for the project, but because they were able to use the lumber from clearing the firebreak for constructing their own buildings, some money was saved. The provincial highways department announced that it would build a road into the campsite, signalling provincial government support for this project. Mixed results from the summer of 1959 caused Junior FUA members to reassess their timeline and plans for Goldeye Camp but did nothing to dampen enthusiasm for the project.They decided to delay the construction of a sewage and water system.The camp committee even toured the ghost town of Nordegg looking for construction materials, but did not find anything of value.

102



CHAPTER SEVEN: GOLDEYE




The camp committee received a boost when volunteers from Pine Hill Local constructed a cabin during the summer of 1960 in memory of three members of their local who had been killed in a car-truck accident in 1953 on their way to the FUA and FWUA convention in Edmonton.Three hundred local members, family, and other participants attended a dedication ceremony on August 14, 1960, to unveil a plaque on the Pine Hill Cabin in memory of Mr. and Mrs.Alfred Swainson and Gordon Boltwood by Wesley Swainson, son of the deceased couple. Representatives of various co-operatives and organizations such as the Farm Women’s Union of Alberta, the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, United Grain Growers, Alberta Wheat Pool, UFA Co-operative Ltd., Alberta Co-operative Wholesale Association, Co-operative Fire and Casualty, Co-operative Life Insurance, and the National Farm Forum brought greetings and expressed satisfaction with the plans for Goldeye Lake.At the ceremony,Wilf Hoppins of UFA Co-operative Ltd. took the opportunity to announce that UFA Co-op would be prepared to help financially and suggested that the government should help as well. Wilf Hoppins’ announcement was the beginning of the trend for the co-ops, and eventually some agricultural boards and commissions to support Goldeye and its programs. There was a changing of the guard in the Goldeye Lake Camp Project in 1961 when Alex McCalla stepped down as Goldeye Camp committee chair to pursue his master’s degree at the University of Alberta and Gerald Schuler of Hilda took over the reins. Gerald, who had already been involved as a field worker for the Goldeye Lake Project, was to be associated with Goldeye and many other aspects of farm organization for most of his career. This began as a part-time paid position for Gerald, assisted during the summer of 1961 by Joe Clark of High River who acted as publicity director for the project6 and who went on to become prime minister of Canada in 1979. One of Joe Clark’s many accomplishments that summer was to get John Diefenbaker to write a letter of support for the project. The first summer session at Goldeye took place in 1961, building on the successful youth and teen programming that began at Fairview College, Vermilion College, and Camp Agape in Elk Island Park. The first participants in the Goldeye program lived in tents and took part in classes that were conducted on the lumber that had been piled there in 6

Unfortunately, the money for the publicity director ran out, so Clark returned to work at the family newspaper in High River for the month of August.

103



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

anticipation of the building of the main pavilion. Hazel Braithwaite and Laura Gibeau of the Farm Women’s Union volunteered to cook in the new kitchen camp shelter. They slept in a tent and were visited one night by a bear, causing some excitement in the camp. This pilot leadership and citizenship training camp offered instruction in conservation, the role of individuals in a changing community, parliamentary and debating procedure, and the rise and role of the communication media. Twenty-three students from across Alberta took part in the week-long pilot project, heralded as a wonderful success. The learning that took place amidst the towering forest enabled the campers to be better prepared to accept change and to co-operate with others in the group. Participants delighted in the opportunity to experience the activities and make lifetime friends around the flickering campfire and at the mystical, magical lake. After two-and-a-half years of nonstop fundraising activity and construction, the Junior FUA was able to illustrate what they hoped to accomplish. In August 1961, another cabin was dedicated to the memory of Alberta’s farming pioneers by one of the oldest farm organization locals, Clover Bar. In addition, Clover Bar Local donated $500 to the Goldeye Building Fund. Clover Bar had formed Alberta’s first Society of Equity to buy binder twine in bulk and became a local of the UFA when it was formed in 1909.A 78-year-old member of the Clover Bar Local, Ezekiel Keith, made the dedication. Financial progress on Goldeye was slow.The estimate for completion had been revised to $50,000 from $35,000, of which only $20,000 had been raised. The dormitories, kitchen, and wash house facilities showed that progress was being made, but without a central pavilion and classroom structure, it was not much different from a recreational summer camp. Gerald Schuler took a bold step when he asked FUA President Ed Nelson for permission to go over-budget to get the pavilion built for the next summer. Nelson was a strong supporter of Goldeye, but he was also a very cautious president.After some time, he told Schuler that, while he was nervous about it, he would stick his neck out and, with the approval of his board, authorize a loan to the Goldeye Camp Project to begin the construction of the main pavilion in 1962. To make up for the shortage of money, energetic and enthusiastic Junior FUA volunteers spent many weekends at Goldeye clearing brush and preparing logs for future construction. Junior FUA locals held weekend work parties at Goldeye Lake, assisted by a few adults who went 104



CHAPTER SEVEN: GOLDEYE




along to cook and supervise.They arrived Friday night, worked hard all day Saturday, and returned home Sunday, tired but very satisfied that they had contributed to building Goldeye. In 1962, Gerald Schuler became assistant to Kay Dowhaniuk Gibbings, director of the Farmers’ Union and Co-operative Development Association,7 becoming director of youth programming. He continued to be responsible for fundraising and direction of Goldeye Camp.This appointment consolidated the relationship between Goldeye and FU&CDA, with FU&CDA providing the programming for Goldeye. As activity at Goldeye intensified, Gerald Schuler hired additional staff to help manage the increasingly well-attended youth centre. Morley Bradley, a farmer from the Lacombe area, was employed as maintenance supervisor for Goldeye Lake Centre from 1963 until 1971. Morley and his wife Lena8 were an important part of the early days at Goldeye. John Melicher came to Goldeye as recreation director and assistant administrator in the summer of 1964, returning each summer until 1967 when he left Goldeye to concentrate on his teaching career.9 Under Schuler’s leadership, less emphasis was placed on funding from FUA locals and more on contributions from some of the larger organizations. In the early years of Goldeye, UFA Co-operative Ltd., Alberta Wheat Pool, United Grain Growers, Federated Co-operatives Ltd., Cooperative Fire and Casualty, Central Alberta Dairy Pool, Northern Alberta Dairy Pool, and Canadian Co-op Implements Ltd. proudly made continuing contributions of funding and support. Help from UFA Co-op began with a 1961 donation of $3,000 over three years.At the same time,Alberta Wheat Pool and United Grain Growers contributed $1,000. UFA Co-op made a major contribution in 1965 when it financed the building and furnishing of the Church-Hoppins Memorial Building, dedicated in memory of George Church, president of UFA Co-op from 1945–1961, and Wilfred Hoppins, general manager of the UFA Co-op from 1951–1963. George Church had died in 1961 at the age of 71, still in the saddle as president of United Farmers of Alberta Co-operatives. A successful farmer from Balzac, he had been on the board of directors of 7

The Farmers’ Union and Co-operative Development Association (FU&CDA) was an FUA educational initiative. 8 Morley Bradley, a widower, married Lena, the former Mrs. Paul Belik, in 1966. 9 John Melicher was raised on a farm near Mayerthorpe and had taken part in 4-H programs. Melicher came back to Goldeye in 1974 as youth program director of REDA and then became director of REDA.

105



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

the United Farmers of Alberta from 1929–1945 and then served as its president from 1945–1948. He was a man of the soil who had a deep and abiding love for the land and his friends and fellow farmers. His faith in co-operation was evident in his support of farmers’ organizations. UFA Co-op lost another stalwart of the farm movement in 1963 when the general manager,Wilf Hoppins, died at the age of 53. Hoppins was also a man of the soil who came from Huxley, a community with strong cooperative credentials. The first co-operative store in Alberta was organized in the hamlet and one of the first co-op grain elevators was built there in 1913. It was only fitting that the Huxley area would produce a man of Wilf Hoppins’ calibre.10 By the mid-1960s, Goldeye had established a successful program of four or five week-long Co-operative Teen (14–16) and Youth (16–18) Camps that attracted young people, sponsored by local co-operatives and the FUA, FWUA, and Junior FUA. One of the goals of the teen and youth programs was to prepare young people to eventually work at the senior level in community, farm, and co-operative organizations. Each year there was a graduate seminar for some of those who had attended in previous years. Goldeye was also host to Junior FUA young adult groups who discussed issues of the day and passed on their observations to the senior FUA organization.They listened to speakers and dealt with topics such as land use and the changing social aspects of rural Alberta, including the changing role of women. Romance, high spirits, and mischief were always in the air at Goldeye. Sober FUA officials, maybe remembering their own youth, had constant concerns about chaperoning the young people who attended the camp. Each week-long camp began with the arrival of the campers at about 5:30 p.m. on Sunday. After dinner, they were organized into groups of eight or nine to democratically elect a member to represent them in the camp government that they set up to learn about government formation and parliamentary procedure. Goldeye campers were chosen to be group representatives, committee leaders, or prime minister for a week. They learned basic survival skills by going on campouts where they were expected to construct lean-tos with only what was available in the environment. There were morning exercises, hikes to Crescent Falls and Siffleur Falls, water fights on the lake, sing-songs 10 Thank

you to Allan Winther of Huxley, a dedicated member of the FUA, Unifarm, and Wild Rose Agricultural Producers, who provided this information.

106



CHAPTER SEVEN: GOLDEYE




Co-op representatives present at the June 30, 1967, dedication ceremony at Goldeye Lake included: Nelson Malm, first vice-president of the Alberta Wheat Pool; Allan Smith, first vice-president of United Grain Growers; Charles Hayes, president of the Alberta Livestock Co-operative; Paul Babey, president of the FUA; Joe Tipmann, director of Canadian Co-operative Implements Limited; John Stone, president of Central Alberta Dairy Pool; and George Maddock, president of Northern Alberta Dairy Pool. Fred Clark (standing) and William Swiderski (hidden) represented Federated Co-operatives.

around the campfire, food fights, and cabin checks after “lights-out.” A 500-pound bell named “Sweet Charlotte” summoned campers to meals, sessions, and all activities. A Citizenship Camp that included native students began in 1962, sponsored by the Farm Women’s Union of Alberta under the presidency of Hazel Braithwaite.With the help of staff from the Edmonton Canadian Citizenship Branch and the Department of Indian Affairs as well as Rufus Goodstriker of the Blood Reserve, twenty to thirty young people, half from farming communities, half from reserves, and occasionally one or two Inuit from the Northwest Territories, learned about democracy, citizenship, and leadership.Through the week, they compared rural community organizations with reserve band councils. FWUA President Louise Johnston, one of the many farm women who helped with the Citizenship Camp, worked very hard in sometimes difficult circumstances to ensure that cultural differences became a positive learning experience.The result was a democratic camp community where one girl was heard to exclaim, “Boy, you really have to work to make democracy function!”11 11 Louise

Johnston, “The FWUA Citizenship Camp,” Louise Johnston Collection, Glenbow Archives, Calgary.

107



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Financial records show that at the end of 1963, the cost of the camp had risen to $78,336. $28,370 had been raised from locals and districts, $1,500 from individuals, $1,500 from the provincial government, $18,166 from a car raffle, contributions from co-ops, and the Farm Women’s Union of Alberta ($500).An outstanding loan of $15,000 was guaranteed by United Grain Growers, UFA Co-op, and the Alberta Wheat Pool. Gerald Schuler and Paul Babey conducted another major fundraising campaign in anticipation of a Centennial Celebration in 1967. UFA Cooperatives Ltd. were particularly generous, but the AWP, UGG, Northern Alberta Dairy Pools, and Central Alberta Dairy Pools also made financial contributions totalling nearly $60,000, while Canadian Co-operative Implements Ltd. donated a tractor with a front-end loader.Youthful supporters continued to subsidize Goldeye through volunteer labour. In a gesture of goodwill, the provincial government added about five acres (2 hectares) to the land that was leased to Goldeye. Goldeye had a special Centennial Celebration on June 30, 1967, when Lieutenant Governor Grant MacEwan dedicated the newly developed buildings. In his speech, MacEwan referred to the glorious lake, majestic mountains, towering pines, and the freshness of the forest and agreed with other speakers that it was like being in heaven—and then commented, with a sly wink, that the farm leaders present had better take a darn good look because he had a hunch it might be as close to heaven as some of them would get. When the Farmers’ Union of Alberta and Alberta Federation of Agriculture amalgamated to form Unifarm in 1970, FU&CDA adapted its structure to recognize those changes and became the Rural Education and Development Association or REDA. REDA was made up of direct and organizational members of Unifarm,12 as well as Federated Co-ops Ltd., Co-operative Insurance Services, and the Alberta Hog Producers Marketing Board. REDA officially took over the administration and operation of Goldeye Camp and its programs, leaving the FUA as owners but not operators of the facility. FU&CDA Director Kay Dowhaniuk Gibbings had resigned in 1969, and Gerald Schuler stepped into her 12 Members

108

of Unifarm in 1971 included AWP, UGG, CADP, NADP, Alberta Milk Producers, Alberta Broiler Growers Marketing Board, Alberta Turkey Marketing Board, Alberta Poultry Marketers Co-op Ltd., Alberta Livestock Co-op, Alberta Provincial Swine Breeders Association, Bow Slope Shipping Association, Buffalo Lake Farmers Co-op, Pembina Livestock, Southern Alberta Sheep Breeders Association,Western Stock Growers,Western Hog Growers Association, UFA Co-op, Pembina Co-op, Pincher Creek Co-op, Alberta Honey Producers, Alberta Potato Growers, Alberta Sugar Beet Growers, and Alberta Vegetable Marketing Board.



CHAPTER SEVEN: GOLDEYE




position. In 1971, Jack Muza, an active, long-time member of the FUA, was hired as director of country programs and Goldeye. Lost in the discussion of the success of Goldeye is the fact that the Junior FUA had virtually ceased to function about two years before the Farmers’ Union of Alberta amalgamated with the Alberta Federation of Agriculture to form Unifarm. While a few key Junior FUA executive members continued to support Goldeye, Junior FUA locals did not maintain their focus or their membership. There was an attempt in the mid1960s to provide programming for local meetings to capture the imagination of members, but nothing seemed to work.When Unifarm came into being in 1970, there was no attempt to form a Junior Unifarm organization, a reflection of the difficulty experienced by the Junior FUA and a portent for the future. Not only were there fewer farm families, those families were smaller and many farm youth were making plans to leave the farm for jobs and professions in the towns and cities. However, Goldeye Camp, established because of the enthusiasm of Junior FUA members such as Alex McCalla, Dean Lien, and Gerald Schuler, became an important legacy of the Junior FUA because of its impact on generations of rural youth who attended educational and leadership training courses there. A celebration was held on August 21, 1973, to officially open “Blunden Manor,” a new administration staff residence at Goldeye Centre. Funds for the construction of Blunden Manor came from the estate of Charles Blunden, a loyal United Farmers of Alberta supporter who had bequeathed his Granum-area farm to the UFA, requesting that a UFA hall be built on the property, which he thought would become part of a bustling town on a proposed Calgary-Lethbridge Railway. Since there was no community to be served by a UFA hall in that location, it was decided to build a much-needed building to serve the co-operative movement at Goldeye. In addition to the many enthusiastic young people who sought summer jobs at lakeside camps, leadership staff at Goldeye was provided by Women of Unifarm, Federated Co-ops Ltd., Alberta Wheat Pool, United Grain Growers, United Farmers of Alberta Co-op, the Department of Agriculture, and later, Calgary Co-op, Credit Union Central, and Co-operative Insurance Services. Jean Buit13 of Blackfalds was one of many Women of Unifarm members who assisted Goldeye 13 Jean

Buit was a member of Blindman Local. She was an alternate director, director, vice-president, and then president of Women of Unifarm in 1983–85.

109



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

co-ordinator John Melicher with Teen and Youth Camps. During one of Jean Buit’s three summers at Goldeye Camp, she worked with Murray Hawkins, University of Alberta professor in the Department of Rural Economy. Hawkins spent two summers at Goldeye as a counsellor at the Grad Camp for sixteen-to-eighteen-year-olds. One of the sessions he conducted was “sex education and marriage.” His comment was: “Boy, did I learn things.” He considers it was a wonderful program where young people learned about parliamentary procedure, public speaking, and how to buy a car—which thrilled them because this was “real life.” Goldeye continued to be very successful.The October 1977 issue of Farm Trends announced that 305 young adults had participated in the 1977 REDA Youth Program at Goldeye. In total, 2,315 people took part in activities at Goldeye in 1977, a far cry from the twenty-three enthusiastic young people who had lived in tents and sat on piles of lumber at the first “camp” in 1961. By 1978, Goldeye offered year-round programming, so Jack Muza moved into a mobile home on the camp property. Many recreational programs were offered, but an attempt to hold cross-country skiing camps was abandoned after a few years because of the unpredictability of the snow. Week-long outdoor education camps for Grade 6 students from central Alberta were held during May and June. The Rural Education and Development Association, REDA, continued to offer its Teen,Youth, and Grad Camps during July while several 4-H14 programs and United Nations International Affairs Seminars for promising Social Studies students were offered during August. As Goldeye continued to serve the needs of rural youth and adults through its expanding programs, it ran into serious maintenance and financial problems. By 1978, Goldeye consisted of several dormitories, classrooms and other buildings, some of which required costly improvements. Goldeye was operating on an extension-type permit for its sewage disposal system because it did not meet acceptable environmental standards, so the time had come to spend the required $120,000 on an appropriate sewage system. The washroom, kitchen, and dormitory facilities were also in need of major renovations and upgrading to transform Goldeye into a major conference, educational, and recreational centre. Neither Unifarm nor the interested co-operatives were in any position to undertake the overwhelming financial responsibility for the changes that had to be made. Unifarm was confronted with the reality 14 4-H

110

clubs now have their own camp at Battle Lake.



CHAPTER SEVEN: GOLDEYE




that it would either have to sell Goldeye, maintain it at ever-increasing cost, or consider a foundation that would take over responsibility for the centre. In his last President’s Report in January 1978, Dobson Lea recommended that the convention pass the resolution sponsored by the Unifarm board to establish Goldeye Foundation and transfer Unifarm’s assets in Goldeye Centre to the foundation. Goldeye Foundation Society was created in 1978 as a charitable organization able to issue tax receipts for contributions to build and maintain the physical structure at Goldeye. Institutional members of the Goldeye Foundation were assessed a substantial annual membership fee while individual memberships were available for anyone interested in being involved with Goldeye Centre.The board consisted of representatives of member co-operatives and representatives of individual members.15 Jacquie Jevne16 accepted the role of Goldeye Foundation Board campaign co-ordinator and set out to raise $2 million to meet capital expenses for the proposed maintenance and expansion, a far cry from the $40,000 the Junior FUA tried to raise in the spring of 1959.The funding was needed over the next eight years for new sewage and water systems; improvements and additions to the Seminar Building, Main Pavilion, Church-Hoppins Building, Blunden Manor, and dormitory cabins; and the construction of new staff buildings, adult residences, garages and workshops. In the course of the fundraising campaign, Jacquie Jevne approached governments, farm organizations, marketing boards, commissions, and agribusinesses such as co-operatives, food processors, lending agencies, and farm supply companies. A Gala “Add-Up” Night was held on the Wednesday evening of the January 1981 Unifarm convention to accept contributions and honour all those who made donations. Contributions amounting to $382,000 were acknowledged by the Goldeye Foundation Society. CFA President Dobson Lea made the draw for the winners of the lottery held to help the fundraising campaign. Harry Fuss from Wetaskiwin, along with three 15 REDA

continues to provide the organizational management and much of the programming that takes place at Goldeye Centre. Other groups can rent the facility as long as the program is not in competition with any of REDA’s co-operative training programs. 16 Jacquie Jevne was a talented adult educator and farm consultant who was born in Medicine Hat, taught school in Millet, and farmed there with her husband Morris. She worked on contract with Rural Education and Development Association and Goldeye, conducting studies and making presentations on issues such as land use, transportation, and the role of women. She passed away on November 28, 1984, and was inducted posthumously into the Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame in 1987.

111



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

of his children and Walter Brietkreuz of Falun, who made up the “Alley Cats” orchestra, added to the festivities.The Fuss family had all benefited from programs at Goldeye and paid tribute to the quality of the training there.They were joined in their testimony by Tom Jevne, who also acted as fundraising auctioneer for a painting of Goldeye Centre by Meta Ranger of the REDA staff. Another cabin, the Hay Memorial Cabin, was dedicated at Goldeye on May 22, 1981, in memory of Mr. and Mrs. Herb Hay, who lost their lives in an airplane crash on Nordegg Mountain two years earlier. Mr. Hay, a teacher at River Glen School in Red Deer, had organized field trips for Grade 6 and 7 students to Goldeye Centre. The Goldeye “Add-Up” at the January 1982 convention brought funding for the Goldeye Foundation Society to $479,825 of the $2 million needed and was supplemented by proceeds from another event the next month.Three hundred people attended a Goldeye fundraising banquet in honour of the Barker family at the Palliser Hotel in Calgary to focus on the contributions of Gordon and Mary Barker and Gordon’s mother Mabel Barker to farm organizations and the co-operative movement. On February 12, 1982, the Honourable Peter Trynchy, Minister of Parks and Recreation, announced a provincial government matching grant of $500,000 for the development of Goldeye Centre in recognition of the extensive work of Goldeye as well as the two-year fundraising campaign launched by the Goldeye Foundation Society that stood at more than $500,000. The Goldeye Foundation Society “Add-Up” stood at $1 million. The Goldeye Foundation Society hosted a Gala Twenty-fifth Anniversary Dinner in Red Deer in March 1983 to honour the people who were responsible for the establishment of Goldeye Centre. Jack Muza and John Melicher organized the event, while Allan Beattie of the Alberta Wheat Pool served as chair for the festivities. Close to 350 people joined Arnold Platt, Gerald Schuler, Alex McCalla, Dick Schroter, George Loree, Tom Nisbet, and other founding members of Goldeye Camp to reminisce and become reacquainted. Goldeye changed considerably after the Foundation was established in 1978. Richard Stringham stepped into John Melicher’s role as program manager for Goldeye in 1981 when John left that position to replace Gerald Schuler as director of REDA. Accommodation at Goldeye was doubled with the addition of the White Cabin and the Presidents’Wing. A second dining room was built in the Jack Muza Building, named after 112



CHAPTER SEVEN: GOLDEYE




former FUA executive member and long-time Goldeye director Jack Muza.The Betty Pedersen Boardroom, named after Women of Unifarm president Betty Pedersen, added seminar space. Buildings were winterized and a new road was built to channel traffic around the centre of the camp. Marketing of Goldeye was updated with a professional brochure and a website to attract more clients during the winter and early spring as well as during the busy summer and autumn seasons. Through all the administrative and financial changes at Goldeye, REDA continued to manage the teen and youth programs, guided by REDA’s Youth Advisory Committee. In 1997, its thirty-sixth year of operating programs, REDA announced that a total of 181 participants had attended Goldeye Camp. The unexpected happened in 1998 when 330 participants registered to attend Goldeye Camp in the teen and youth programs as a result of a video highlighting the program produced by UFA Co-operatives Ltd. and Goldeye. The video, which did such a wonderful job of portraying a taste of what Goldeye could offer, was presented at the fifty or sixty delegate advisory committee meetings held by UFA Co-operatives Ltd. during the year. Somehow, the value of the program was made apparent and a flood of applications began arriving, matched with sponsors through the efforts of UFA Co-op.

The log pavilion at Goldeye Centre, high above Goldeye Lake nestled in the shelter of towering pines. 113



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Sponsors for the programs now include the United Farmers of Alberta Co-operatives Ltd., Co-op Stores and Associations, The Cooperators, credit unions, agricultural societies, recreation boards, and Agricore, continuing the tradition of support from the Alberta Wheat Pool.Young people who attend Goldeye are no longer exclusively farm youth. Sponsors such as Calgary Co-op,The Co-operators, and the credit unions make it possible for a larger and larger percentage of city and town dwellers to attend the youth and teen citizenship programs at Goldeye. Participants may be rewarded with sponsorship at Goldeye by winning an essay contest on a topic such as “Why I want to attend Goldeye Camp” or “Why I shop at Co-op.” Goldeye depends more and more on people who attended Goldeye in the past to run and lead activities, partly because many of the sponsoring organizations have reduced staff through management restructuring. Unifarm’s decision to transfer ownership of Goldeye Centre to the Goldeye Foundation Society made financial and business sense, but it was one more step in decreasing Unifarm’s involvement in the activities of the general farm community. In 1978, Unifarm was a powerful organization, which concentrated on developing farm policy and protecting farm income. Its budget focused on research and member services with an inadequate amount available to develop Goldeye to its potential.After the formation of the Foundation, Goldeye continued to offer superb programming for rural youth, and, although Unifarm was represented on the Goldeye Foundation Board over the years by President Howard Falkenberg, Past President Dobson Lea, and then Vice-President Jack Swainson, the relationship became more and more distant. Over the years, as the number of Unifarm and Women of Unifarm locals dwindled during the 1980s, there were fewer and fewer locals able to sponsor participants to Goldeye or to help with the staffing. It was such a gradual erosion that it went almost unnoticed. Sponsors and staff were recruited from other organizations only too happy to oblige. With Unifarm’s diminished membership and the establishment of the Goldeye Foundation Society, Unifarm stepped away from another of the activities that formed part of its identity as a service organization for the agricultural community. Goldeye continues to carry out the mandate established by the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, Farmers’ Union of Alberta, Farm Women’s Union of Alberta, and Junior FUA visionaries who established the centre. Unifarm’s successor group, Wild Rose Agricultural Producers, is no longer among the sponsors, but all former 114



CHAPTER SEVEN: GOLDEYE




members of the AFA, FUA, FWUA, Junior FUA, Unifarm, and Women of Unifarm have a reason to be proud of the centre they built on the shimmering lake.

115

CHAPTER EIGHT




FOLLOWING A GRAND TRADITION

Y

oung people were not the only ones who could benefit from an opportunity to get together to learn and plan. Coincidentally with the development of Goldeye Camp, the Farmers’ Union and Co-operative Development Association (FU&CDA) was established, one of the most significant and long-lasting programs initiated by the Farmers’ Union of Alberta and the Alberta Federation of Agriculture.1 Its importance was that it was not another “how-to-farm” extension program. Instead, it had a fashionable up-to-date mandate to provide education and training in leadership, personal and group skills, public speaking, meeting organization, problem identification, and problem solving. FU&CDA originated with Arnold Platt and was implemented by his successor as FUA president, Ed Nelson, to help a new generation of farmers understand the history and importance of farm organization and co-operative action. Not only did Alberta farmers need to be reminded of the conditions that led to the development of their farm organizations and co-operatives, they needed information on how government functioned at the local, provincial, and federal levels so they could have an impact on the legislation that would affect them. In an increasingly complex society, farmers also needed information on economics and marketing strategies to assist them in their businesses. The two FUA presidents decided that the small farmer of the 1950s, perceived by many to be uninformed and not very well spoken, would be dragged, kicking and screaming if necessary, into the 1960s. The vision of a new and special type of extension program followed a grand tradition of adult education in Alberta that began in turn-of-thecentury farmers’ organizations. The earliest farm organizations formed their own locals to study ways of improving the economic and social well-being of their families and communities.The locals of the Canadian 1

After the formation of Unifarm in 1970, FU&CDA became REDA: the Rural Education and Development Association.

117



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Society of Equity and the Alberta Farmers’ Association, and later, the United Farmers of Alberta, were the heart of their organizations. It was to the local meeting that the farmer brought the ideas and enthusiasm that made the UFA2 a powerful force in the history of Alberta. UFA President Henry Wise Wood of Carstairs constantly stressed the importance of education and study at UFA local meetings. Locals often invited lecturers from the Department of Extension of the fledgling University of Alberta to present information and lead discussions. Farm Young Peoples’Week at the University of Alberta, another tradition of the University Department of Extension, started in 1917. United Farm Women of Alberta President Irene Parlby, realizing that not many rural youth were able to attend the university she loved, was instrumental in the organization of Farm Young Peoples’Week to introduce them to the possibilities of a university education. During the early part of June each year, about 100 young Albertans, sponsored by farm organizations such as the Alberta Wheat Pool, United Grain Growers, Pioneer Grain Company, and the United Farmers of Alberta (later the Farmers’ Union of Alberta), stayed in university residences and sampled a small part of university life. The University of Alberta also provided a different type of education for the burgeoning farm organizations on the prairies. Beginning in 1915, the University of Alberta Extension Department offered rural leadership courses to provide rural leaders with the background to conduct meetings and understand issues that affected the agricultural community.This program eventually moved to the Banff School of Fine Arts in 1950 where courses ran yearly for forty years, financed and staffed in co-operation with United Grain Growers, Alberta Wheat Pool, United Farmers of Alberta Co-op, and other co-operative businesses. Two or three courses were offered each winter, always in connection with staff from the University of Alberta Extension Department. Most farm union officials attended one of the two-week rural leadership training courses at the Banff School of Fine Arts to assist them in their responsibilities as delegates and executive members. Paul Babey 2

118

UFA locals developed business ventures alongside their educational responsibilities when UFA Co-operative Ltd. was incorporated through the UFA provincial organization.This business side of the UFA survived after the UFA political organization, which governed Alberta from 1921 to 1935, was defeated. UFA Co-operative Ltd. remained true to the educational mandate of its original organization by recognizing the importance of education and supporting educational initiatives such as Goldeye Camp and REDA with a generosity that continues to this day.



CHAPTER EIGHT: FOLLOWING A GRAND TRADITION




speaks highly of the training he received there, attributing much of his success as a leader to the leadership training seminars he attended so many years ago. Paul’s first experience at the Banff leadership course was a “heavenly gift” that lifted a great weight from the shoulders of an inexperienced young man who was thrust into the position as director of District 4 without any previous experience or skills. Walter Boras of Iron Springs attended Banff rural leadership training courses in 1964 and again in 1968, where he learned communications skills and how to run meetings. All fired up after these Banff sessions, he became president of the Iron Springs Local and later a key member of the Alberta Sugar Beet Growers Association and Unifarm delegate representing speciality crops. Harry Gordon, District 11 director from 1964 to 1978, attended a leadership seminar in 1964 that included Elizabeth Pedersen of Standard, who also rose to prominence in farm organizations as FWUA president. Kay Dowhaniuk Gibbings, who became director of FU&CDA, also attended several introductory and advanced leadership training courses at the Banff School of Fine Arts. Gerald Schuler met Dean Lien, president of the Junior FUA, at the Banff School in 1957. It was Dean who encouraged Gerald to attend Junior Farm Young People’s Week at the University of Alberta the following June.3 In spite of all the programs available, it was obvious that not all farmers managed to keep up with the issues that were having such an impact on their livelihood. This became a concern when farmers appeared unprepared to discuss agricultural concerns with government and business officials. Farm groups and co-ops were owned and run by members through the resolutions passed at annual general meetings. If these farm groups and co-ops were to be successful, it was essential that delegates understood the issues and had the skills to make presentations, engage in debate, and then vote on the resolutions that provided the direction for the organization. It was even more important to make sure that a large number of members and participants had a wide range of knowledge so they could understand what their organization was doing and why it was being done. A crucial meeting took place in the Alberta Wheat Pool board room in Calgary in September 1958 with Arnold Platt in the chair and attended by Ellen Armstrong of Hussar (FWUA), Russell Love of Edmonton 3

From there, Gerald Schuler went on to become an influential force at Goldeye and in FU&CDA and later REDA.

119



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

(Alberta Co-operative Wholesale), George Church of Balzac and Wilf Hoppins of Calgary (UFA Co-op Ltd.), Simon Roppel of Rockyford (Alberta Poultry Marketers), and Allan Gibson (AWP) and Frank Allison (UGG) of Calgary.There was an obvious need for a special type of education not only to ensure a knowledgeable agricultural community but to develop leadership qualities and to train and develop potential delegates to FUA and Co-op meetings as well as board members for those organizations.The committee that gathered that day envisioned an educational extension service to which farm organizations, co-operatives, and agricultural businesses could turn for education and training. This would be more efficient than having each organization responsible for continuing education for its own members.4 Following the decision to establish an education and training structure, organizational details were worked out at a meeting a year later when a constitution, regulations, and budget were established. The new organization was to be co-ordinated by a policy council consisting of the president or chair of each of the member organizations: the Farmers’ Union of Alberta, Alberta Wheat Pool, United Grain Growers, United Farmers of Alberta Co-operative Ltd., Alberta Livestock Co-operative, Co-operative Fire and Casualty, Co-operative Life Insurance, Alberta Co-op Wholesale (later renamed Federated Co-operatives Ltd.), Central Alberta Dairy Pool, Alberta Poultry Producers, and by a program director engaged by the policy council. The president of the FUA served as chair of the policy council that acted as the governing group much like a board of directors. The policy council dealt with policy matters, finances, and evaluating the program director. In addition, there was an advisory committee made up of representatives of the member groups, plus the Alberta Federation of Agriculture (AFA),5 Farm Women’s Union of Alberta, Junior FUA,6 provincial Cooperative Activities Branch, and the Canadian Citizenship Branch, as well as the director of extension of the provincial Department of 4

An organization called the Alberta Co-operative Union had carried out some continuing education activities, but it had suspended operations earlier in 1958.The Cooperative College in Saskatoon was established to serve this need, but another vehicle was needed at the local level for more basic instruction. 5 Jim McFall was the representative of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture and the moderator of Farm Radio Forum, the radio program that launched FU&CDA. McFall was a strong supporter of FU&CDA. 6 Gerald Schuler was the Junior FUA representative on FU&CDA in 1960–61.The Junior FUA recommended that there should be a director of youth programming within FU&CDA.

120



CHAPTER EIGHT: FOLLOWING A GRAND TRADITION




Agriculture and the director of the Extension Department of the University of Alberta.The Alberta Federation of Agriculture was a strong supporter of FU&CDA and a valued member of the advisory committee. One of the most important duties of the advisory committee was to examine the proposed programs that were developed to inform and train members of each of the co-operatives and associations that made up FU&CDA. FU&CDA planned to deliver its new program through the wellstructured locals of the FUA.There were about 700 locals in 1958, 400 of which were active enough to provide a strong infrastructure for the proposed educational work. FU&CDA became a partner with the University of Alberta Extension Department under the leadership of its director, Duncan Campbell. Some members of the Extension Department may have wondered about encroachment on their territory, but the partnership lasted for decades until funding problems at the university reduced its role.The partnership took advantage of FUA local organization in the rural community and the academic expertise at the university to maintain high standards of course and curriculum development. The men and women who sat around the table discussing the need for a new and different type of education were not clear on how it would be accomplished, but they understood it would have to be a grassroots program, not one organized from the top down.The first step was to get the message out that the FUA was planning a new type of rural extension education and to get some feedback on what people thought of the idea. FU&CDA decided to launch the new program on a radio broadcast planned for November 9, 1959, and hosted by the new president of the FUA, Ed Nelson. Nelson stressed the importance of people working together to make democracy function and reminded listeners of how important it was to have trained leaders at the local level who could carry out the responsibilities of delegates to farm union and co-op meetings. He stressed that it was also extremely important to develop channels of communication between farm people and the head offices of farm unions and co-operatives. Nelson hoped that by taking part in the new initiative, every member of an FUA local would develop a better understanding of their role and be prepared to take part in organizations at all levels—local as well as provincial and federal. Results of the initial radio broadcast were disappointing. The biggest problem seemed to be that, while those closely involved with the FUA understood that something should be done to improve the 121



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

knowledge base and leadership skills in the farm community, too many others were suspicious and not willing to get involved. Feedback indicated that on the cusp of the 1960s, the locals that were to be the basis of the FU&CDA program were competing with other activities like curling and television for the loyalty of members. People indicated that they did not attend their local meetings because they were not interested in the programs currently being offered but that more correspondence with central office and better publicity for their programs would help. Under FUA President Ed Nelson’s steady hand and with the assistance of newly appointed FU&CDA Director Kay Dowhaniuk Gibbings, FU&CDA steered through the difficulties caused by apathy and some initial organizational problems. FU&CDA was not successful in its efforts to base its extension program on the local organization, because the locals were losing their position as a focal point of rural social and educational life. FU&CDA decided to concentrate on a larger area instead—the FUA sub-districts that included several locals and were co-terminus with municipal district or county boundaries.7 Under this new organization, the FUA sub-district director was to head up each municipal district or county team, made up of the heads of FUA, FWUA, and Junior FUA locals, county or municipal district councillors, district agriculturists, district home economists, and directors and delegates of the local co-operatives. FU&CDA district/county teams were to provide a training ground for strong, dedicated, effective leaders of farm organizations in analysis, direction and purpose, co-ordination, evaluation, programming, communication, and leadership skills. The ultimate objective was to develop effective and permanent leadership at the county or district level that would serve as a conduit for ideas and further programming. Gerald Schuler joined Kay Dowhaniuk Gibbings as assistant director in the FU&CDA office in 1962. In spite of the report that real progress in rural leadership development was being made, the reality was that not everyone accepted the county/municipal district structure or the program FU&CDA was promoting. There was some tension between the FUA and FU&CDA because the FUA felt that some FU&CDA teams were encroaching on the territory of the FUA local. Even those closely involved with FU&CDA admitted that there had not been any noticeable development 7

122

Adjustments were made to align boundaries where they were not co-terminus.



CHAPTER EIGHT: FOLLOWING A GRAND TRADITION




or strengthening of the Farmers’ Union or of the participating organizations.8 When Kay Dowhaniuk Gibbings resigned her position in 1969 to move out of the province, Gerald Schuler replaced her as director of FU&CDA and eventually backed away from providing the leadership resources to keep the county teams functioning. In the meantime, FU&CDA commissioned a study in 1963 by Dr. Lillian Doscher, a social psychologist and research consultant,9 to analyze farmer attitudes to enable the FUA to provide appropriate service to all farmers. Lillian Doscher used lists obtained from municipal district or county offices and chose a random sample of 4% of Alberta farmers, a total of 1675, to be interviewed. She travelled across the province to train 365 FUA volunteers in interviewing techniques to conduct the survey. The Doscher Report showed that in the mid-1960s, 18 percent of farm operators had less than a grade 6 education, 71 percent had completed between seven and eleven years of education, 6 percent had completed grade 12, and 3 percent had post-secondary training. Twelve percent were over 65, 21 percent between 55 and 64, 28 percent between 45 and 54, 25 percent between 35 and 44, 13 percent between 25 and 34, and 1 percent under 25. Farmers who responded to the survey indicated that they joined organizations for financial gain and for the services available as well as to gain power to work for farmers’ interests. Over 75 percent indicated that they had needs beyond the power of the individual to solve that required the co-operation of everyone in the community. The same percentage agreed that pressure on government could best be achieved through organizations. Eighty-five percent joined at least one organization, and 67 percent were members of more than one farm organization. The 15 percent of farmers who did not join organizations tended to be older and less well educated. Of the 1,675 farmers surveyed, approximately 50 percent belonged to the FUA, close to the figure for the farm population, while others belonged to other co-operatives. Those who did not belong to the FUA said they had not been canvassed or did not know what the organization was doing. FU&CDA ran on a very limited budget that covered staff salaries, office rental, and program delivery. Kay Dowhaniuk Gibbings budgeted 8

Allan Gibson, chair, “Report of the Advisory Committee to Policy Council,” FU&CDA Annual Report for May 1, 1963–April 30, 1964, June 1964. 9 Lillian Doscher was in Edmonton temporarily while her husband finished graduate work at the University of Alberta.

123



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Kay Dowhaniuk Gibbings and Gerald Schuler were instrumental in the success of FU&CDA (Farmers’ Union and Co-operative Development Association), later known as REDA (Rural Education and Development Association).

$10,000 for the Doscher study in 1963, a large amount compared with the total budget, and watched with consternation as expenses added up to nearly $20,000.When she reported this with some trepidation to the annual Policy Committee meeting, there was silence before Arnold Platt commented that he was not surprised that it cost $20,000, but what did surprise him was that it did not cost more than that. Gibbings was relieved, but additional funding was obviously needed to cover the budget over-run and expand the program, so she and FU&CDA set out to raise the necessary funds. In addition to financial support from member organizations, Gibbings managed, eventually, to get some money from a new joint federal/provincial organization, the Agricultural Rehabilitation Development Act, that became known popularly as ARDA.10 Armed with the Doscher survey results and $10,000 from the provincial ARDA grant, in November 1966, FU&CDA launched an impressive winter study program on rural economics and rural sociology11 in partnership with a team of professors from the Department of Extension and 10 The Agricultural

Rehabilitation Development Act (ARDA) was passed in 1961 to address problems in the agricultural community as it adjusted to technological change. 11 The provincial ARDA director, Gordon Sterling, did not believe that this FU&CDA program would be successful.When the program grew to two and three times its original size, he wondered how Kay Dowhaniuk Gibbings would feel about ARDA taking it over. She declined.

124



CHAPTER EIGHT: FOLLOWING A GRAND TRADITION




the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology at the University of Alberta.Topics for the first rural economics and rural sociology study course included world population and the distribution of food, social and economic trends in rural Alberta and Canada, changes in rural community and social institutions, farmer attitudes, and rural and urban interaction. As the program strengthened and broadened over the years, other subjects were suggested by participants at the regional and provincial conferences. Topics such as marketing, the monetary system, international trade, foreign investment and ownership in agriculture, tax laws, and many others were added to the curriculum. The enthusiasm of FU&CDA’s Director Kay Dowhaniuk Gibbings and Assistant Director Gerald Schuler impressed a small army of willing adult educators who were soon involved, on a volunteer basis, with FU&CDA. Seasoned academics along with newly minted PhD’s from the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology and the Department of Extension, Dr.Walter Rogers, Dr.Alf Petersen, Dr.Wayne Lamble, Dr. Joe Richter, Dr. Murray Hawkins, Dr. Dhara Gill, Dr. Allan Warrack, and Dr. Peter Apedaile, among others, provided inspiration to the thousand of participants who took part in the home study program over the years.12 Eventually the program was renamed Alberta Rural Development Studies (ARDS). In 1967–68, over 1,500 people took part in the study program, although later it attracted as many as 3,000 rural participants in a year. Because funding was available through ARDA, there was no fee for participation. Participants studied the material prepared by University of Alberta agricultural economics and rural sociology faculty members and then joined one of seventy local monthly meetings where the subject was discussed with a trained discussion leader and any questions or misconceptions cleared up. At the end of the study program in March, a few participants from each local gathered in regional one-day meetings to share ideas from the local discussion groups. Participants in the regional meetings then chose representatives to attend the final two-day conference in Edmonton, organized by FU&CDA and led by University of Alberta faculty as well as guest speakers who were invited to lead the discussion in their areas of expertise.This wrap-up conference was a powerful and stimulating experience, providing a forum for an exchange of ideas that 12 Faculty

members from the University of Alberta along with staff from Alberta Agriculture became members of the Advisory Committee.

125



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

benefited University of Alberta faculty members as much as participants from across Alberta. FU&CDA was also cognizant of the importance of programming for youth. It carried out its mandate to provide the teen and youth programs as well as the graduate seminar at Goldeye Camp that had been established by the Junior FUA in 1959. Goldeye was owned by the FUA while FU&CDA was responsible for administration and delivering programs at the camp. When the University of Alberta’s Farm Young Peoples’Week was brought to a close in 1968 after fifty years of operation, FU&CDA took on the responsibility of providing an alternative. Beginning in 1969, a one-week social issues program at Goldeye, “Challenge for Change,” was planned for young people over 21. FU&CDA was called into the 1960s’ debate over the proposed amalgamation between the Farmers’ Union of Alberta and either the Alberta Federation of Agriculture or the National Farmers’ Union. When the Cameron Nesbitt Platt Report, commissioned by the Alberta Federation of Agriculture to study and make recommendations on the current status of farm organizations, was released in 1962, FU&CDA was given the task of conducting information sessions for members of farm organizations across the province.With his vast knowledge of the rural community and on behalf of FU&CDA, Gerald Schuler set up workshops and information sessions to discuss the pro’s and con’s of amalgamation.The insights Schuler gained from the countless discussions regarding amalgamation made him a valuable resource for the FUA, AFA, and President Paul Babey during the lengthy negotiations that led to amalgamation in 1969–70. As a result of the formation of Unifarm from the amalgamation of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta and the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, the structure of the Farmers’ Union and Co-operative Development Association, FU&CDA, changed.The name changed to Rural Education and Development Association, REDA,13 and the policy council became the board of directors while the advisory committee became the advisory council. The Co-op presidents who made up the board of directors, met to discuss budgets and broad policy issues.The initiative for in-depth programming came from the advisory council. The structure of REDA included all the direct members and the co-operatives and commodity 13 Alf

Petersen was chair of the name change committee that included Gerald Schuler and Arnold Platt.

126



CHAPTER EIGHT: FOLLOWING A GRAND TRADITION




groups that made up Unifarm as well as some that remained outside the organization such as Federated Co-operatives Ltd., Co-operative Insurance Services, and the Alberta Hog Marketing Board. The Alberta Rural Development Studies (ARDS) program, developed in the mid-1960s to provide educational material to the farm community, evolved over the years. As society changed and the structure of Unifarm locals gave way to district organization, the local study group disappeared but ARDS continued. Papers on a wide variety of subjects were prepared and sent out by the hundreds. REDA was responsible for conferring with its advisory council to determine topics for future papers and to hire authors who were paid a small amount to prepare the lessons.The minister of agriculture, Marvin Moore,14 realizing the value of the study program to the residents of rural Alberta, arranged to provide funding to REDA for the program. REDA still gets calls for some of the papers that were produced for the home study program. The ARDS program continued to be an important part of rural education, eventually running in conjunction with the ACCESS radio series as a distance learning project. One of the most successful programs that developed out of the ARDS tradition was farm estate planning and dealing with the challenges and joys of living in a multi-generation farm family.15 People indicated that they needed information on this subject, so REDA planned and delivered a program with videotapes and written material until it was taken over by Alberta Agriculture in the mid-1990s. Eventually, participation in the ARDS program declined, so the whole Alberta Rural Development Studies program wound down after over thirty years. REDA was also involved in leadership development for Unifarm executive and delegates, as well as for groups such as the Alberta Hog Producers Marketing Board (AHPMB), which was not a member organization of Unifarm. The AHPMB was one of the first groups to not only participate in REDA at the administrative level but to use REDA as its leadership training and organizational development arm. On the recommendation of Agricultural Products Marketing Council member Murray Hawkins,16 REDA was contracted to structure a seminar to 14 Marvin

Moore replaced Hugh Horner as Minister of Agriculture in 1975. no! I am going to have to live in the same yard as my father-in-law.” 16 Murray Hawkins, University of Alberta professor of agricultural economics and rural sociology, was appointed to the Alberta Products Marketing Council by Agriculture Minister Hugh (Doc) Horner. 15 “Oh

127



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

resolve some of the conflicts that arose because of differing philosophies on the board. At the end of the contract, a comment made by a Hog Board member indicated that it was money well spent. REDA was seen to be neutral in this and other issues.They did not propose solutions, but used process skills to help each group develop knowledge and understanding of their own situation so they could come to their own solutions. This neutrality was questioned sometimes—and tested at some meetings—but REDA worked hard to ensure that the organization focused on education, not policy development. As the Alberta economy developed and expanded in the 1970s, land use became a lightning rod for dissatisfaction among rural and urban residents. Former FUA President Arnold Platt was appointed executive director of the Land Use Forum, established to consult with Albertans on their concerns about rapid development and its effect on the environment. Recognizing the need for a neutral organization to conduct a public participation process across the province,Arnold Platt approached REDA with a proposal to enter into a contract with the Land Use Forum.This was an unusual step for REDA, which had been organized to increase the level of knowledge and understanding on the family farm. It also meant taking over a function in which Unifarm had developed considerable expertise. Unifarm may have hoped to do the job for the Land Use Forum itself, using its tradition of calling public meetings through its locals.The REDA board, in spite of some misgivings on the part of the chair, Dobson Lea, who was also the president of Unifarm, agreed to the contract.This was done despite concerns about being too closely associated with the provincial government. After further discussion and careful planning, REDA began conducting public information programs around the province in 1974. REDA field workers used a four-step procedure that began with an initial public meeting to discuss land use issues and ensure that community leaders, official and unofficial, were aware of the situation.The second step in the process occurred at the first meeting when issues were identified and local committees were established to do further research on specific community concerns. During the third stage, REDA was available to help with research, gather data, and provide information. In the fourth stage, REDA staff returned to the community and organized a meeting where the findings of various committees were presented to a wide representation of community members to ensure that the recommendations had general approval. When everyone was informed and 128



CHAPTER EIGHT: FOLLOWING A GRAND TRADITION




comfortable, REDA took the proposals to the Land Use Forum where they were considered along with other suggestions in the final report. REDA continued to seek ways to fulfil its mandate to help communities provide the leadership to harness changes that were taking place. Agrileader, one of the most extensive and powerful programs offered by REDA, was announced in February 1976 by Director Gerald Schuler. The Agrileader program was modelled on a leadership program funded by the Kellogg Foundation and the Giannini Foundation in California. Gerald Schuler and Wayne Lamble of the University of Alberta Faculty of Extension had travelled to California where Alex McCalla, one of the founders of Goldeye Camp, was now the Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture at the Davis Campus of the University of California. McCalla drew their attention to the three-year agricultural leadership training program that introduced agricultural leaders to non-agricultural issues and organizations that affected the agriculture sector. It was an interesting concept that had potential if it could be adapted to the Alberta agricultural milieu. After returning to Alberta, Lamble and Schuler presented a proposal for a similar program to the REDA Advisory Council. Eventually an Agrileader Advisory Committee that included Alf Petersen of the University of Alberta, Allan Beattie of the Alberta Wheat Pool, Arne Olson of UFA Co-op, and a representative from UGG was created to supervise the new program. Agrileader was funded by Alberta Advanced Education and Manpower, Alberta Agriculture, Alberta Wheat Pool, United Farmers of Alberta Co-operative, and United Grain Growers.The program was administered by REDA, assisted by the Department of Rural Economy and the Faculty of Extension of the University of Alberta, the Division of Continuing Education of the University of Calgary, and the funding agencies. Scholarships worth $5,000 each were awarded to fifteen of fifty-three rural Albertans who applied to be part of the inaugural three-year Agrileader course. The selection committee followed strict guidelines based on the candidate’s past involvement and experience to choose the participants.17 The Agrileader program was launched in March 1976 at a 17 Harvey Adamson

of Camrose,Arne Carlson of Gwynne, Lois Gilchrist of Milk River, Brian Heidecker of Coronation, Dennis Lay of Beaverlodge, Frank Lichtner of Manning, Douglas Livingstone of Vermilion, Roger Moore of Seven Persons, Bryan Perkins of Wainwright, Boyd Petersen of Olds, Edward Storch of Hanna, Jack Swainson of Markerville, Richard Ure of Delburne, Bruce Walker of Gleichen, and Rex Wood of Cardston.

129



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

week-long study session in Edmonton where the group learned how the legislature functioned and how the cabinet and ministerial committees fit into the picture.They studied how the University Board of Governors and Senate functioned and looked at how large farm and processing operations worked.The second year concentrated on studies and activities related to agriculture at the national level. Agrileaders visited Winnipeg and spent a week in Ottawa after studying federal issues at seminars in Banff and Goldeye. The third year included study in Brussels and the European Community after seminars on the international agricultural scene. The program was set up to encourage people to get involved in leadership in the agriculture sector in Alberta and to provide them with an understanding of the skills of leadership as well as the broad issues that had an impact on agriculture—the skills to run meetings but also vision and a knowledge of political and economic systems on the broader stage. Even though very few of the graduates served as leaders in Unifarm itself, many went on to become leaders in commodity organizations and co-operatives. Douglas Livingstone became president of the Alberta Wheat Pool and Brian Heidecker served on the board of the Bank of Canada. Jack Swainson was one of the exceptions. He was active in Unifarm, serving as second and first vice-president from 1987 to 1993 and on the Goldeye Foundation. Unfortunately, the Agrileader program did not continue after the first session, although similar programs based on the Alberta model operated in other provinces. Gerald Schuler and John Melicher recognize that there were problems, one of them being the selection process itself.The process used to choose participants in the Agrileader program identified leaders and successful innovators in the agricultural sector, not necessarily those with leadership abilities who would work with others in the interests of the whole community. In addition to the high profile Agrileader and Alberta Rural Development Studies programs, REDA was involved in other, unpublicized, activities.Without fanfare and particularly without press coverage, REDA, assisted by the University of Alberta Faculty of Agriculture and Faculty of Extension, conducted a number of impressive and high-powered policy conferences in Banff. Letters of invitation were sent to executives and elected leaders of organizations such as Unifarm, the Alberta Wheat Pool, and the Alberta Cattle Commission. The purpose of these conferences was to equip farm organization, co-operative, and agricultural board and commission leaders with information, permitting them to understand how government and the economy functioned. One year, 130



CHAPTER EIGHT: FOLLOWING A GRAND TRADITION




the speaker was the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz,18 who sat on a table at the Banff School of Fine Arts and talked to the significant farmers and ranchers of Alberta. Policy was not developed at these conferences, but leaders were given the resources to go back to their organizations to develop policy at that level. Other programs such as the “Grains Seminar,” a special four-day conference for the grain industry held at the Banff School of Fine Arts in 1974, added to REDA’s credibility, as did the seminars on grain transportation that REDA and Unifarm organized and conducted.The grain transportation issue, or Statutory Rates issue, better known as the “Crow,” was one of the most contentious handled by REDA, but it highlighted the valuable role REDA was prepared to play. One of REDA’s operational principles was to concentrate on teaching the steps in the policy development process and staying clear of actually developing policy. Murray Hawkins of the Department of Rural Economy at the University of Alberta and long-time member of the REDA Advisory Council was particularly adept at intervening at crucial times during REDA seminars to remind everyone that they were there to listen to the information, not develop policy. REDA organized a Rural Development Forum in March 1979 for sixty participants, including farmers, small town mayors, county reeves, and representatives of government and local organizations, to address the changes occurring in the agricultural community. Participants learned that the average farmer was a married, long-term resident of the community who was approaching fifty years of age. Discussion revolved around what would happen to the local community when this fifty-yearold left farming. After a day of discussion, participants came up with three possible action plans: reverse the trend, soften the blow of change, and help the people to adjust. Participants left the forum with a call for future meetings and an appeal from the main speaker that something should come out of the conclusions that were reached, an important comment given the difficulty in having an impact on change.19 REDA brought its reputation for understanding communities and its skills in social action processes when it was commissioned to investigate 18

During his conversation, Earl Butz said he would never admit to it anywhere else, but he wished the U.S. had a mechanism similar to the Canadian Wheat Board. 19 In a reminder of how difficult it is to manage change, Farm Trends reported in 1983 that another issue REDA had been contracted to study through their “Land Use Forums” had not resulted in any significant change in the onward march of development since the Land Use Forum Report was released in 1975.

131



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

a possible location for a waste management plant. REDA connected with leaders in about sixty communities to begin raising awareness of the need to dispose of certain types of waste that until that time had just been stored. Richard Stringham, a district agriculturist in Manning at the time, was hired on contract by REDA to manage the process of conducting community meetings to educate and explore the idea of what should be done with hazardous waste. Using the “Social Action Process” model developed by Alf Petersen and Wayne Lamble of the University of Alberta, field people contacted community leaders to make them aware that there was an issue that required their attention. REDA had had enough experience to know that it was important to contact official community leaders, those with titles, as well as unofficial community leaders who were very important to the process. Once community leaders were apprised of the situation, a series of discussions in local communities revolved around the environmental issues of the time and what criteria would be used to choose a site. After a year, the social action process wound down, and the politicians agreed that Swan Hills, which was looking for an industry to complement the oil and gas sector, met the criteria for the building of a waste management plant. When Gerald Schuler left after nineteen years at FU&CDA and REDA to become executive director of Co-operative College in Saskatchewan in 1981, John Melicher was appointed REDA director. John had served as director of youth programs and community services at REDA for seven years beginning in 1974, after being involved with Goldeye Centre from 1964 to 1967. Richard Stringham then stepped into the position of managing REDA’s youth and adult leadership programs in John Melicher’s place. By 1984, Unifarm was experiencing financial constraints that caused fluctuation in its support for REDA. John Melicher had already noticed a change in the close relationship between the two organizations as Unifarm became a powerful policy organization in the agricultural community, while REDA was left to develop a strong presence in leadership training and continuing education. When Unifarm was forced to take sides in some controversial issues, organizational members withdrew from it, taking funding with them.The changing winds that buffeted Unifarm as it confronted declining rural populations and the rise of commodity groups that did not adhere to the same co-operative principles reduced Unifarm’s ability to support REDA. John Melicher pointed out that REDA deserved a more stable source of funding and questioned 132



CHAPTER EIGHT: FOLLOWING A GRAND TRADITION




Unifarm’s role as dispenser of funds for the organizations that were Unifarm members.After 1984, Unifarm undertook to support REDA on behalf of its direct members only, leaving REDA free to seek support from individual commodity and co-operative groups on its own. This was a reasonable solution for REDA because it was able to gain support from some of the organizations drifting away from Unifarm, but it meant that REDA and Unifarm also drifted further away from each other. REDA’s member organizations20 maintained their support for REDA as Unifarm became less and less able to continue its financial support on behalf of individual members.The president of Unifarm no longer automatically became the chair of the REDA board of directors in the tradition of Dobson Lea and Howard Falkenberg who served during their presidencies. Unifarm continued to be represented on the board by an executive member, while Wilf Plosz represented Unifarm on the advisory council for many years. REDA launched a series of very successful leadership courses to help elected officials—presidents, secretaries, directors, and delegates—of REDA’s member groups as well as member relations staff of some of the organizations. These were the rural and agricultural organizations and businesses, so important to the non-urban community, that were being forced to confront a changing social and business environment.The leadership skills course was offered once a year in January or February at a site away from major cities, first at the Banff Centre, then at Lake Louise, and finally at Goldeye Centre. Richard Stringham managed the Level One and Level Two leadership skills courses with a staff team from the UFA, AWP, Alberta Agriculture, 4-H, and, in the early years, UGG. The group discussions that took place in Level One helped participants master the skills of organizing ideas and making decisions and provided them with the selfconfidence needed in communicating, public speaking, debating, and dialogue. Level Two took rural leaders further into the skills needed for communication, organization, and planning as well as a knowledge of the structure of the rural organizations affecting people in rural Alberta. Murray Hawkins of the University of Alberta Department of Rural 20

REDA member organizations in 1988 were: Alberta Egg and Fowl Marketing Board, Alberta Milk Producers’ Association, Alberta Pork Producers Marketing Board, Alberta Wheat Pool, Central Alberta Dairy Pool,The Co-operators, Credit Union Central (Alberta), Federated Co-operatives Ltd., Lillydale Co-operative Ltd., Northern Alberta Dairy Pool Ltd., Unifarm, United Farmers of Alberta Co-operative Ltd., and United Grain Growers.

133



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Economy and Wayne Lamble of the Department of Extension assisted the staff team in the Level Two program. Unfortunately, Level Three, which built on the skills presented in Levels One and Two, was only offered once. The strength of the leadership skills program—its comprehensive, intensive approach—proved to be its downfall. As life became more rushed and hectic for everybody, it became increasingly difficult to take five days out of the week, whether it was Monday to Friday or Wednesday to Sunday, plus the time to drive to the isolated location.The comprehensive program that included motivation, public speaking, resolving conflict, and learning how to run meetings proved to be more than people needed. If they were familiar with some of the skills, there was a temptation to attend only parts of the course. REDA responded by winding down the total program and offering some of the sections in central locations around the province. REDA is still extensively involved with co-operative leadership development programs and acts as Secretariat for the Co-operative Council of Alberta and the regional office for the Canadian Co-operative Association. It is also involved with leadership training programs, most recently with the Canadian Agricultural Lifetime Leadership Program for the National Farm Business Management Council. Some of their new leadership programs include training in board governance. In addition, REDA acts as the Secretariat for the Agricultural Education Network, an association of many agricultural education organizations such as the Alberta Foundation for Animal Care, agricultural societies, the provincial Department of Learning, and rural counties and municipalities who advocate agricultural education in the school system. The advisory council was phased out in 1996 over objections from some observers that it meant the end of an opportunity to hear the views of people whose primary interest was the educational side of the debate rather than the business side. For over thirty years, the advisory group had acted as an incubator for ideas that were always scrutinized through an educational lens. The board of directors made the decision to eliminate the council because, in an era of management and staff cutbacks, some of its member organizations found it increasingly difficult to provide a representative to sit on the board as well as the advisory council. That left responsibility for direction and evaluation with the board of directors and REDA staff, assisted by the special projects committee and the youth advisory committee. 134



CHAPTER EIGHT: FOLLOWING A GRAND TRADITION




REDA has evolved and expanded from an organization to provide education and training to individual farmers through the structure of farm locals to one that is involved with education within organizations. Some of these organizations are located in large urban areas, so the focus is no longer exclusively on rural areas. In 1998, REDA was the recipient, along with the Alberta Association of Agricultural Societies, of a University of Alberta Builders of Alberta Award in recognition of its contributions to the economic, agricultural, social, and cultural growth and prosperity of rural communities in Alberta.

135

CHAPTER NINE




SURFACE RIGHTS, LAND USE, AND ALL THAT

U

nifarm and its predecessor, the FUA, found themselves involved in a number of issues as Alberta was propelled from a purely agricultural economy into an energy-based industrial economy. The development of mineral rights and the need to cross private land to build transportation and power transmission corridors threatened the “surface rights” of individual landowners. Surface rights became a particular bone of contention between agriculture and industry after oil was discovered in Leduc in 1947 and aggressive seismograph companies began spreading out over the province searching for the next big one. Heavy fourwheel-drive trucks caused huge ruts and damage to roads as they drove in and out of ditches and over farmers’ land. Dynamite holes and cumbersome seismic equipment caused severe disruption to natural springs and water wells that either flooded fields and roads or dried up completely. There was no legislation to protect landowners from this interference in normal farming operations. Beginning as early as 1958, the FUA established a surface rights committee consisting of chair Dan Whitney of Lacombe, as well as Howard Hibbard of Nampa, Mildred Redman of Hardisty, and Neil Mowat of Parkland, to provide information and assistance. The Organized Farmer ran several informative articles written by Mildred Redman and the FUA surface rights committee outlining the legislation that governed surface rights and the rights of landowners. Farmers were warned that verbal agreements were useless and given guidelines on how to negotiate fees for right of entry and yearly rental for oil sites contracts. In 1962, the surface rights committee admitted that since its recommendation that an FUA member ask $1,500 for right of entry and $500 yearly rental had been accepted without difficulty, it was probably too low.The committee suggested that $1,750 right of entry and $750 yearly rental was reasonable compensation. By the end of the year, the FUA requested that the provincial government set a minimum right of entry payment at $2,400 for four-acre (1.6 hectares) well sites to compensate 137



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

the owner for severance, inconvenience, reclamation, and depreciated farm value. The construction of highways, power, telephone, or pipe lines sometimes pitted a farmer/landowner against the forces of development and change, prompting the counties around Red Deer to appoint a threeperson committee to investigate damage to county roads and farmland and determine what could be done. Joe Marshall of Innisfail was a member of the county committee set up to deal with oil and gas companies, and later a member of a provincial committee to deal with the repercussions of expropriation for the provincial highway between Calgary and Edmonton.1 The existing Expropriation Act allowed governments to expropriate land needed for highway construction, but there was no law protecting farmers and no provision for landowners to appeal expropriation except through the courts. In 1957–8, a corridor was taken for the new Edmonton-Calgary highway that ran at an angle through farmers’ fields, causing considerable hardship when farms were divided or changed hands. Underpasses were constructed in some places to allow farmers to move machinery from one field to another. In all cases, Marshall and the farmers he attempted to serve were stymied by the lack of legislation. As complaints increased, FUA members knew they could count on FUA member services staff Bill Harper and Jim McFall to help with any problems they encountered. During the 1960s and 1970s, the problems they faced with the greatest frequency were problems with oil and gas companies. These mostly American corporations did not understand rural Albertans’ dependence on the land and were not prepared to adequately reimburse farmers for use of their property. Individual farmers were taken by surprise when oil company land agents arrived at the door with news that a seismic company or drilling crew needed access to their land. Because they had not had this experience before, and because they felt powerless to fight a large company that seemed to represent progress, individual farmers often signed contracts they later regretted. Unhappy with the arrangements, they contacted the FUA member services department. In 1966, FUA President Paul Babey, along with a CBC television crew and George Rife of the Edmonton Journal, travelled to Drayton 1

138

Joe Marshall and his wife, Pearl, ran an internationally known Red Poll cattle operation. In 1982, Joe was appointed member services director for Unifarm.



CHAPTER NINE: SURFACE RIGHTS, LAND USE, AND ALL THAT




Valley in response to one of these calls. They discovered that a crew laying pipe through a field had dug up topsoil and made such a mess that it was useless as farmland. The Drayton Valley farmer, like many other individual farmers, was having a great deal of difficulty bargaining with the oil companies. After this visit, Paul Babey called for guidelines for settlement and an ombudsman to assist farmers who were dissatisfied with compensation set out in arbitration by the Public Utilities Board. Armed with more and more complaints, the 1966 FUA Surface Rights Committee, now made up of Lawrence Henderson of Blackfalds, Dick Page of Didsbury, and Mike Nikolaychuk of Woking, set out to determine the weaknesses in the various acts covering surface rights and to recommend changes to the government. Following true FUA tradition, they called meetings to talk about the problem at the grassroots level. Further workshops for local surface rights committees were organized by the FUA, FU&CDA, and a consulting firm called Surface Rights Consultants Ltd. that had been launched by a former oil industry employee, Robert A. Doyle. Doyle, retained by the FUA on a yearround basis, prepared a detailed report based on his research and the information gathered at province-wide FUA meetings that the FUA used as the basis for their brief to the provincial cabinet in 1967 and 1968. FUA input into the Landmen Licensing Act resulted in legislation requiring that landowners be given forty-eight hours to consider an offer, giving them time to contact the FUA for advice from the member services department. There was no charge to the farmer for advice and consultation, but there was a charge if Unifarm pursued further action on behalf of individual farmers. A landmark ruling was handed down in January 1968 awarding $11,336 in damages plus first year rental and $300 per year thereafter to a Three Hills area farm family who had approached the FUA for advice. Robert Doyle was involved in doing an appraisal and giving evidence on behalf of the farmer. His argument was based on the premise that whether the land was needed for private profits from oil exploration or the public good when highways were built, the individual farmer should not be expected to suffer. The FUA was being called upon to help intervene in an increasing number of issues, so Helmut Entrup of Tilley, a former FUA sub-district director, was named director of member services in the FUA office when Bill Harper stepped down in 1969. Helmut Entrup was born in Germany 139



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

and came to Canada in 1954, spending some time as a cowboy and construction superintendent in southern Alberta before joining the Brooks Research Centre in 1956 and purchasing an irrigation farm in Tilley. The FUA surface rights committee2 co-operated with the Property Rights Council and other interested groups to prepare a thirty-page booklet entitled “It’s Your Land” on the subject of surface rights. The booklet outlined farmers’ rights and how they could be protected within the legislation and gave information on the procedures to be followed for an expropriation. It also dealt with the Right of Entry Arbitration Board and its responsibilities. The booklet provided space for farmers to write everything down because it was so important for them to keep a record of the agreements, discussions, times of entry, damages, and inconvenience. Information was provided on dealing with land agents as well as construction and service crews. Copies were available at the FUA/Unifarm office for $1.00 each, and members were encouraged to contact the member services department for further information. Calgary Power’s decision to build transmission lines through central Alberta in the late 1960s set off a storm of protest in the area, not because residents did not want the power but because of the way they were treated. Connie Osterman3 was incensed by the arrogance of Calgary Power employees who seemed to think they had the right to build transmission towers and run the line through Connie and Joe Osterman’s property wherever they pleased without even discussing it with them.When asked if the line could be moved a short distance to avoid their feedlot, the Ostermans were told that if the power company moved the line for them, it would have to move it for other people as well. Connie decided to take action. She loaded her five children in the car and visited homeowners between her home east of Carstairs and an area west of Red Deer, talking to them about the line and encouraging them not to sign anything until they could all get together to present a united front. She encountered many wonderful people on her travels, including Joe Marshall—the Joe Marshall who had been asked to serve on county and provincial committees a decade earlier to monitor surface rights issues in 2

In anticipation of the formation of Unifarm in 1969–70, the FUA surface rights committee was re-organized to include representatives from the Alberta Wheat Pool, Alberta Association of Municipal Districts,Western Stock Growers’ Association, United Farmers of Alberta Co-operative Ltd., United Grain Growers Ltd., and the Alberta Federation of Agriculture. 3 Connie Osterman was the member of the Alberta legislative assembly for Three Hills from 1979 to 1992.

140



CHAPTER NINE: SURFACE RIGHTS, LAND USE, AND ALL THAT




central Alberta—and active Midway FUA Local members Henry Sawatsky and Henry Goerzen.4 The connection with the FUA was fortuitous. Henry Sawatsky and Henry Goerzen arranged for Connie to meet FUA Member Services Director Helmut Entrup, a meeting that took place around the table in Henry Sawatsky’s kitchen.Armed with information from Entrup and on the suggestion of FUA Director Dick Page, Connie Osterman went to Edmonton to meet FUA President Paul Babey. Connie credits Babey and the whole FUA/Unifarm structure for supporting her and getting her involved. Because of their vision and commitment to provide an organizational structure and member services staff of the calibre of Helmut Entrup, Connie and other concerned citizens in her community had a place to turn for information and assistance. Unifarm was invited to meet with the new provincial government and its new agriculture minister, Hugh Horner, just two months after the August 1971 provincial election. Several of Unifarm’s proposals were implemented in the new Surface Rights Act of 1972. A Surface Rights Board was established to deal with cases of expropriation of farmland for oil well sites, power and pipe line right-of-way, highways, or other development. The legislation included the requirement that the landowner’s cost of defending property through legal counsel and expert witnesses be paid by the company attempting to acquire the land.Also included in the legislation were requirements that all cases of expropriation be heard by the Surface Rights Board and that survey crews give notice before entering someone’s property. Unifarm also had an impact on the new Expropriation Act that was sent first to the Institute of Law Research and Reform before being passed and coming into force in June 1974. In central Alberta, Connie Osterman and the committee of twentythree continued to fight hard to preserve their right to some control over what happened on their land. At the urging of Helmut Entrup, Osterman met the minister of agriculture, Hugh Horner, to discuss the issue of surface rights. She became the orator for the cause while Joe Marshall did a great deal of the background investigation. Together, Connie Osterman and Joe Marshall visited MLAs and industry representatives to pursue their campaign to get fair compensation for farmers 4

Connie Osterman was persuaded to run for the Progressive Conservatives in the 1979 election, although it meant running against Social Credit candidate Henry Goerzen, a man she respected highly and who had worked with her over the years on surface rights issues.

141



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

affected by transmission lines being built across their property. Osterman came into contact with people across the province and made more and more people aware of the issue. Joe Marshall has vivid memories of a presentation she made to a committee of the legislative assembly. The lawyer for Calgary Power had some unflattering words for Osterman, but her poised and professional response left the lawyer with his reputation somewhat diminished. Calgary Power eventually built the transmission line, but was forced to give up the second of the two lines the company had expropriated so it could be renegotiated at current prices. Calgary Power5 also agreed to compensate the committee for some of the legal fees and expenses that members of the committee had incurred over thirteen years. One of the most important decisions made by Agriculture Minister Hugh Horner was the appointment of Unifarm’s member services director, Helmut Entrup, to the position of farmers’ advocate in the provincial Department of Agriculture in January 1973.This appointment had a profound effect on Unifarm. A service that had been an important part of Unifarm’s mandate was now provided through a government office to all farmers in the province.While it was hard to disagree with the importance of having this service, it removed an important incentive to belong to Unifarm. The minister of agriculture did not surreptitiously spirit Helmut Entrup away from Unifarm; he saw the importance of the work being done by Entrup and suggested to the Unifarm executive that the Agriculture Department was prepared to support the service within Unifarm or to set up a service under the department umbrella. At the time, Unifarm was 20,000 strong and extremely busy with the feed grains issue as well as grain transportation and national marketing boards, so the decision was made to establish the office of the farmers’ advocate under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture with Helmut Entrup at the helm.6 Words of caution from people who worried about a government department taking over a role that had historically been filled by an independent farmers’ organization went unheeded. As inflation increased in the early 1970s, residents as well as nonresidents bought up Alberta farmland as a hedge against rising prices. These purchases took good farmland out of circulation through the 5

Later, Calgary Power changed its name to TransAlta Utilities Corporation. Joe Marshall comments that he didn’t have to change his name, but after their dealings with him, Calgary Power had to change its name. 6 Helmut Entrup was inducted into the Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame in 1989.

142



CHAPTER NINE: SURFACE RIGHTS, LAND USE, AND ALL THAT




expansion of urban and acreage development, driving up costs for young farmers trying to get into the business. The land use issue burst onto the scene in 1972 when the provincial government dropped the Communal Properties Act, a piece of legislation that restricted the size and number of some agricultural holdings. It was not a new issue. During his tenure as president, Paul Babey remembers resolutions coming to the floor of the convention calling for restrictions on the purchase of land by Hutterites. At these times, Babey gently reminded delegates that if there were restrictions on Hutterites buying land, there would be restrictions on Alberta farmers selling land. Urban expansion and the fear that Hutterite colonies would expand and proliferate mobilized farmers to demand action to protect the family farm. Unifarm took up the cry by discussing a resolution at the 1972 annual convention to encourage the Alberta government to set a maximum size of farm that could be owned or operated by one owner, including a social order,7 within an established zone.8 After much debate, the 1972 Unifarm convention passed a resolution calling on the provincial government to set a maximum size of farm operation that could be owned or operated by one owner or corporation. In February 1973, former FUA President Arnold Platt was appointed chair of the Special Advisory Committee on Communal Properties to review and recommend procedures for rural land use, large land holdings, and corporate farms. Then in late 1973, Premier Peter Lougheed appointed a three-person Land Use Forum composed of V.A. Wood (chair), Ralph Brown, and Jack Davis,9 with Arnold Platt as full-time consultant, to study land use in a changing environment. Arnold Platt recommended that REDA, the educational arm of Unifarm and the rural co-operatives, be hired to conduct the province-wide participation process. The Forum embarked on an extensive public consultation process to educate and gather information from a wide spectrum of people who were being affected by changes to the physical and social landscape. The conflict between industrial, transportation, agricultural, and recreational uses of land merged with the conflict that swirled around communal, corporate, or private family ownership. The setting 7

A reference to Hutterite colonies. Farm Trends, January 1973: 8. 9 Dr.Wood was a former deputy minister of lands and forests, Jack Davis was a former City of Calgary alderman, and Ralph Brown was a farmer and reeve of the County of Kneehill and former president of the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties. 8

143



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

for the discussion was the inflationary economic situation and the burgeoning environmental movement. Many concerned individuals and organizations took part in the process. Unifarm and the Women of Unifarm presented briefs to the Land Use Forum in Edmonton in March 1975, incorporating some of the discussion and the resolutions that had been passed at annual conventions. Both Unifarm groups recommended that land use decisions, particularly regarding residential subdivisions, be based on knowledge of the fertility of the soil and the agricultural potential of various areas. Unifarm and the Women of Unifarm recommended that controlling interest in corporate farms be in the hands of Canadian residents and called for prohibiting the sale of Canadian land to all corporations and individuals who were not Canadian or who were not willing to become Canadian citizens. Unifarm’s policy of restricting the size of farms, on the books for two years, was included as part of the submission even though it had been challenged at the 1974 annual convention. The development of the transportation corridor from Edmonton north to Ft. McMurray to accommodate the new tar sands development provided a focus for Land Use Forums in that area.A multi-purpose corridor incorporating pipelines, electric power transmission lines, highways, railroads, and communications systems made sense, but Unifarm was interested in protecting individual farmers whose livelihood would be impacted by the corridor. A brief from the Battle River Planning Commission in central Alberta called for the establishment of a second industrial corridor thirty or forty miles west of Highway 2 where soil was of low grade, rather than use up additional prime agricultural land in the more central area of the province. The report of the Land Use Forum had not yet been released in December 1975 when Premier Peter Lougheed announced in the Legislature and then at the Unifarm convention a few hours later that legislation would be brought down in 1976 to restrict foreign purchase of Alberta land.10 He said that the legislation would be guided by the report of the Land Use Forum that was expected in the new year. The 330-page Land Use Forum Report, released in early 1976, recognized the input of Albertans at public hearings and contained more than 160 recommendations. While acknowledging that Alberta had fewer land-use problems than many other jurisdictions, the report 10 Unifarm

144

News Release, December 12, 1975.



CHAPTER NINE: SURFACE RIGHTS, LAND USE, AND ALL THAT




recognized the need for more co-ordination between government departments and more co-operation between the provincial and municipal governments and the public. It recommended the appointment of a three-person land use secretariat and recognized the importance of land ownership rights, maintaining that the landowner should be able to manage land within established laws.The objective for future land use legislation was to prohibit abuse of the land, and to stop actions that adversely affected the welfare of others or unduly lessened the options of future generations. The report did not recommend government control of the size of farms or land prices. In spite of some submissions to the contrary, communal farms such as Hutterite colonies were not seen as major threats to the family farm, so there were no recommendations to control them. The demand for industrial as well as country residential development had to be accommodated, but the report recommended that development occur only on poorer agricultural land. The report addressed one of the more contentious issues, foreign ownership of agricultural land, by rejecting absolute prohibition of foreign buying of land but recommending that all purchases of land by non-Canadians be reviewed. Land use issues continued to be in a state of flux because of high inflation, skyrocketing property values, and industrial development. By June of 1976, President Dobson Lea was already expressing concern about industrial infringement in agricultural areas in spite of the recommendations of the Land Use Forum only six months earlier. Unifarm’s policy was to seek legislation or other forms of assurance that the controlling interest in corporate farms would remain vested with Canadian residents. Governments were asked to restrict land purchases in Alberta by non-residents to not more than $15,000 (1975) assessed value and to restrict non-agricultural organizations to owning not more than 160 acres (64.74 hectares) of agricultural land. Unifarm central office still received complaints from members regarding what should be considered fair compensation for land taken out of production.After more than twenty years of dealing with the new, raw, upstart oil and gas business, some issues remained which Unifarm addressed in a brief to the Surface Rights Board. Unifarm’s brief asked the Surface Rights Board to recognize that land taken in small parcels was worth more per acre than larger areas and that compensation for taking this land should be higher. Farmers were aware that they could not prevent access to their land if it was for the general benefit of the 145



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

As shown on the cover of the September 1974 Farm Trends, the farmers who made up the Round Hill Dodds Agricultural Protective Association defend their land against possible expropriation.

public, but they believed very strongly that the public should be prepared to pay a fair compensation to any farmer who gave up land for the public good.The brief also requested that the Surface Rights Board change the legislation to require that contracts negotiated before January 1972 be revised to take into account changing land values. The farmer was required to pay increasing taxes on land expropriated or rented to oil companies, but in many cases the annual compensation from the oil company was frozen. A proposed strip mine at Round Hill-Dodds near Camrose galvanized the community and sent the Unifarm Round Hill Local into action. During the summer of 1974, Calgary Power called a public meeting for residents of Round Hill-Dodds to announce a proposed plant that would take up sixty-two square miles (160.5 sq. km)11 of arable land for a strip mine to produce electricity from coal for the booming Alberta economy. Residents were not impressed with the technology or the 11 This

146

estimate was later dropped to fifty-five square miles (142.4 sq. km).



CHAPTER NINE: SURFACE RIGHTS, LAND USE, AND ALL THAT




argument that this was the most economical way to produce electricity. Calgary Power was not able to convince anybody that farmers would not be disadvantaged or that they would be adequately compensated. Unifarm Round Hill Local sponsored a public meeting for area farmers and was instrumental in the formation of the Round Hill-Dodds Agricultural Protective Association. This activity and a letter from Unifarm President Dobson Lea to provincial Environment Minister Bill Yurko prompted the government to require a full Environmental Impact Assessment from Calgary Power. Members of the Round Hill-Dodds Agricultural Protective Association were elated when, on July 15, 1976, Premier Lougheed announced that the cabinet had decided to inform Calgary Power that its pending application for a strip mine and thermal power plant in the area would not receive government approval. Unifarm’s role in the favourable decision for Round Hill-Dodds was recognized when Premier Lougheed and Agriculture Minister Marvin Moore invited Unifarm President Dobson Lea for breakfast to tell him about the decision in advance of the official announcement. The Round Hill-Dodds Association President, Fred Gotheridge, acknowledged the valuable assistance of Unifarm in a letter to Lea indicating that they could never have done it without Unifarm’s support. There was still a need for a power plant. Based on Unifarm’s policy that the province should be zoned according to agricultural potential and that industrial uses of the land should occur in less productive areas, President Dobson Lea could not argue with the announcement that the Sheerness coal field near Hanna was being considered as the site. Climatic conditions in the Sheerness area were less conducive to cereal crop production, so the area was used primarily for grazing. Unifarm had given a great deal of thought to the process of land reclamation and pointed out that it was easier and less expensive to return grazing land to its former use than to use prime agricultural land and attempt to reclaim it for growing crops. Alberta Power applied to the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) for permission to build a power generation plant at the Sheerness site while Edmonton Power went before the ERCB to gain permission for its $500 million power plant in the Genesee area, sixty miles (96.6 km) southwest of Edmonton. The Sheerness site affected only five farms while the Genesee site affected twenty-seven farms. Dobson Lea announced that Unifarm was prepared to help farmers and ranchers in the area obtain 147



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

fair compensation for displacement and to monitor future reclamation procedures. Another land use issue that reared its head during the mid-1970s was the flooding and flow control on the Red Deer River. Farmers had requested action on this as early as 1971. Twelve sites along the river were considered for a dam, but two sites downstream from Sundre were studied more extensively. Unifarm submitted a brief to the Environment Conservation Authority (ECA) in December 1975 asking for a delay in the Authority’s report until a site upstream from Sundre could be studied. Based on its policy that industrial development should not take place in zones with high fertility and agricultural potential if other locations were available, Unifarm opposed the flooding of good arable land in the Spruce View area and suggested a less productive site west of Sundre. The ECA took Unifarm’s advice and did a study of all potential dam sites, including the one upstream from Sundre. 12 Based on this more extensive study, the ECA conducted further public meetings to discuss a location for a dam on the Red Deer River. Unifarm reiterated its opposition to flooding productive farmland in the Spruce View area and seemed to be supported by the Environment Conservation Authority, so it was shocked when the provincial government made the decision to go ahead with a dam on the Red Deer River at Spruce View. According to Environment Minister Dave Russell, the site west of Sundre would have cost more, but the real reason appeared to be an interest in further petrochemical development northeast of Red Deer. The reservoir at Spruce View, expected to be seven miles (11 km) long and about one-and-a-half miles (2.4 km) wide, would submerge about 4,000 acres (1,616 hectares) and displace about twenty farm families. Unifarm Director Stan Bell, along with the “Site 6” Association and the Raven Protective Association, called a meeting in Red Deer to discuss the decision. Environment Minister Dave Russell was not well received when he explained that the site upstream from Sundre had not been chosen because construction there would destroy whitewater canoe runs and Native burial grounds. He went on to explain that the site would cost $115 million, while the Spruce View site was estimated to cost $54.5 million.As far as the minister was concerned, the decision was made and 12 Unifarm

President Howard Falkenberg was not completely satisfied with the extent of the studies.

148



CHAPTER NINE: SURFACE RIGHTS, LAND USE, AND ALL THAT




the bulldozers would be on site in 1978 with a completion date set for 1984 of what would be called the Dickson Dam. A fledgling group of like-minded protective associations calling itself the Provincial Alberta Protective Association, or PAPA, met in Red Deer on a few occasions in 1978 to discuss ongoing issues relating to dams, power plants, and highway construction. Helmut Entrup attended the meetings, composed mostly of Unifarm members who saw a problem and met to attempt to solve it. Long-time Unifarm member Tom Nahirniak of Round Hill attended these 1978 meetings and went on to become a member of the Round Hill Surface Rights Association and Battleford Trail Surface Rights Association, which he represents on the Alberta Surface Rights Federation. He serves as the executive secretary of the Federation. The next debate over a dam location began at the same time in southern Alberta. After farmers in the Lethbridge Northern Irrigation District experienced a ten-day shut-down of the system, the Iron Springs Unifarm Local passed a resolution requesting the ministers of environment and agriculture to attend a meeting to discuss their concerns.A capacity crowd of more than 600 local people representing dairy, livestock, and vegetable crop producers, the town of Picture Butte, the County of Lethbridge, the City of Lethbridge, and the Lethbridge Northern Irrigation District attended a meeting on August 24, 1977.They gathered in a local school to discuss immediate action for on-stream storage on the Oldman River. Roy Jensen, vice-president of the Alberta Irrigation Projects Association, chair of the Lethbridge Northern Irrigation District, and a future president of Unifarm, attended the meeting. Jensen explained that farmers were being hurt because the government was allowing more acres to be put on the Irrigation District rolls— acres that could not be supplied during years of low rainfall. He made a passionate plea to Environment Minister Dave Russell to stop making promises and do something before more farmers were hurt.The minister responded that while it would be impossible to have a dam built by the next crop year, he would try to accelerate the estimated two-year planning process in the hopes of having a decision by the end of 1978. Former FUA President Arnold Platt was appointed chair of the panel to conduct public hearings into the Oldman River water management system.13 13 Other

panel members were Thomas Sissons, Dixon Thompson, and Alistair Crerar, chief executive officer of the Environment Council of Alberta.

149



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

The president of the Iron Springs Local wrote to Unifarm President Dobson Lea demanding that Unifarm support on-stream storage in the Oldman River basin. In his reply, Lea referred to Unifarm’s policy regarding dams and irrigation that had been debated over the years at annual conventions and called for the government to provide reserves of water with priority being placed on the rehabilitation of present irrigation systems before additional systems were installed. Unifarm supported the building of high-line canals to develop new irrigation land and requested that the government carry out feasibility studies outlining alternative methods of providing up-stream storage. The need for conservation and protection of watersheds was recognized in all of Unifarm’s policy along with the need to protect prime agricultural land. A new member services director, Ivan Weleschuk, was hired in late 1978 to build up the member services department again. Unifarm had not hired anyone to replace Helmut Entrup when he left in 1973, but rather stepped back to give him time to establish himself in the Farmers’ Advocate Office. For the first few years, Unifarm turned most surface rights and land use issues over to Entrup, but eventually realized that members expected this service to be provided by Unifarm. While Weleschuk’s responsibility was to deal with consumer advocacy on behalf of individual members,14 most of his calls were from farmers who were being approached for the first time by oil and gas companies requesting access to their land to do seismic or drilling work. His first article in the November 1978 Farm Trends was on the subject of surface rights. A standard right-of-way agreement was drafted by the Farmers’ Advocate Office, assisted by Unifarm, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen, the American Right-of-Way Association, the Canadian Petroleum Association, and the Independent Petroleum Association.While contracts in use at the time were written by individual companies for their benefit, the standard right-of-way contract offered landowners some protection and encouraged responsible conduct by energy companies. One clause in the new contract stipulated that the owner or occupier of the land on which the right-of-way existed was in no way liable for any non-wilful damage or any suits resulting from non-wilful damage to the above-surface structures. Unifarm and 14 Weleschuk’s

first call was from a man who had bought a new car that had not been fitted with mud flaps: when he drove it on gravel roads, the paint came off the bottom of the car.The owner was upset because mud flaps were not installed as a standard feature.Weleschuk investigated but admits that they didn’t resolve it to anyone’s satisfaction.

150



CHAPTER NINE: SURFACE RIGHTS, LAND USE, AND ALL THAT




the farmers’ advocate had advocated for this change for many years in the hopes that it would encourage pipeline companies to either bury their above-surface structures or place them out of the way.The second addition was a clause that held a pipeline company responsible for compensating farmers for any additional costs incurred in the operation due to construction of the pipeline.This was particularly beneficial for farmers in irrigated areas because they were able to claim compensation for levelling the land disturbed by pipeline construction. As part of Unifarm’s campaign to reassert itself as the voice of agriculture, the member services department began collecting copies of actual surface rights agreements from members and publishing the details on a regular basis in its magazine, Farm Trends. Unifarm was sure the industry would not provide the information, so Unifarm members were asked to send anonymous copies of their agreements to the office. Since companies within the industry were fully aware of what arrangements were being negotiated by their land agents, it was only fair that farmers should have the same information. The oil boom of the 1970s caused a great deal of excitement and talk about massive pipelines to bring oil and gas across provincial and territorial boundaries from Alaska and the Mackenzie Delta in the Northwest Territories. The original National Energy Board Act that set out procedures for compensating landowners on interprovincial pipeline routes was based on the old Railways Act—which predated pipelines by several decades. With information from Unifarm and the Alberta farmers’ advocate, Liberal Senator Bud Olson introduced amendments to the National Energy Board Act, which were passed in early 1979. Farmers waited impatiently, but it was late 1982 before all the regulations and procedures for implementation were developed and the amendments were proclaimed. Unifarm was pleased that its years of work finally resulted in legislation that protected its members—and all other rural landowners. The new federal legislation forced pipeline companies to give detailed notice to landowners of their intended plans, to provide ample opportunity to hear landowners’ objections, and to offer certain minimum terms in the event of expropriation. Under the new legislation, the landowner was to be given the option to accept either a lump sum payment for the rightof-way or an annual rental, to be reviewed every five years.The company was also required to compensate the landowner for damages caused on or off the right-of-way as a result of the company’s operations. In 151



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

addition, the company had to provide an evaluation of the market value of the land and compensate the farmer for loss of use of the land, along with a payment for such things as nuisance and inconvenience. As the energy boom continued and the demand for petroleum products and power increased, energy and utility companies were often forced to hire young and inexperienced land agents to deal with local farmers. These land agents sometimes pressured individual farmers by hinting that other people were signing contracts with them. Neighbours soon realized that this was not always the case and they could get more reasonable compensation if they organized and worked together through local surface rights associations. Word spread quickly, and many others joined the fledgling surface rights groups or established new associations. The Hussar Agricultural Surface Rights Association was formed when Concept Resources Oil Company sent in a very young land agent to acquire the right-of-way for a pipeline through the Wintering Hills. The land agent offered different compensation to each of the fifteen farmers he dealt with and managed to alienate the whole community in about two weeks. Farmers in the area called a meeting and agreed on a plan and the compensation they expected, forcing the company to accept the arrangements.When farmers realized there would be a great deal of activity in the area, they formed an ongoing association on October 5, 1979, with 105 farmer members, which eventually grew to include 150 members. Another aggressive group established in the Grande Prairie area, the Willow Creek Surface Rights Society, became the largest surface rights protective association in the province with 500 members, followed closely by the Eastern Irrigation District Society with 350 members. Using tactics that proved to be successful in the labour union movement, members of surface rights associations across the province were strongly encouraged to abide by the minimum terms negotiated by bargaining committees. Faced with this united front, companies15 did everything in their power to accommodate farmers’ wishes to avoid costly arbitration and court proceedings and to build up good will to be carried into the next district or the next project.16 15 Many

people felt that the reason Alberta Gas Trunk Line, later called Nova: An Alberta Corporation, agreed to compensate farmers for pipeline easements was that it was easier than being taken to court by every individual farmer on its proposed route. 16 As long as times were good for agricultural producers, farmers did not break ranks. When times became tough, some farmers accepted lower payments because they needed something to supplement their income.

152



CHAPTER NINE: SURFACE RIGHTS, LAND USE, AND ALL THAT




The Starland Surface Rights Association was organized within a month of the formation of the Hussar group to satisfy a need to be informed on an issue that was becoming a hot topic of conversation as oil activity increased in that area. Farmers could avoid the issue only until a land agent came to their door—at which time the farmer needed a great deal of knowledge in a short period of time. Gordon Moulton of the Hussar Surface Rights Association and Jack Howard of the Starland Surface Rights Association became sought-after speakers who travelled across the province in response to requests to set up local organizations.17 Many members of Unifarm became active in local surface rights associations, and Unifarm provided information and services to these embryonic associations as part of its mandate to advocate on behalf of Alberta farmers. Farm Trends, Unifarm’s newsmagazine, was used to communicate with members about the issue. Unifarm stood to increase its membership and reputation if it could be seen as the co-ordinating force behind the burgeoning surface rights activity, but some organizations were not interested in being included in the Unifarm umbrella.They felt Unifarm was not aggressively adopting the collective bargaining process that was proving to be so successful across the province. Other groups may have shied away because of Unifarm’s preoccupation with the controversial issue of the future of the Statutory Rates. In addition, Helmut Entrup in the farmers’ advocate office was helping to set up surface rights groups, further interfering with Unifarm’s goal of a provincial organization under the auspices of Unifarm. Eventually, the surface rights groups set up their own federation. The Alberta Surface Rights Federation with Gordon Moulton as chair and Jack Howard as treasurer was established in June 1980 with crucial help from Helmut Entrup and the office of the farmers’ advocate. Entrup provided encouragement and much needed funding to finance organizational meetings as well as ongoing annual conventions. In addition, funding for the Alberta Surface Rights Federation came from the member associations that either charged a membership fee or assessed farmers a certain percentage of their surface rights award.18 17 Although

they were never compensated for their early expenses, Gordon Moulton and Jack Howard felt they were compensated many times over by the satisfaction they gained from a “job well done.” 18 Tony Nichols of Castor, an active member and district chair of Unifarm/Wild Rose Agricultural Producers, took over as chair of the Federation in 1989 and continues as president of the Paint Earth Protective Society.

153



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Although the Alberta Surface Rights Federation (ASRF) operated independently of Unifarm, the two groups co-operated and served sideby-side on innumerable committees and boards. Unifarm fulfilled its mandate of advocating for farmers by presenting briefs to government that resulted in legislative changes, while the Alberta Surface Rights Federation established itself at the grassroots level, dealing with day-today issues. Both groups can point with pride to the changes they brought about as farmers became better informed and industry more enlightened. Major energy and utility companies were forced to take the agricultural community seriously. In the process, most of them have become good corporate citizens. Gone are the days when a company could come in with a backhoe to dig up farmland with no thought to reclamation sometime in the future.Topsoil is kept separate from underlying soil and clay and is carefully replaced after the project is complete.19 The seeds Connie Osterman had sown on the topic of surface rights and the work done by Unifarm over the years made Premier Peter Lougheed aware of how important this issue was in rural Alberta. Osterman was elected MLA for Three Hills in 1979 and continued to be closely involved when the Surface Rights Act was re-opened for discussion in 1981. The Legislative Select Caucus Committee on Surface Rights that toured the province was extremely impressed with Unifarm members who attended the meetings and argued their case, sometimes until midnight, for fair treatment for farmers. The Unifarm Surface Rights Committee, chaired by Allan Fraser of Barons along with Ivan Weleschuk, and later, Joe Marshall, represented Unifarm officially in meetings with the caucus committee and, supported by Unifarm members from the locals, were responsible for ensuring that many of Unifarm’s recommendations were adopted when the legislation was brought down. Joe Marshall replaced Ivan Weleschuk in the Unifarm member services office in 1981. Marshall brought to this position many years of experience in agriculture and his reputation as a campaigner for fair treatment of farmers by government as well as development, energy, and utility companies. The new act, finally passed in 1983, set the annual rental payment for the inconvenience of having someone else gain access to the surface of 19 Oil

companies forced to consider reclamation for the future should be thankful they do not have to go through the experience of the companies responsible for reclaiming the area around Leduc, where nothing was done to prepare for the decommissioning of the wells.

154



CHAPTER NINE: SURFACE RIGHTS, LAND USE, AND ALL THAT




privately owned deeded land. Even though farmers knew that they only owned the surface rights and that others had the right to explore and use their land in certain circumstances, it was an inconvenience and it did not happen to everyone. On the insistence of Joe Marshall, an initial entry fee payment to the landowner was set at $500 above the compensation awarded by the Surface Rights Board for land that was expropriated. Under the revised act, well-site leases entered into before 1972 and major power transmission line leases signed before 1977 were to be renegotiated. Ignoring the recommendations of the Land Use Forum of the early 1970s and Unifarm’s policy that called on planning bodies to confine industrial development and urban expansion to less productive agricultural land, expanding urban areas were gobbling up rich farm land at an alarming rate. Sixty-nine percent, or 25,000 acres (10,100 hectares), of the 36,318 acres (14,672 hectares) of rural land converted to urban use from 1966 to 1971 was agricultural land.20 Everyone agreed that it was a problem, but it was a complicated problem. Local governments that depended on the property tax base for revenue had to weigh the possibility of industrial development against preserving agricultural land. Farmers who could benefit financially from selling land for more than they could possibly earn by farming asked themselves if they were solely responsible for preserving farmland. The Environment Council of Alberta under the chairmanship of Charles Stewart of Wainwright conducted public hearings in 1983 into maintaining and expanding the agricultural land base in the province. Unifarm conceded that population and industrial expansion would continue but pleaded for more understanding and planning to ensure an optimum solution to retain as much prime land for agricultural purposes. As urban development expanded into fertile agricultural areas, farmers were forced onto marginal land because speculation in agricultural land pushed the price out of reach of young farmers.The Unifarm presentation implored urban residents to realize that they had a responsibility to ensure that prime agricultural land remained in the hands of the farmers who produced the food. The downturn in the economy in the mid-1980s resulted in less pressure from rapid economic development for a few years, and falling land prices reduced farmers’ ideas of what could be expected as payment from industry for the use of surface rights. 20 Farm Trends, April

1978: 4.

155



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Alberta’s economy did not stay depressed for long, however, and the 1990s saw a burgeoning of oil exploration activity. Roger Buxton, Unifarm Surface Rights Committee co-ordinator, reported to the 1994 Unifarm convention that issues that had lain dormant for years were beginning to surface.Advances in drilling technology had changed some of the ground rules for compensation to landowners. In the past, farmers and industry land agents agreed on a location and then negotiated compensation based on established legislation and procedures that industry had learned through long experience in dealing fairly with rural landowners. In the new world of angle and horizontal drilling, if one landowner denied access, land agents simply came to an agreement with an adjacent landowner and used new equipment to accomplish the same goal. Industry in the 1990s chafed under some of the legislation and the levels of compensation given to landowners for lost profit, added operation costs, damages, and reclamation. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) made a presentation to the provincial minister of agriculture and the minister of energy in 1994 protesting the compensation as well as the $500 per acre right of entry fee for access to private land required under the Alberta Surface Rights Act. In spite of this pressure from a powerful industry, the work done by Unifarm and the Surface Rights Federation to protect agricultural producers still holds. The 1983 Surface Rights Act has so far not been changed, but no one should forget that it was put in place by individuals such as Connie Osterman, Joe Marshall, Gordon Moulton, Jack Howard, and Tom Nahirniak. After realizing that they could not accomplish anything on their own, they worked with Unifarm or the Alberta Surface Rights Federation for the benefit of all. Every landowner, Unifarm member or not, who has been treated fairly and compensated generously for the inconvenience of having others gain access to their land should be aware of the dedicated people who worked on their behalf.

156

CHAPTER TEN

WOMEN OF UNIFARM: HALF THE SKY


I

n the spirit of the Chinese comment that women hold up “half the sky,” Unifarm members were cognizant of the important role women played. Whether it was in the field or the meeting hall, rural women worked as partners and made powerful contributions to the development of their agricultural communities. There was an ongoing debate over whether they preferred to work through their farm organizations or the parallel women’s farm organizations. The women who took part in the negotiations that resulted in the formation of Unifarm and Women of Unifarm confronted the same difficult and ongoing issue, one which had simmered in the background since 1915 when women were invited to establish a Women’s Auxiliary of the United Farmers of Alberta. Were women better off joining the main organization with all the rights and responsibilities of membership, or were they better off working within their own women’s organization? In the wake of the formation of Unifarm, three alternatives for the Farm Women’s Union of Alberta (FWUA) were discussed. The first option was that the FWUA should be dissolved and that all women could enter Unifarm on an equal status with men, a provision that was part of the 1970 constitution for any women who so wished. The second proposal was to ratify a constitution for a separate organization to create a women’s association that would function like a commodity organization within Unifarm.The third option was to create an expanded women’s section within the constitution of Unifarm that would be an integral part of the association. Many women felt they should be able to attend Unifarm meetings as equals, take part in the discussions, and seek election as directors and executive members. Others worried that women would not be successful in being elected to the Unifarm executive and board, so the best choice was to belong to a women’s organization that qualified for executive and board positions as the FWUA did on the FUA board. Under the constitution of the FUA, the executive included a president, vice159



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

president, and three executive members, as well as the president of the FWUA and a Junior FUA representative. The FUA board of directors included the FWUA executive as well as the FUA president, vice-president, three executive members, the Junior FUA president and vice-president, and one FUA director from each district. At its convention in November 1970, Farm Women’s Union of Alberta members voted almost unanimously to become an integral part of the Unifarm organization to be known as Women of Unifarm. Women of Unifarm was organized in the familiar way, with local, district, and regional associations that conducted meetings, developed policy, and elected delegates to the Women of Unifarm annual conventions which were held in the second week of November. Women of Unifarm conventions and conferences were entitled to discuss any topic as long as it was consistent with Section 2 of the Unifarm constitution that outlined the purposes of the farm organization. Section 2 indicated, in general, that the purpose of Unifarm was to advance the interests of farmers, farmers’ co-operative organizations, and specialized producer commodity groups; to preserve and encourage economic family farm units; to study and assist in formulating and promoting provincial and national policies for agriculture; to achieve fair farm commodity prices and a high standard of living for all citizens; and carry out an active public relations program with all sectors of society.1 Indicative of the relationship between Unifarm and the Women of Unifarm, the women’s group was not permitted to petition Parliament or the Legislature on any matter not endorsed by the Unifarm board. However, the Unifarm constitution ensured that women had a voice at Unifarm annual conventions and on the Unifarm board of directors. In addition, the Women of Unifarm board of directors was responsible for electing at least fourteen delegates to attend the Unifarm annual convention. The president and vice-president of Women of Unifarm became members of the thirty-three-member Unifarm board of directors.There was a difference between the FWUA and the Women of Unifarm: while the FWUA had a guaranteed place on the FUA executive, a Women of Unifarm representative had to be elected to the executive of Unifarm. Elizabeth (Betty) Pedersen, the first president of Women of Unifarm, always campaigned hard to ensure that she received enough votes to be elected. 1

160

Constitution and Bylaws of Unifarm, March 1970.



CHAPTER TEN: WOMEN OF UNIFARM: HALF

THE

SKY




Women of Unifarm President Betty Pedersen and Vice-President Inga Marr took their places on the 1970 Unifarm board of directors. In doing this, they followed in the footsteps of other strong and dedicated women who served the agricultural community, beginning with members of the Alix Countrywomen’s Club initiated by Jean Reed and first chaired by Leona Barritt with Irene Parlby as secretary. Although the United Farmers of Alberta agreed at its 1913 convention to admit individual women farmers or wives of farmers to its organization, a Women’s Auxiliary was organized the following year and in 1916 the Auxiliary was reorganized as an independent provincial body known as the United Farm Women of Alberta. From 1916 to 1949, the United Farm Women of Alberta (UFWA) through its education, health, young peoples, and social welfare committees worked hard to improve the standard of living for all Albertans. Irene Parlby, the first president of the UFWA and later an MLA and first Alberta woman to become a cabinet minister (minister without portfolio from 1921 to 1935) in the UFA provincial government, was only one of the members of the UFWA who contributed in untold ways to the agricultural community.The UFWA presidents who followed—Marion Sears of Nanton, Susan Gunn of Paradise Valley, Amy Warr of Waskatenau, Mrs. R. Price of Stettler, Mrs. M.E. Malloy of Warner, Winnifred Ross of Millet,2 and Vera Lowe of Namao—worked with the UFA to improve education, health, and the delivery of social services through the years of expansion, depression, and war. The United Farm Women of Alberta can point with pride to accomplishments that include assisting in the establishment of a provincial Department of Health and later a national health scheme; spearheading the establishment of municipal hospitals, rural health units, and travelling clinics; assisting in the establishment of Farm Young People’s Week at the University of Alberta; working for the establishment of women’s suffrage (granted in 1916); supporting the fight for the declaration by the Privy Council of England that women were, in fact, “persons” in 1929; working for changes in the Income Tax Act and for improvements in mothers’ allowances; asking for a review of the education system; and working for credit legislation for young farmers. With the amalgamation of the United Farmers of Alberta and the Alberta Farmers’ Union to form the Farmers’ Union of Alberta (FUA) 2

Winifred Ross was inducted into the Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame in 1974.

161



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

in 1949, the women’s group reorganized as the Farm Women’s Union of Alberta (FWUA). Presidents of the new organization included three women who had served the previous organization—Vera Lowe of Namao, Susan Gunn of Paradise Valley,Winnifred Ross of Millet—as well as Ivy Taylor3 of Wainwright, Ellen Armstrong4 of Hussar, Hazel Braithwaite5 of Sylvan Lake, Louise Johnston of Helmsdale, Paulina Jasman of Three Hills, and Elizabeth (Betty) Pedersen of Standard. Membership in the Associated Country Women of the World (ACWW) and attendance at ACWW triennial conferences was an important part of the activities of the FWUA, beginning with the meeting in Toronto in 1953 attended by five delegates. The FWUA was also represented on the Canadian Mental Health Association Provincial Board, the Provincial Education Curriculum Committee, and the Provincial Technical-Vocational Advisory Committee Training Board. Because of suggestions from the FWUA, legislation was passed which amended the Intestate Succession Act to award a widow $20,000 and then divide the residue fairly between the widow and the children. Previously, one-third to one-half of the estate went to the children and was inaccessible until the children came of age, making it difficult for the widow to carry on with the farming operation.The FWUA established a committee to study divorce laws that reported on the background history and compared Canadian law with changes that had occurred in other countries.A memorandum on divorce was presented to the federal minister of justice, Honourable Guy Favreau, after two years of study. Before her election as president of the FWUA in 1963, Louise Johnston was appointed by the FUA as a member of the women’s education committee making recommendations to the Cameron Royal Commission on Education and also served as the FWUA representative 3

Ivy Taylor was instrumental in the establishment of the successful Farmers’ Union of Alberta Insurance Pool that not only encouraged farmers to join the FUA but also had a positive impact on accident rates in rural Alberta. In honour of her contribution to agriculture, she was elected to the Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame in 1972. 4 Ellen Armstrong served as president of the Farm Women’s Union of Alberta from 1956 until she stepped down in December 1958 and was present at the August 1958 meeting which launched FU&CDA, later renamed REDA. She was named to the Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame in 1973. 5 Hazel Braithwaite’s “FWUA President Report” in The Organized Farmer illustrated her wide interests in the economy, education, medicine, government, and politics. She wrote about the MacPherson Commission on Transportation, the revolution and government in Cuba, unemployment, vocational education, and free trade in the Commonwealth. She was named to the Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame in 1978.

162



CHAPTER TEN: WOMEN OF UNIFARM: HALF

THE

SKY




on the Provincial Technical-Vocational Advisory Committee Training Board. In articles she wrote for The Organized Farmer, she kept members informed of the campaign to develop a strong vocational program in high schools, to train technicians, to train and re-train the unemployed and handicapped, and to educate teachers to carry out the plan. The amalgamation battle began to heat up during Louise Johnston’s presidency. Johnston became the chair of the organization committee established by the FUA board to study the Cameron Nesbitt Platt Report. In her first article for The Organized Farmer, she admonished all FWUA members to study the report on farm organization in Alberta and to discuss the recommendations in their locals in preparation for making decisions regarding the FWUA. The Cameron Nesbitt Platt Report did not make recommendations on the role of the FWUA or the Junior FUA in the new organization, so it was important for the women to carve out a position for themselves—an integral though separate part of the farm organization with equal status. In spite of the tensions that developed as a result of negotiations for FUA amalgamation with either the Alberta Federation of Agriculture or the National Farmers’ Union, the FWUA under the presidency of Louise Johnston continued to be a force in the agricultural life of the province.The FWUA supported the stop-buying boycott in 1967. Local FWUA study groups continued to study such issues as estate planning, health and welfare issues, education for rural youth, centralization of the education system, citizenship, agriculture and co-operation, the changing role of women, and the high cost of drugs. When Johnston announced that she would not seek re-election as FWUA president in 1967, Paulina Jasman of Three Hills succeeded her.6 Paulina Jasman kept a low profile on the issue of farm organization amalgamation during her tenure as FWUA president, but at the big 1969 FUA convention, she spoke out in favour of joining the AFA. Under the proposed constitution for an FUA/AFA merger, there was provision for a women’s organization, while the constitution of the NFU established a fully national organization, which meant that the FWUA, as well as the FUA, would have to dissolve. Betty Pedersen of Standard replaced Paulina Jasman at the 1969 convention and took charge of the negotiations to determine the structure of a new association and its relationship with Unifarm. 6

Louise Johnston was named to the Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame in 1982.

163



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

The decision to reorganize as an independent entity but an integral part of Unifarm was accepted almost without exception, but the decision to hold Women of Unifarm conventions separately in the second week of November was not approved by all. In the past, the FWUA met at the same time as the FUA and spent about one-third of the time in FWUA sessions and the balance in FUA sessions. Another contentious issue was the way Women of Unifarm received its funding.According to the Unifarm constitution,Women of Unifarm received grants from the association as determined by the board of directors.Women of Unifarm also raised funds through such projects as compiling, publishing, and selling cookbooks. The Women of Unifarm cookbook, which included recipes from farm women across the province, was a popular and eagerly awaited publication each time it was printed. Eventually eight editions of the cookbook were published, beginning in 1928. A new cookbook published in 1972 had new sections but depended on the practical, down-to-earth recipes donated by Women of Unifarm members. During the 1970s about 10,000 copies of the book were sold each year.The first edition of the most recent one, Country Classics, published in 1989, went to eleven printings and sold more than 125,000 copies. The first printing of the second edition, which became available in mid-1990, sold out almost immediately. Women of Unifarm continued making presentations to the provincial cabinet and supporting programs such as the Citizenship Camp, renamed the 21st Century Seminar, at Goldeye Lake. Efforts to attract an equal number of native and non-native campers to participate in an intercultural experience were not always successful, even though native participants enjoyed the opportunity to present their dances, culture, handicrafts, and cooking skills. When the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada were released, the Women of Unifarm along with the Rural Education and Development Association (REDA) planned information meetings across Alberta. Six hundred and seventysix people attended the sessions—an average of twenty-four per meeting. The information sessions were interesting and informative—and controversial when family planning clinics, birth control, and drugs were part of the discussion. Results of the extensive sessions were presented to the federal government in 1972. When the Worth Commission Report on Educational Planning, “A Choice of Futures,” was released in 1972 after two years of 164



CHAPTER TEN: WOMEN OF UNIFARM: HALF

THE

SKY




consultations,Women of Unifarm and Unifarm conducted an intensive study of its recommendations.After fourteen meetings, the findings were compiled by REDA and presented to the Cabinet Committee on Education. One of the main concerns among rural participants was the cost of an increasingly technologically sophisticated educational system as proposed by Dr.Worth. Early education for five-year-olds was accepted but only on a voluntary basis, while any reorganization or consolidation of rural school boundaries was rejected. It was felt that centralization of rural schools had gone far enough and that the quality of education in the centralized schools was equal to that in urban areas. When Betty Pedersen stepped down at the convention in November 1974,7 she was replaced by Inga Marr who had served for several years as first vice-president.Tragically, Inga Marr died in January 1975, a few months after taking over the presidency at the Women of Unifarm convention. She was replaced by newly elected vice-president, Leda Jensen of Hussar,8 who took over suddenly without the benefit of an apprenticeship on the executive. Women of Unifarm continued to be involved with many issues, including lobbying for extra home care for seniors and the handicapped, for schools for special needs students, and for reform of the laws dealing with matrimonial property. These topics had been part of the responsibility of the women’s organization from the beginning, but something had changed. In spite of its best efforts, the women’s organization was drifting away from the debate on farm economics and economic decision making. The changes made when Unifarm and the Women of Unifarm were formed in 1970 began to have an impact on the roles of the two organizations. Even though Women of Unifarm was guaranteed two positions on the board of directors, it was not automatically granted a position on the Unifarm executive where many of the decisions were made. More important, the two groups held annual conventions at different times. As valuable as a separate convention was for Women of Unifarm, it meant that many women did not attend the Unifarm convention and were not exposed to the debate on farm economics, marketing board legislation, rail line abandonment, and the all-important Statutory Rates that occurred at the Unifarm convention. During the years when joint conventions were held, many women attended sessions 7 8

Betty Pedersen was named to the Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame in 1976. Leda Jensen made a valuable contribution to Unifarm debates. She was inducted posthumously into the Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame in 1990.

165



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

where they concentrated on the debate and elbowed their husbands to make sure they were paying attention when it was time to vote. In spite of the growing separation from Unifarm, Women of Unifarm worked diligently on issues that bombarded society in the 1970s. Its brief to the Land Use Forum in Edmonton in March 1975 outlined the concerns Women of Unifarm had regarding urban sprawl and the increase in small landholdings that resulted in the removal of significant agricultural land from production, the purchase of Alberta farmland by foreign interests, and the stripping of topsoil for use in new urban developments. A submission was also made to the Law Reform Commission of Canada asking that assets acquired after marriage be divided equally in the event of marriage breakdown, a recognition of the contribution farm wives made to the success of the family farm. In its 1976 annual brief to the provincial cabinet, Leda Jensen and the Women of Unifarm executive and board asked the government to consider establishing a prepaid dental care plan, to reform the legislation governing matrimonial property law, and to devote a portion of the Heritage Trust Fund to medical research.9 The work Women of Unifarm did on matrimonial property law legislation and the Royal Commission on the Status of Women served as a training ground for further valuable work on behalf of rural women. Interest in women’s issues led Women of Unifarm into the controversial area of sex education in the schools, family planning, and abortion, which may have taken its toll on membership, but they were subjects that could not be ignored. Leda Jensen stepped down as president of Women of Unifarm after six years in office in 1980 and was replaced by Vice-President Vera Rude of Sedalia in an uncontested election. In an indication of the vitality of the organization, three women contested the position of vice-president with Jean Buit of Blackfalds edging out Olga Manderson of Ryley and Phyllis McGhan of Red Deer. In spite of the interest at the top of the organization, declining membership was taking its toll on activities of Women of Unifarm locals. The Pollockville local pointed this out in a letter written in 1976. Retiring President Leda Jensen sounded an alarm in her final President’s Report in 1980 by commenting that very few young people were getting involved with farm organization. Since all organizations depended on new members progressing up the ranks, 9

166

The Honourable Gordon Miniely, minister of hospitals and medical care, commented that medical research was being considered for assistance from the fund.



CHAPTER TEN: WOMEN OF UNIFARM: HALF

THE

SKY




Leda Jensen warned that Women of Unifarm should be gravely concerned about the membership problems being experienced by the whole Unifarm organization. Membership in Unifarm in 1980 was about 7,000 farm units, down substantially from the 30,000 claiming membership ten years earlier. Membership in Women of Unifarm came through those 7,000 family memberships, making it difficult for women whose husbands did not make the effort to join Unifarm. In addition, not all women who had family memberships were interested in being active in the women’s organization. Members of Women of Unifarm always did their share. In spite of the perception that the two groups were drifting apart, when the call went out for help in organizing local and district membership drives, the Women of Unifarm rose to the challenge. Women of Unifarm recommended legislation to enable a spouse between the ages of 60 to 65 to continue to receive provincial health insurance coverage on the death of his or her pensioner spouse without a means test, and that school transportation be funded separately from educational instruction.Vera Rude did not seek re-election after three years as president and was succeeded by Jean Buit of Blackfalds in 1983. During Jean Buit’s tenure, the provincial government responded to a Women of Unifarm recommendation at the annual brief to cabinet by establishing an action plan to study ways to identify and respond to gifted children in classrooms. A farm safety co-ordinator, Louise Christiansen of Sedalia, was appointed in 1983 to represent Unifarm on the new Alberta Department of Agriculture Farm Safety Branch. Her role was to make contact with service clubs, home and school groups, church groups, and 4-H clubs. The effectiveness of the program was recognized by the manager of Alberta Agriculture’s Farm Safety Branch, Solomon Kyeremanteng, when he gave credit to Women of Unifarm and Women’s Institutes for reducing children’s deaths on Alberta farms from sixteen in 1981 to one in 1983.With a small government grant,Women of Unifarm held farm safety education workshops throughout the year. Later, on a suggestion by Solomon Kyeremanteng, Unifarm entered into discussions with the Physically Challenged Farmers of Alberta on ways for Unifarm to work with farmers who had been injured in farm-related accidents Membership continued to be a problem. Unifarm membership in 1985 was only about 4,300, with a much smaller number continuing to be involved in Women of Unifarm. Following the United Nations 1985 “International Year of the Youth,” Women of Unifarm launched an 167



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

“Accentuate the Positive in Youth” theme at their spring conferences to analyze the involvement of young adults in farm and rural community organizations. It was hoped that the information could be used to encourage more young farmers to get involved with organizations such as Unifarm and Women of Unifarm. Loyal Unifarm members looked for solutions to declining membership and reduced resources, which made it more difficult for central office to send out packages of information to study at local meetings. Blindman Local in central Alberta tried an experiment to boost membership and interest in the organization when Unifarm and Women of Unifarm locals agreed to merge. Unfortunately, the experiment did not work. Some members of the Unifarm group missed the opportunity to exchange ideas on subjects they were used to discussing and some of the Women of Unifarm had the same reaction. In spite of that disappointment, Blindman Women of Unifarm Local continued until the fall of 1999 to serve the social needs of the community and also to provide “hosts” for a school class from Jasper,Alberta. Every year, one of the sons of a Blindman Local member brought his school class from Jasper to experience farm life. Blindman Women of Unifarm Local members organized the tour and provided lunch. By the late 1980s, Women of Unifarm, led by Presidents Jean Buit, Barbara Klymchuk, and Margaret Blanchard, realized they had to make substantial changes to their organization and their constitution if they were to survive the problems being faced by Unifarm. Unifarm’s valiant fight to continue to be involved with the hard but divisive issues surrounding the economics of farming had led to an inevitable loss of membership.These membership losses were compounded by the reduction in the number of families still on the farm as well as increasing demands on farm families.Women of Unifarm was impacted by all these issues as well as the fact that many farm women were joining their urban sisters back in the workplace. In an attempt to confront some of these issues, a constitutional amendment was passed at the 1987 Unifarm convention to delete the section that dealt with the operations of Women of Unifarm. The constitutional amendment established Women of Unifarm as part of the Unifarm “umbrella” with the right to establish by-laws but preserved the Women of Unifarm position on the Unifarm provincial council and board of directors. Structural and operational matters relating to Women of Unifarm were to be dealt with at the convention and, most impor168



CHAPTER TEN: WOMEN OF UNIFARM: HALF

THE

SKY




tant,Women of Unifarm was to establish its own bank account with its own accounting system. The financial relationship between the two organizations had always seemed more like a parent-child relationship that was increasingly out of step with the realities of the 1980s. Women of Unifarm received grants from Unifarm that came from the membership fee paid by each farm unit member. Led by President Margaret Blanchard of Whitla-Seven Persons, Women of Unifarm insisted on a clarification of its financial status within Unifarm and the independence of a separate bank account. During the first Women of Unifarm report to the eighteenth Unifarm annual convention in 1988, Margaret Blanchard announced, with pleasure, that Women of Unifarm had opened a bank account on November 1, 1987. She was also able to announce that there had been a successful joint meeting of the regional directors of Unifarm and the Women of Unifarm to discuss, among other things, funding the women’s organization. In the future, the grant from Unifarm would be tied to the direct membership in Unifarm, meaning that its fortunes would depend on everyone’s ability to sell memberships. Margaret Blanchard’s stature within Women of Unifarm was recognized when she was asked to serve on the Rural Mental Health Advisory Board because of her advocacy for better mental health legislation. Blanchard had many questions when she was first invited to serve on the provincial mental health board. She was concerned that, as a member of a government board who received a travel allowance and per diem expenses, she would be unable to criticize the government when she did not agree with its policies. Margaret Blanchard was not the only one who worried about this. Other Unifarm members who had been asked to serve on government councils and boards asked themselves the same question.Where did they owe their loyalty—to the Unifarm community or to the government that appointed them? Margaret Blanchard stepped down from the presidency in 1989 and was succeeded by Louise Christiansen of Sedalia, an active campaigner for farm safety.The reality at the time was that membership and interest were declining. An attempt to allow women to become members of Women of Unifarm, at a reduced fee, even if the farm family unit did not carry a Unifarm membership, had been rebuffed in the early 1980s. An internal review conducted by REDA in 1989 raised the perennial question whether women’s interests were best served within a separate organization or by throwing in their lot with the Unifarm structure. 169



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

A resolution at its 1990 convention to dissolve Women of Unifarm and encourage women to join Unifarm resulted in the worst possible scenario—a 50-50 split on the vote. Since a two-thirds majority vote was needed to dissolve the organization, Women of Unifarm continued ,although with even fewer members because of the vote. It was a difficult time, but under the leadership of President Elizabeth Olsen of Bow Island, Women of Unifarm carried on. Under a new constitution in 1991,Women of Unifarm became even more independent of Unifarm, although members still had to be members of Unifarm. The organization received grants from Unifarm of ten percent of the membership fees collected. Women of Unifarm conducted its convention with the Women’s Institute in 1992, holding some joint sessions but conducting separate business meetings. In spite of reduced numbers and a weakened organizational structure because of the disappearance of the local, Women of Unifarm carried on its valuable work, which continued to change as society evolved. In 1990, the executive made a presentation to the Federal Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies and then to the New Democratic Committee on the proposed Child’s Rights Act.Women of Unifarm participated with Alberta Women’s Institute, Alberta Women in Support of Agriculture, and the Alberta Farm Women’s Network on the Rural Child Care Project, funded by the provincial government. Under the guidance of Women of Unifarm executive member Florence Trautman, members participated in the “Safety Hike,” a safety awareness project to raise awareness of safety for farm families. The work of the Women of Unifarm and the Farm Safety Branch of Alberta Agriculture under the direction of Solomon Kyeremanteng in promoting safety through such programs as the Safety Hike was recognized nationally on a CTV television program. Elizabeth Olsen was succeeded by Verna Kett of Wainwright as president of Women of Unifarm in 1992. She continued the work of her predecessors, such as the Safety Hike, and the Rural Child Care Pilot Project, and joined Unifarm in making a presentation to the Agriculture Caucus since the tradition of presenting a separate Women of Unifarm brief had ended a few years earlier. Past President Elizabeth Olsen was Women of Unifarm representative to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Women of Unifarm representatives were also present at Agricultural Forum meetings. Florence Trautman became Women of Unifarm president when Verna Kett stepped down. 170



CHAPTER TEN: WOMEN OF UNIFARM: HALF

THE

SKY




When Unifarm decided to disband and reorganize as Wild Rose Agricultural Producers, the Women of Unifarm met in convention in Lacombe in 1996 to decide its future. A former president, Elizabeth Olsen, moved that the women’s organization be disbanded because of the low membership and increasing age of most of the members. After heated discussion and questions about the fate of the membership money owed to them, the Women of Unifarm decided to continue with the same name and to declare its independence. A former Unifarm employee, Shirley Dyck, worked part-time to keep everyone organized and informed.Women of Unifarm operated for a few more years out of an office in the REDA office suite in Edmonton until June 2000 when Women of Unifarm voted to disband because of the never-ending decline in members.

171



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

Women of Unifarm Presidents

172

Louise Johnston

Paulina Jasman

Elizabeth Pedersen

Inga Marr

Leda Jensen

Vera Rude

 CARROL JAQUES 



CHAPTER TEN: WOMEN OF UNIFARM: HALF

Jean Buit

Barbara Klymchuk

Margaret Blanchard

Louise Christiansen

Elizabeth Olsen

Verna Kett

THE

SKY




173

CHAPTER ELEVEN




“WE HAVE GOT TO GET ORGANIZED”1

U

nifarm and its predecessor groups were front and centre in the huge issue of marketing agricultural products—the issue that confounded prairie farmers even more than the weather or soil conditions. As the smallest unit in the market system, farmers seeking to sell their produce found themselves dealing with large grain and processing companies, transportation monopolies, and seemingly unsympathetic banks. Individual agricultural producers felt powerless in the face of such oligopolistic, monopolistic concentration. According to economists, individual farmers are in “perfect competition” with each other because there are a large number of farmers producing and trying to sell homogeneous products. To compound the problem there are relatively few large buyers. Farmers are affected by decisions made by other producers and by the quality and quantity of product available around the world. In simplistic terms, it is as though the farmer takes the crop to the market place and says “What will you give me for this?”, but when the farmer purchases supplies, the question is “How much will this cost?”. Surely, they thought, farmers should have some control over the price of what is produced on the farm. It was this attempt to gain some control over prices and costs that drove farmers to form organizations, lobby government, march on Ottawa, form political parties, contest elections, organize co-ops and pools, and conduct strikes withholding agricultural products from the market. In their long-running battle for fair and equitable treatment in the marketplace, agricultural producers developed a series of organizations that thrived, evolved, merged, failed, and rose from the ashes. Philosophies varied from a belief in extreme strike action to discomfort with any form of organized marketing. Philosophical differences ebbed and flowed through the history of farm organizations as conditions and 1

The rallying cry of the Alberta Commercial Egg Producers,“searching for deliverance, through organization, from the twin devils of over-production and prices down below production cost.” The Organized Farmer, January 18, 1965: 1.

175



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

leadership changed. While the conflict between those who believed strongly in collective action2 and those who abhorred any hint of it rose to the surface on occasion, it was usually possible to reach a compromise that allowed Alberta farmers to solve problems by working together. The first hesitant steps in the search for fairness and equity in the marketplace were taken by the American (later Canadian) Society of Equity in 1902 when farmers took up the idea of controlled marketing. In the early years, there were threats and a few limited attempts to keep produce off the market until the price was high enough to satisfy the farmer.3 When the Canadian Society of Equity and the Alberta Farmers’ Association (originally the Territorial Grain Growers Association) merged in 1909 to form the United Farmers of Alberta: “Our Motto Equity,” the concept of controlled marketing was submerged by the overwhelming numbers who felt uneasy about such extreme action.The United Farmers of Alberta (UFA), however reluctant to strike or withhold produce, was comfortable asking and sometimes demanding that the government establish some form of grain marketing program to aid farmers. Over the years, demands were made for government-built hog packing plants and storage elevators as well as a meat-chilling industry, government-backed loans and subsidies, and a national wheat board to control grain marketing. A single-desk wheat-selling agency set up to stabilize prices during and after World War I (1914–18) was dismantled in 1920. Attempts to persuade the government to reverse its decision failed, leaving farmers at the mercy of a depressed grain market. The Canadian Wheat Board was eventually established as a single-desk selling agency through a series of legislative acts by reluctant Conservative and Liberal governments.The 1929 stock market crash with the attendant collapse in grain prices and the social upheaval that ensued brought demands from the 2

Direct action in the form of the Myrnam Strike of 1933 and the thirty-day Farmers’ Strike in 1946 are examples. 3 The efforts of members of the Society of Equity paralleled the activities of E.A. (Edward) Partridge and the Territorial Grain Growers’ Association. E.A. Partridge’s ideas had an impact across the west when he used the image of pygmies and giants from Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift to describe the relationship of individual farmers (pygmies) to the giants in the corporate sector. Partridge argued that because large companies co-operate through mergers, combines, trusts, monopolies, and associations, it was imperative that the farming community co-operate to offset the power of those structures. Murray Knuttila, “That Man Partridge,” E.A. Partridge, His Thoughts and Times (Regina: Canadian Plains Research Centre, University of Regina, 1994).

176



CHAPTER ELEVEN: “WE HAVE GOT TO GET ORGANIZED”




western agricultural community.The Conservative government of R.B. Bennett, besieged by western members of parliament and the three Prairie premiers, agreed in 1931 to offer a provisional, limited guarantee to the banks to backstop loans to farmers for the remainder of the 1930–31 crop year. Further assistance was required because of upheavals in the early 1930s, so the federal government appointed John I. McFarland4 as head of a central selling agency to work within the futures market system to get the best prices for grain. While Prime Minister Bennett resisted all pressure from western groups to establish a government marketing board, McFarland used government resources to stabilize the extremely delicate marketing system. When the private grain trade took all the credit for the relatively smooth operation of the futures market during that time, using taxpayers’ money to even out the rough patches, McFarland and Bennett were furious. R.B. Bennett and his Conservative government, realizing that the open market system for selling grain did not work for prairie farmers, began planning to introduce Wheat Board legislation. The original legislation called for a compulsory board, but there was still considerable opposition to this aspect, so a voluntary Canadian Wheat Board was established in 1935 by the Conservative government. It was similar to the 1919 Wheat Board that guaranteed farmers an initial payment, plus any profits on the sale of their grain. The federal government was responsible for covering deficits. At the end of 1935, William Lyon MacKenzie King’s Liberals replaced Bennett’s Conservative government, and James R. Murray replaced John McFarland as chief commissioner of the voluntary wheat board. MacKenzie King and his government waited for an opportune time to wind down the board, but World War II forced them to establish a compulsory Canadian Wheat Board in 1943.This step satisfied the federal government’s wartime price controls and obligations to the war effort.5 In an attempt to manage the surplus conditions and low prices that historically follow periods of war, James Gardiner, federal minister of 4

McFarland worked without salary after gaining experience and a fortune with the Alberta Pacific Grain Company. Leonard Nesbitt. Tides in the West: A Wheat Pool History (Saskatoon: Modern Press, 1962), 199. 5 The voluntary nature of the board created a problem during the Second World War. In a rising market, farmers delivered to the private grain trade and Canada’s obligations overseas could not be filled, an extremely serious situation given the isolation of Great Britain and her dependence on Canada and the United States for support in the war against the Nazis. All Canadians made great sacrifices for the war effort. Leonard Nesbitt, Tides in the West 280–86.

177



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

agriculture, negotiated a five-year, long-term agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom.The agreement secured a market for Canadian grain in the disruptive years following the war but caused problems for prairie producers in the last two years of the contract as world grain prices improved. The Canadian Wheat Board had argued against this agreement.6 This incident gave ammunition to opponents who complained that the Canadian Wheat Board was established by federal legislation against the wishes of western farmers, but the history of the wheat board does not support this argument. Canadian prime ministers, Progressive Conservative and Liberal alike, were reluctantly drawn into supporting wheat board legislation because their electoral fortunes depended on it. The Liberal minister of agriculture, James Gardiner, abandoned his opposition to a wheat board when he realized the level of support for such a marketing system after almost losing his seat in the 1945 federal election.7 Farmers’ organizations across the west as well as the Western Agricultural Conference and the Canadian Chamber of Agriculture8 submitted position papers and lobbied in support of a board. The Canadian Wheat Board, as established in 1943, was extended for an additional three years in 1947, 1950, 1953, 1957, and 1962 and then made permanent in 1967. Contrary to statements made by University of Calgary professors David Bercuson and Barry Cooper9 that there was little discussion in parliament before the legislation was extended in 1950, a review of the debates in the House of Commons by John Herd Thompson in his “Response to David Bercuson and Barry Cooper,‘The Monopoly Buying Powers of the Canadian Wheat Board,’” indicates the opposite. The only criticism came because it did not go far enough.10 Opposition members of parliament including John G. Diefenbaker, PC member for Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, and Victor Quelch, Alberta 6

The British-Canadian wheat agreement is discussed in Leonard Nesbitt, Tides in the West. Also, John Herd Thompson, “A Response to David Bercuson and Barry Cooper, ‘The Monopoly Buying Powers of the Canadian Wheat Board: A Brief History and Analysis.’” Submitted to Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, 1997: 10–14. 7 Charles F.Wilson, A Century of Canadian Grain: Government Policy to 1951 (Saskatoon:Western Producer Prairie Books, 1978), 1047. 8 Forerunner of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. 9 David Bercuson and Barry Cooper, “Monopoly Buying Powers of the Canadian Wheat Board: A Brief History and Analysis” Submitted to Alberta Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, 1997: 59. 10 Thompson, “A Response,” 10-14.

178



CHAPTER ELEVEN: “WE HAVE GOT TO GET ORGANIZED”




Social Credit member for Acadia,11 argued for legislation to make the wheat board permanent. When Canadian Wheat Board legislation was up for extension in 1953, M.J. Coldwell, CCF member for RosetownBiggar, Saskatchewan, and Robert Fair, SC Member for Battle River, Alberta, spoke on behalf of eighteen prairie constituencies requesting a permanent wheat board. Douglas Harkness, PC member of parliament for Calgary East, explained that his party supported another three-year extension because the great majority of farmers in western Canada were in favour of a wheat board. House of Commons votes on extending the power of the Canadian Wheat Board were passed unanimously by all parties except in 1947, when seven MPs from Ontario and Quebec voted against extending the CWB legislation.The 1967 vote to make the Canadian Wheat Board permanent and no longer subject to regular periodic parliamentary review was unanimous.This unanimity included the Progressive Conservatives, who had been elected in forty-two of the forty-eight prairie seats in the election that returned a minority Liberal government under Lester B. Pearson. Wheat producers were not the only farmers to deal with the continual problem of many sellers and a small number of buyers, surpluses, low prices, and lack of market power. Poultry, egg, hog, cattle, lamb, dairy, and vegetable producers all confronted different production and price cycles in their industries, compounded by the fact that consumers usually buy about the same amount of these staple goods regardless of price. Over-production results in lower payments to producers because consumption remains relatively stable. Commodities with short production cycles such as eggs, broilers, and hogs were particularly affected, causing producers to look for solutions within their own group or to turn to government for assistance. Not all producer organizations agreed on what government should be asked to do and not all producers agreed on the proposed solution, but many individuals and organizations looked to marketing boards as a solution to their woes. In July 1934, the federal government reacted to pressure from the agricultural sector and, despite considerable opposition, passed the National Products Marketing Act to manage the mutually destructive competition between farmers who have to sell their product. Marketing boards established under the new act were given the power to hold back produce when oversupply threatened export markets. Boards could also 11 Victor

Quelch spoke on behalf of ten constituencies represented by the Social Credit party.Thompson, “A Response,” 10.

179



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

divert small surpluses to lower-priced foreign markets without depressing prices in the domestic market.The legislation ensured that the stabilized domestic market was protected from foreign intervention by import restrictions. Twenty-two schemes were approved under this legislation, although not all survived.12 Not everyone believed the federal government had the power to pass legislation such as the National Products Marketing Act because it encroached on provincial powers to control local trade.When the Liberals won the 1935 election, they referred the act to the Supreme Court of Canada, which declared it ultra vires in January 1937. Several provinces passed marketing board legislation and suggested that the federal government pass legislation to permit control of interprovincial and export trade.The onset of World War II gave the federal government unlimited power to regulate trade through the War Measures Act; in 1949, federal legislation was passed stating that marketing boards operating under provincial legislation could continue to make use of those powers when selling their product across provincial or international borders.13 Alberta producers fought a tough battle with Social Credit members of the Legislative Assembly to have marketing board legislation passed. The Alberta Federation of Agriculture (AFA), which represented most of the organizations interested in gaining some equity in the marketplace, lobbied the provincial government in 1951 and 1953 to pass legislation that would allow farmers to set up marketing boards, beginning with an egg marketing board. President Roy Marler14 led the AFA campaign.The Farmers’ Union of Alberta (FUA) joined the fray, passing a resolution at its 1953 convention asking the provincial government to make it possible to hold a plebiscite on marketing boards.They suggested that if sixty percent of the producers who cast ballots voted in favour, legislation would be passed to establish a marketing board for that product. The Agricultural Committee of the provincial legislature turned this down because legislators felt that no farmer should be compelled to market produce through a marketing board, even if a majority of producers voted in favour of establishing a board. 12 Leonard

Poetschke and William MacKenzie, Development of Producer Marketing Boards in Canadian Agriculture (Edmonton: University of Alberta, 1957). 13 This act was called the Agricultural Products Marketing (Canada) Act (1949). 14 Roy Marler was a dairy producer from Bremner who spent thirty-four years in the dairy business and ten years as president of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture. He was also on the executive of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the board of Alberta College, and president of the Edmonton Exhibition Association.

180



CHAPTER ELEVEN: “WE HAVE GOT TO GET ORGANIZED”




The FUA raised the issue of marketing legislation during its January 1955 presentation to the provincial cabinet, which replied that it was considering marketing boards but that only 1,000 of 1,800 letters received on the subject indicated support for the legislation.15 In 1955, seven provinces had agricultural products marketing acts: Alberta, Quebec, and Newfoundland were the only exceptions.16 British Columbia had two producer boards marketing tree fruits and vegetables. In 1953, a plebiscite conducted for B.C. vegetable growers after sixteen years of operation indicated that ninety percent of growers wished to continue marketing through their own producer board. Ontario, which operated eighteen boards marketing thirty-three products, added a hog board in 1953 with ninety percent registering approval for the new board. In Alberta, the Alberta Federation of Agriculture was given to understand that, if MLAs could be convinced that a large majority of farmers supported the concept of marketing boards, the necessary legislation would be introduced in the 1955 legislative session. To measure the degree of support, the AFA, in co-operation with local MLAs and representatives of the FUA, sponsored meetings in forty-five of the fortyseven rural constituencies in the province.17 Votes conducted at meetings in each of the forty-five constituencies showed that there were only two constituencies—Warner in the far south and Hanna in the southeast— in which a majority voted against enabling legislation to facilitate the formation of marketing boards. Across the province, only six percent of those attending meetings in forty-five constituencies voted against the enabling legislation, a figure that included the results of the vote in Warner and Hanna. Provincial marketing board legislation brought down during the 1955 session of the Alberta Legislature was a huge disappointment to the AFA and FUA because cattle were excluded. Bert Hargrave, president of the Western Stock Growers, had made a presentation to the Agricultural Committee asking that cattle be exempted, as had some of the officials of animal breed associations, even though a marketing board would not affect the sale of breeding stock. The exemption of cattle was not the only problem. The new legislation required that fifty-one percent of all producers had to vote in 15 “Presentation

to the Provincial Cabinet,” The Organized Farmer, January 1955: 10. Marler, “Marketing Legislation,” The Organized Farmer, May 1955: 5. 17 Unfortunately, time ran out before meetings could be arranged in Banff-Cochrane or Jasper-Edson constituencies. Marler, “Marketing Legislation,” 5. 16 Roy

181



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

favour of the establishment of a marketing board, not just fifty-one percent of those who bothered to vote, before the government would consider it. This was an unusual requirement for a vote, meaning that all producers, no matter how small and disinterested, would have to be contacted, informed, and persuaded to vote. It also went against a fundamental principle of democracy where, for example, MLAs are elected by garnering more votes than their opponents, not a majority of all those entitled to vote. Many people stepped into the debate on marketing board legislation by making their views known through newspaper editorials and comments on the radio. Opposition to the concept of marketing boards included those who believed, on principle, in freedom from any controls whatsoever. Some of the largest producers were opposed because they felt they had enough bargaining power to do their own marketing.The largest groups in opposition were the consumer groups who were afraid they would have to pay higher prices for food. Most of the criticism missed the point that this was enabling legislation to be used by producers to set up marketing boards if, and only if, a majority of those in a particular industry voted in favour. In spite of these objections and a provincial election call in the spring, the Agricultural Products Marketing Act was passed in 1955. In 1958, the Alberta Commercial Canning and Freezing Vegetable Crop Growers became the first marketing board when 69.7 percent of all producers voted in favour of a board.This group had the advantage of being relatively small and localized, so 79.6 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot with 86.5 percent of those voting for and 13.5 percent against. However, the Alberta Commercial Canning and Freezing Marketing Board was the only board established under the legislation.The requirement to gain approval of 51 percent of all eligible producers proved to be an insurmountable problem. The Alberta Agricultural Products Marketing Act came up for discussion ten years later in 1965. Farmers were encouraged to talk to their MLAs and to invite them to local meetings to impress on them the importance of changing the act.The fact that there were eighty producers marketing boards operating in Canada in 1965 and only one small canning vegetable marketing board in Alberta indicated that Alberta was not following the same course as producers in the rest of the country. MLAs were reminded that the requirement for fifty-one percent of eligible producers to approve the legislation was an unfair stumbling block 182

The Farmers’ Union of Alberta ran an educational campaign objecting to the requirement that 51 percent of all eligible producers (not a majority percentage of those who bothered to vote) had to vote in favour of establishing

a marketing board before the Alberta government would consider passing marketing board legislation.This ad in the February 8, 1965, Organized Farmer provides information and asks farmers to contact their MLAs.

 CHAPTER ELEVEN: “WE HAVE GOT TO GET ORGANIZED”




183



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

in a democratic process where people who chose not to vote usually do not have such an impact on the outcome. The Agricultural Products Marketing Act was amended at the 1965 sitting of the Alberta Legislature, but the legislation still sidestepped the issue of what constituted a majority in any marketing board plebiscite. The new legislation still required that fifty-one percent of the producers of any agricultural commodity vote in favour of a marketing board before the government would allow one to be established. However, the new act established an Agricultural Products Marketing Council under the direction of Chairman Hall (D.H.) McCallum and Secretary Clarke Ferries to administer the revised act, advise on the suitability of marketing plans, and supervise the operation of whatever producer boards or marketing commissions might come into effect.Three alternatives to current marketing methods were provided for in the new act: producer marketing boards and two types of marketing commissions. Just months after the Agricultural Products Marketing Council was established in accordance with the revised act, Premier Ernest Manning made a surprise announcement on television in October 1965.The premier proposed to eliminate the requirement that fifty-one percent of all eligible producers had to vote in favour of establishing a marketing board, meaning that a majority vote of those who voted would be enough to establish a board.This was a significant change for Premier Manning, possibly prompted by the fact that he had started farming northeast of Edmonton. In addition, he may finally have recognized the FUA argument that democracy recognizes those who vote, not those who are eligible to vote. Agriculture Minister Harry Strom, who was very sympathetic to the need for change, may also have influenced him. Other rural MLAs had also listened to their constituents, many of whom spoke on behalf of the FUA and were favourably disposed to marketing boards. Several marketing boards and commissions were established in Alberta using the federal legislation passed in 1949 and the provincial legislation passed in 1955 and 1965. The drive to gain market power through farmer-supported marketing boards followed a circuitous route depending on the commodity and the production and price cycles as well as the personalities and issues within each group. The common thread was the involvement of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, the Farmers’ Union of Alberta, and after the two groups amalgamated, Unifarm. It was natural for farmers to turn to their own farm organization for help. 184



CHAPTER ELEVEN: “WE HAVE GOT TO GET ORGANIZED”




Egg producers were the first group to attempt to make use of the early 1955 provincial legislation.The price of eggs had fluctuated widely over a three-month period for reasons that had nothing to do with supply and demand and more to do with market uncertainties. From September 1 to November 30, 1956, egg prices to the farmer varied between 33 and 52 cents per dozen.18 In addition, farmers had no control over the increasing costs of production. Something had to be done to manage the marketing of eggs, particularly when there were surpluses, to eliminate speculation and avoid disruption and price instability. Armed with the 1955 Agricultural Products Marketing Act, a committee was struck and a plan set in motion.The Alberta Egg Marketing Committee, composed of representatives of poultry groups, co-operatives, and the FUA and AFA, worked hard to get information out to egg producers so they could make an educated decision.The proposal was to set up a board of egg producers with the power to deal with the basic problem of surpluses by ensuring a high level of domestic consumption through consistent prices and a quality product. The process of setting up the first egg marketing plebiscite, to be conducted at the same time as a liquor plebiscite, was more timeconsuming than anyone had predicted. Government staff compiled voters’ lists that included all those with fifty or more laying hens and excluded all those with fewer than twenty. Those with twenty to fifty laying hens were provided with a registration form that they were to fill out and mail if they wished to vote. Pansy Molen and Willow Webb, who worked in the FUA office, remember the hectic days they spent planning meetings and doing the paperwork for the vote.They typed and copied forms and long lists of names at a time when typing and copying were done without the benefit of modern office equipment. One hundred and fifteen meetings on the egg marketing plebiscite were held throughout the province in 1957, supported by co-operatives and poultry associations as well as the AFA and FUA. Seventy-eight percent of those who voted indicated that they were in favour of establishing an egg marketing board, but the proposal was defeated because only 48.4 percent of all eligible producers voted to 18 A

floor price for eggs of not less than 30 cents a dozen had been adopted in 1949 under the Agricultural Prices Support Board.This ended in October 1959 and the price of a dozen eggs dropped to 15 cents in Edmonton in December, to be compensated for by a program of deficiency payments. K.V. Kapler, “The Egg Production and Price Situation in Alberta and Egg Deficiency Payment Program,” The Organized Farmer, February 1960: 27.

185



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

establish an egg marketing board. Results of the plebiscite illustrated that it was extremely difficult to get the required fifty-one percent of eligible producers to vote in favour of a marketing board because many producers did not bother to vote.Anyone who did not vote was, in effect, voting against the proposal. There were irregularities in the voters’ lists for the egg marketing board, so the minister of agriculture announced that another plebiscite would be held in 1958.This time the enumerators were required to contact every farmer in the province to ask if they were eligible to vote. In addition, voters’ lists were posted in district agriculturists offices so they could be checked. Again, the FUA set out to inform everyone of the details of the egg marketing plan and to encourage everyone who was registered to mail in their ballot.The plebiscite in 1958 also failed, much to the chagrin of the hard-working FUA executive, even though 70.11 percent of those voting approved. Forty percent of egg producers did not bother to vote.19 Efforts to establish an egg marketing board ended with the 1958 plebiscite and were not renewed until Premier Manning amended the Agricultural Products Marketing Act. At that time, the Commercial Egg Producers’Association distributed a plan for a marketing board with provision for production quotas to its locals in Fairview, Edmonton, Red Deer, Calgary, and Lethbridge.20 These egg producers were very conscious of their free enterprise philosophy, but realized that orderly marketing was essential to prevent disaster prices and bankruptcy. Between April 1966 and April 1967, egg production went up eight percent while egg prices fell twenty-five percent. It was already apparent that the boom and bust cycle would continue because production was projected to be down about fourteen percent for the next year.21 The Alberta Commercial Egg Producers finally held another plebiscite under the new legislation after years of discussion and frustration. In August 1968, 900 egg producers registered to vote in the plebiscite, 600 more than the minimum of 300 required by the Marketing Council. Of those who cast a ballot, eighty-two percent22 voted in favour of an Egg and Fowl Marketing Board with powers to set 19 The

Organized Farmer, October 1958: 14. potato and egg marketing plans were mentioned in The Organized Farmer, March 12, 1966: 3. 21 The Organized Farmer, May 13, 1967: 4. 22 Of those who actually registered to vote in the egg marketing plebiscite, sixty-two percent voted in favour. 20 The

186



CHAPTER ELEVEN: “WE HAVE GOT TO GET ORGANIZED”




fair and stabilized prices for producers and to consult with others to establish marketing quotas. The Provisional Egg Marketing Board included Phil Eldridge of Calgary as chair, R.G. Glemis of Purple Springs, J.J. Terlesky of Thorsby, Glenn Sparks of Balzac, V.C. Mayer of Huallen, Eric Triska of Edmonton, and Evelyn Moore of Red Deer. Hog producers were the next to test the 1955 legislation. The hog industry was particularly susceptible to instability because farmers have a tendency to switch to hog production when the market for grain is weak and prices are low. In short order, there are too many hogs and hog prices plummet. In early 1962, the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, established by the federal government, released the report on its investigation into the packinghouse industry.The report confirmed what livestock producers had suspected: that the packing industry, composed of three large meat packing companies who slaughtered at least sixty percent of all available cattle and hogs, was capable of manipulating the market and depressing prices to the producer.True or not, alleged weighing irregularities and suspected collusion between the meat packing companies created mistrust. The findings of the commission provided a wakeup call for livestock producers who saw their options decrease as the packers consolidated. Ad in the March 20, 1964, Organized Farmer to raise money for the campaign to establish a hog marketing board in Alberta. 187



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Given this situation, the National Farmers’ Union asked the federal government to introduce enabling legislation to provide for national producer-controlled marketing boards. An interprovincial hog committee that included farm unions from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba as well as the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, the livestock and marketing division of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and Manitoba Pool Elevators, Alberta Livestock Co-operative, Manitoba Hog Producers’ Association, and the Saskatchewan Purebred Swine Association was established in the early 1960s to discuss hog marketing issues.The Western Hog Growers’Association from Alberta, a new group established in 1960 by Jack Perkins of Wainwright and Sten Berg of Ardrossan, joined the committee at its June 2, 1961, meeting.23 Jack Perkins had argued openly at the 1960 FUA convention that hog prices had declined from 1950 to 1960 because of price supports and claimed that farmers would be better off with no government interference in marketing, no government assistance, and no price supports. Delegates to the FUA convention did not agree with Perkins, but his arguments were enough to cause the FUA to defeat a resolution at the 1960 convention to attempt to set up a hog marketing board in Alberta as soon as other provinces were prepared to do so. This flew in the face of results of 200 meetings of approximately 2,000 farmers who felt the need for more bargaining power,24 so the 1961 FUA convention passed a resolution to press for a vote on a hog marketing plan.25 The interprovincial hog committee passed a resolution declaring support for setting up hog marketing boards at a meeting in Saskatoon in April 1962.The vote was not unanimous, an indication that the Western Hog Growers’ Association (WHGA) was beginning to make itself heard.26 There were about 32,000 hog producers27 in Alberta in 1964. Only 5,000 to 6,000 of the smaller producers marketed hogs through the marketplace, the only place where prices could be established in the marketing 23 “Hog

188

Marketing Committee Approve Educational Program on Marketing Legislation,” The Organized Farmer, July 1961: 18. 24 “FUA Convention Turns Down Immediate Action on Hog Marketing Board,” The Organized Farmer, January 1961: 28. 25 Ed Nelson, “President’s Report,” The Organized Farmer, January 1962: 3. 26 “Majority of Farm Organizations Favour Hog Marketing Boards,” The Organized Farmer, May 1962: 3. 27 During the war years, 1939–1945, hog production was encouraged because pork could be cured and shipped overseas.There was an unlimited market because so much was lost at sea during the Battle of the Atlantic. Over twenty years later, there were still up to 40,000 hog producers in Alberta.



CHAPTER ELEVEN: “WE HAVE GOT TO GET ORGANIZED”




system that existed.28 This imposed a tremendous burden on small producers because they paid for the cost of running the central market—their price for hogs was reduced by the cost of fees and transportation. Many large hog producers signed contracts with the packing plants for the same price, but the packers covered fees and transportation costs and then paid bonuses for such things as early delivery and larger lots of pigs. If a price of 30 cents per pound was established, the producer who went through the market received about 26 cents and the one who dealt directly with the packer received about 34 cents. The producer who took hogs to this “open” market could accept the price or transport the hogs back home. There was a hue and cry for reform. In spite of opposition from the Western Hog Growers’ Association, the AFA and FUA asked their members to indicate whether they were interested in having a plebiscite on a hog marketing board. As a result of discussions at FUA district conventions in Alberta and in meetings throughout Saskatchewan and Manitoba, plans for plebiscites were drawn up in all three provinces.The FUA established a committee to inform the 32,000 hog producers in Alberta, many of whom were small operators with little knowledge of the marketing system who, it was feared, had little interest in helping to make changes. The FUA set out to inform as many as possible of their options, following the well-known format established by farmers’ groups over many years to deal with the countless issues they confronted. Locals sponsored meetings and invited speakers representing all sides of the argument to educate them on the issue of hog marketing.This was expensive for the general farm organization, so a fundraising campaign, “Give a Hog for Freedom” was established, asking hog producers to give the proceeds from one hog to the Hog Marketing Board Fund. The campaign got rough when one of the invited speakers, Sten Berg of the Western Hog Growers, spoke at the meeting in Lacombe.29 He accused two FUA officials, former president Ed Nelson and radio commentator Bill Harper, of agitating for a marketing board in the hopes that they would be given high paying jobs in a new board.30 Berg also spoke 28 Charles

Kennedy, manager of the Calgary Stock Yards, expressed concern at a hog forum in Lacombe at the small number of Alberta hogs going through public markets.The forum, organized by the Spruceville FUA, took place at the Lacombe Livestock Pavilion on February 28, 1964. The Organized Farmer, March 13, 1964: 1. 29 Chairman for the meeting was the president of Spruceville Local, Lawrence Henderson, who has “chaired about a thousand meetings,” and never let a meeting get out of control. On one occasion—a political forum—he called the police to remove an unruly participant and on another he closed down a political forum in Rimbey when people did not follow proper debating procedure.

189



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

against the board concept, arguing that it had proven impractical in Ontario and that, contrary to claims that it would lower marketing costs by cutting down on needless duplication, it had the opposite effect and actually cost 41 cents per hog for marketing in Ontario. Ontario had operated a hog marketing board since 1953 and charged a flat 35 cents per head for marketing hogs, while the marketing charge quoted for the Alberta stockyards was 55 cents per hog. Berg also showed pictures of damaged hog carcasses that he said resulted from mishandling that occurred because of bad board regulations. The FUA Hog Marketing Board Committee was quite concerned about the pictures, explaining that carcasses are sometimes damaged in any plant and that they are hung off to the side to be dealt with appropriately. The chair and vice-chair of the Ontario Hog Marketing Board were invited to Alberta to attend meetings and respond to these concerns. Chairman Lance Dickieson toured northern Alberta with FUA President Paul Babey,31 while Clare Curtin toured southern Alberta with Ed Nelson. They attended eighteen meetings arranged by the Alberta Hog Marketing Board Committee where they spoke to about 1,500 hog farmers about the Ontario system, always warning Alberta farmers that they would have to decide which parts of the Ontario system, if any, would work in Alberta. Their observations of the Alberta marketing system reminded them of the situation in Ontario about ten years earlier before they solved some of their problems. In addition to the meetings attended by the officials from Ontario, over seventy meetings were held with a member of the Joint FUA-AFA Hog Committee in attendance to discuss the issue of hog marketing and to answer any questions that producers might have.Attendance was good at the meetings, but only a small proportion of the 32,000 hog producers made the effort to attend meetings to ask questions. Meetings held in areas with strong support for the Western Hog Growers were more confrontational because Western Hog Growers’ members did not favour a marketing board, although they realized that some type of organization was needed. The hog plebiscite held in Saskatchewan in 1964 went down to defeat, based on a very low turnout at the polls. Of the 17,000 to 25,000 30 The

Organized Farmer, March 13, 1964: 1. was an important issue for Paul Babey. He got involved in farm organization because of his belief that farmers should exercise some control over the marketing of their own produce. No other industry allows its products to be marketed by someone else without knowing what the price would be.

31 This

190



CHAPTER ELEVEN: “WE HAVE GOT TO GET ORGANIZED”




producers expected to vote, only 8,356 turned out, with 4,179 opposed and 4,177 in favour. An analysis showed that eighty percent of the hog market was represented by this vote, but there was no indication whether large or small producers had voted for or against the plan.32 In May 1964, the Manitoba government settled on a voluntary hog marketing system to run for two years before it was assessed. The Alberta government was subjected to a vigorous campaign against a marketing board plan by those who believed a marketing board would automatically entail supply management for hogs. As a result of this activity and the results in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the Joint FUA-AFA hog marketing committee met with the government cabinet committee and decided to postpone the Alberta plebiscite. Committee members such as Dick Page33 of Didsbury realized that large numbers of producers had not taken enough interest in the debate to make a decision. This was a disappointing result for the FUA, but the executive decided to use the time to redraft the hog marketing board plan to take into account producer criticism and to lobby for changes to the Agricultural Products Marketing Act. When Premier Manning indicated in October 1965 that he was willing to amend the new act to allow marketing boards if a majority of producers voted in favour, hog producers had just recovered from a disastrous year. Grain farmers who could not sell wheat went into hog production, driving volume up and prices down. By November 1965, prices were reasonable but only because hog marketings were down one percent from July to September and five percent from October to December compared to the previous year.The estimates for the next six months indicated that production would be up three percent and would probably continue to increase until the price dropped drastically again.34 Sure enough, a year later, production was up and prices were down. No action had been taken as a result of the findings of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission into the packinghouse industry in 1962.The pricing mechanism in the hog industry had evolved into the unhealthy situation whereby only three percent of hogs were actually sold through 32 “Hog

Plebiscite Lost in Saskatchewan,” The Organized Farmer, June 1, 1964: 1. Page was founding president of the Allingham FUA Local in 1958, District 10 director 1961–64, executive member in 1965–69, and vice-president of Unifarm in 1971, reluctantly resigning in 1972 because of other responsibilities. 34 The Organized Farmer, November 15, 1965: 2.The March 26, 1966, Organized Farmer indicates that hog prices had started to go down. 33 Dick

191



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

the public auction system that set the price for hogs.35 The other ninetyseven percent were delivered to the packers under a pre-arranged contract or with limited or non-existent negotiation, giving the packers the ability to settle on different prices with different producers who, understandably, became upset when they discovered that a neighbour had been given a better deal.The other drawback to having only three percent of hogs going through the public market was that even the tiniest surplus had a major impact, reducing the prices for that three percent and signalling lower prices for the other ninety-seven percent. It was enough to make a free enterpriser think about a marketing board. Not only were hog producers at the mercy of an unpredictable market, they continued to be at the mercy of the packing industry as well. Something had to be done, and what happened was a true grassroots campaign. By 1968, there were still 28,500 hog producers in the province, most of whom realized it would be disastrous to continue on the same path. However, there was no consensus on what should be done to address the situation, so organizations were invited to prepare marketing plans for an opinion poll in which farmers were asked to choose between a particular plan and an option to keep the status quo. Three marketing plans to be financed through a form of levy at the time of sale were submitted. The Western Hog Growers proposed a multi-agency marketing board, a Hog Merchandising and Development Authority, requiring that all slaughter hogs be sold through an authority, but providing for existing selling agencies to sell on behalf of the producer. Under the proposal, selling agencies could be the individual producer, livestock shipping co-op or association, livestock selling agencies operating on the public market, licensed agents, or accumulated truckload lots. It was hoped that this plan would remedy the lack of competition caused by direct packer purchase and paying bonuses to truckers and producers to obtain hogs. The Alberta Livestock Co-operative (ALC) called for a marketing commission, to be called the Alberta Swine Commission, which would be empowered to appoint a single selling agency to sell through competitive bidding as well as to conduct promotion and research. There was an opting-out clause that would allow hog producers to bypass the marketing agency and sell direct to processors as long as they secured permission to opt out. 35 M.H. Hawkins, A.A.Warrack, and

192

J.L. Dawson, “Development and Operation of the Alberta Hog Producers Marketing Board,” Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Bulletin 12, (Edmonton: University of Alberta, Dept. of Extension. April 1971), 1.



CHAPTER ELEVEN: “WE HAVE GOT TO GET ORGANIZED”




The Farmer’s Union of Alberta (FUA) suggested a single-agency hog marketing board that would market all slaughter hogs in a way that would ensure all buyers had an opportunity to bid on each lot offered. The board would also be involved with research on production, marketing, quality improvement, and consumption of pork products. Before the preliminary poll to determine whether hog farmers wanted to change the status quo, the provincial Agricultural Products Marketing Council held information meetings around the province, each attended by up to 200 people who gathered to hear representatives of the Western Hog Growers’ Association, the Alberta Livestock Cooperative, and the Farmers’ Union of Alberta. Of the 28,544 hog producers eligible to vote in the mail-in preliminary poll, about 2,400 turned out to meetings to gather information. Results of the poll conducted in March 1968 indicated that hog producers were in favour of some type of marketing board.36 The FUA plan garnered 59.3 percent support, the Western Hog Growers plan 19.4 percent, and the Alberta Livestock Co-operative plan 6.9 percent, while 14.4 percent voted to keep the same system. Only 5,466 (19.9 percent) of the 28,544 ballots distributed to hog producers were returned before the deadline.Those favouring the FUA plan for a single-desk marketing board marketed 261,000 hogs or 44.9 percent of total annual sales with an average marketing of 100 hogs.The WHGA plan was supported by those who marketed 171,857 or 29.6 percent of total hogs marketed by farmers answering the poll, averaging 199 hogs sold.Those favouring the current system sold 93,537 or 16.1 percent with an average of 152 sales. Those favouring the ALC plan marketed 54,785 or 9.4 percent of the total with an average of 176 hogs marketed.The smaller producer was under-represented in this poll according to the calculations that indicated 37.2 percent of hogs marketed in the previous year came from 19% of the producers. This preliminary poll was only the first step in finalizing a decision. A mail-in plebiscite on the plan proposed by the Farmers’ Union of Alberta and Alberta Federation of Agriculture was planned for October on condition that at least 6,000 of the 28,500 Alberta hog producers representing 600,000 hog sales in the year up to April 30, 1968, registered to vote.The FUA, realizing how important it was to get as many farmers as possible registered to vote, grandly announced that their goal was to sign up 12,000 producers, representing 1,000,000 hog sales. 36 “Alberta

Hog Producers Favour Marketing Board.” The Organized Farmer, April 13, 1968: 1, 5.

193



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

The hog marketing plebiscite was a heart-wrenching time for some of the staunch free-enterprisers in the industry. The Western Hog Growers’ Association was organized in 1960 to guard against just such a compulsory board. Even though the membership in the Western Hog Growers was seventy-one as of their annual meeting in January 1968,37 they were a formidable force. These producers had a philosophy to uphold, and they did it well. Sten Berg was already well known for his strong opposition to marketing boards. He was front and centre again in 1968 with the Western Hog Growers’ plan for an optional marketing agency that would provide the “freedom” which he felt was necessary. When the marketing council announced that the vote would only proceed if 6,000 hog producers registered, Berg announced out of frustration that he was “washing his hands of the whole thing.” However, the Western Hog Growers continued to fight the plan because they were still concerned that a marketing board was synonymous with supply management and would severely restrict their increasingly successful international trading opportunities.They circulated a letter to hog producers urging large operators not to register and small operators to register and vote against the proposal. Presumably, if the large producers did not register, registrations would fall short of the requirement and the vote would not be held. Failing that, the small producers would be able to defeat the proposal.The open letter also stated that producers were being asked to approve a board without knowing what the compulsory powers of that board would be. The Western Hog Growers’ Association was not going to go down without a fight. However, it was up against a formidable organization in the FUA. A detailed synopsis of the board plan had been mailed out when the opinion poll was done in the spring.The FUA had 600 co-ordinators around the province to contact all hog producers in their area to remind them to register to vote. These co-ordinators could also counter the Western Hog Growers claim that the board would have vast undisclosed powers. The Western Hog Growers were also concerned about production quotas being part of the plan. The FUA stated emphatically that this was not the case and that the only way production quotas could become part of a future plan would be to approach the marketing council with a proposal and then go though another plebiscite.The FUA mailed out 40,000 brochures with further 37 The

194

Organized Farmer, January 27, 1968: 6.



CHAPTER ELEVEN: “WE HAVE GOT TO GET ORGANIZED”




information on the board plan, encouraging all those with questions to call the office for answers. Of those who voted, eighty-six percent were in favour of establishing a Hog Marketing Board.38 In spite of the call to boycott the process, 9,316 producers39 with 898,449 marketings registered and 7,432 actually cast ballots. It appeared that the larger producers did register and vote. The provincial average number of hogs per producer was sixty-three, while the average number of hogs for those who registered to vote was ninety-six per producer.40 During the debate on hog marketing, the August 10, 1968, Organized Farmer published a letter to the editor entitled “He doesn’t sell hogs, so it makes him sick”: What makes you think everybody who gets your paper raises pigs? In the past few months every time you pick it up all you can read about is hog marketing. I want you to know that I don’t raise pigs and there are many others who don’t. I would be happier to read that the Farmers’ Union is doing something about the price of wheat, or the high cost of machinery, or about the 3% gas tax, or even about how farmers are being exploited by the big companies. I know many cases where a big company wanted farmer’s land and took it.The farmer had no choice but to accept whatever the company wanted to offer for it.Taxes are going up, and there’s even talk of taxing farm buildings. What is being done about that? Probably nothing. All we hear about is hog marketing for the few who raise pigs. Is that what we pay our money to the Farmers’ Union for? I’m getting sick of reading about pigs. J. Kadovisic, Edmonton. Supporters of all three types of hog marketing systems were represented on the Provisional Hog Marketing Board established by the provincial government in response to the vote.The board included Dick Page of Didsbury as chair, Wayne Smith of Hill Spring, Sten Berg of 38 Of

those who actually registered to vote, sixty-nine percent voted in favour of a marketing board. 39 More than 1,000 producers were denied the right to vote because their registration forms arrived after the deadline even though they were postmarked before the deadline. The Organized Farmer, October 12, 1968: 1. 40 Murray Hawkins, Allan Warrack, and J.L. Dawson, “Development and Operation of the Alberta Hog Producers Marketing Board,” (1971), 5.

195



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Ardrossan, Herold Peterson of Bentley, Dan Giebelhaus of Vegreville, William Pimm of Grimshaw, and Dobson Lea of Jarvie. As chair and as a supporter of the FUA plan, Dick Page’s job was to meld the three visions and encourage everyone to work together. According to Dick, it was a difficult and interesting job. Dan Giebelhaus, who had not supported any position, was appointed vice-chair. With great fanfare on October 31,1969, the Alberta Hog Producers Marketing Board officially opened its new up-to-date telebid system that sold hogs using a Dutch-auction system of descending bids. Each day, hogs were offered for sale beginning at a price determined by the previous day’s sale and descending in five-cent increments through a dollar range until a buyer bid by pushing a button on the teletype machine. At the end of a dollar range, the seller could choose to go to the next range or to offer the hogs later. Buyers had the opportunity to let the price go as low as they dared before entering a bid to buy hogs to keep their business going. All hog producers and agents marketing hogs in Alberta were required to go through this system, ensuring that 100 percent of the hogs sold were responsible for setting the price. The hog board had limited power to influence the supply of hogs through radio, telephone, and telex; its main role was to maintain a uniform flow of hogs to processors and to obtain a competitive and fair market value for Alberta hog producers. In addition, it was supposed to clear up problems that had developed in the hog industry of alleged manipulation and restrictive buying practices. Hog producers were not the only ones to suffer from volatile pricing for commodities. Other agricultural producers looked to the provincial government for a framework to establish marketing boards. Reaction to the premier’s announcement in 1965 that he was prepared to change the enabling legislation for marketing boards was rapid and startling. Just over one month later, the chair of the Alberta Agricultural Products Marketing Council announced that commodity associations for potatoes, eggs, broilers, turkeys, and honey had submitted plans for marketing boards or at least had asked for marketing information. By March 1966, Agriculture Minister Harry Strom had given approval in principle to a Potato Marketing Commission to be responsible for implementing a program for stimulating, increasing, and improving the marketing of potatoes through a licence fee paid by all commercial growers. Broiler growers were constantly under pressure in the marketplace. While it cost approximately 19 or 20 cents in 1964 to raise a pound of 196



CHAPTER ELEVEN: “WE HAVE GOT TO GET ORGANIZED”




poultry meat, the producer received 18 cents in October and 16 cents in November with projections that the price would soon be 15 cents a pound. Broiler growers realized that in the past they had worked hard to increase production and produce at the lowest possible cost, but like farmers everywhere, they neglected to deal with the next, most important step—marketing. Rather than throwing their product on the market, producers began to realize that they had to proceed in a businesslike way and bargain in the marketplace from a position of strength. Until someone came up with a better way, the best solution was to establish a marketing board that had the power to manage production. However, production limits or quotas were anathema to the provincial government and were not covered under the Agricultural Products Marketing Act. It was a concept that struck fear into the hearts of the Western Stock Growers and was the big reason they had asked to have cattle exempted from the legislation a decade earlier. Hog producers certainly were not contemplating production controls when they discussed their marketing board, although the Western Hog Growers had its suspicions. The broiler growers would not be stopped. They heard Mr. Blair, president of the British Columbia Broiler Growers Marketing Board, admit that before their board was formed in 1960 he was adamantly opposed to production controls because it smacked of compulsion and loss of freedom. However, he began to question the extent of his freedom when he could not negotiate a bank loan because neither he nor his banker could predict broiler prices. Now he was convinced that 100 percent control of production was essential to keep prices relatively stable and healthy. Over-production, the biggest problem, had to be controlled by the producers themselves. Initially, the B.C. board had not controlled production, but quickly learned that it was the only solution.The B.C. broiler industry had become a steady predictable industry that could provide a stable income to the proficient operator. Mistakes had been made when they had not limited production sufficiently in 1963 and were left with three million pounds of broiler meat in storage. But because they had control of marketing, they were able to market the huge surplus gradually without letting it go for disaster prices. At a meeting in late 1964, forty or fifty broiler producers in Alberta voted enthusiastically and unanimously in favour of pursuing a marketing board.These broiler producers represented eighty-five percent of all broiler production in the province. The Alberta Broiler Growers’ 197



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Association under the presidency of Jack Brown of Midnapore set out to sign up every broiler grower in the province and persuade them to sign a petition asking the provincial government to implement marketing board legislation that would allow for production controls. British Columbia had had such legislation for four years and Ontario was planning to set up a board based on the B.C. model. After an anxious wait, the Broiler Growers put their marketing board proposal to the vote in 1966. Eighty-three broiler growers, about twothirds of the total number of producers, registered to vote in the mail-in ballot. When the vote was held, eighty-eight percent of those registered representing ninety-five percent of the annual volume of broilers marketed in Alberta voted in favour of a marketing board.41 The provisional board for the Alberta Broiler Growers’ Association included Howard Falkenberg of Camrose, James Wong of Edmonton, Dale Steckley of Carstairs, Ivan Combest of Erskine, and Tymen Donkersgoed of Coaldale. The Alberta Turkey Growers Provisional Marketing Board was announced six months later, in January 1967. It consisted of J. Weir of South Edmonton, Ben Brown of Midnapore, H. Lowen of Fort Macleod, L. Moseson of Wetaskiwin, and M.A. Belzil of St. Paul. Turkey growers voted for a marketing board to maintain a fair stabilized price for turkeys, to develop and maintain orderly marketing, and to ensure a continuous year-round supply of turkey. The Agricultural Products Marketing Act caught the attention of the Western Stock Growers, who had insisted in 1955 that the marketing of beef be left out of the previous marketing act.As a result of amendments to the 1955 legislation, commissions could be established to collect a small fee per head to be used for research, promotion, and marketing. A resolution passed by the Alberta Federation of Agriculture at its 1968 annual meeting endorsed the Western Stock Growers’ proposal to establish a marketing commission. Under the new legislation, a commission could be established as long as the Alberta Agricultural Products Marketing Council received no objections to the proposed plan. No objections to a commission for cattle were filed with the Alberta Agricultural Products Marketing Council, so the plan was submitted to the minister of agriculture and approved by the provincial cabinet. The Alberta Federation of Agriculture was solidly behind the strategy to improve the well-being of the cattle industry by speeding up research, 41 “Broiler

198

Marketing Board Established,” The Organized Farmer, June 1, 1966: 1.



CHAPTER ELEVEN: “WE HAVE GOT TO GET ORGANIZED”




improving marketing methods, providing quality standards, and implementing promotion programs. The Alberta Cattle Commission was established and hired its first secretary manager, John Stewart Smith,42 on the recommendation of Ian MacDonald of the Alberta Livestock Cooperative who met him at a meeting in Toronto. The Alberta Cattle Commission obtained a $15,000 credit from the Royal Bank to get started and on January 2, 1970, began collecting a 10cent levy for research and promotion on all cattle marketed in the province. There were five appointed commissioners on the provisional board representing various segments of the cattle industry: Frank Gattey of Consort, representing the Western Stock Growers, chair; Ian MacDonald of Fairview, representing the Alberta Livestock Co-operative; Bill Boake of Acme, representing the breed associations; Terry Bocock from north of Edmonton, representing the dairy producers; and Harry Gordon of Rose Lynn, representing Unifarm. Harry Gordon was elected to replace Frank Gattey as chair in 1972 and served for three and a half years. After years of dedication to establishing provincial marketing boards in Alberta, members of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta could point with pride to marketing boards for vegetables and potatoes, chicken and turkey broilers, eggs, hogs, and a commission for cattle.43 Provincial marketing boards were fine to a certain extent, but Alberta did not exist in a vacuum. Interprovincial and international trading patterns provided complications that threatened to undermine the provincial boards established in all ten Canadian provinces. Surpluses in one province could be dumped in another province, creating havoc in spite of provincial marketing legislation. A resolution passed at the December 1966 FUA convention called on the federal government to provide legislation to allow for producer-controlled national marketing boards. Federal marketing board legislation had been declared ultra vires in 1937, but the 1949 federal legislation provided a loose framework for cooperation between provinces. Eventually, the economic crisis in agriculture in the late 1960s forced the Honourable Horace (Bud) Olson,44 42 John

Stewart Smith had come to Canada from Tanzania. establishment of dairy boards resulted from other initiatives. As health regulations governing sanitation and quality were implemented, dairy producers were able to convince government to give them some control over their industry so they could cover the expense of complying with the regulations. 44 Bud Olson was a member of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta and the Western Stock Growers. He was Lieutenant Governor of Alberta from 1996 to 1999. 43 The

199



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

minister of agriculture in Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s Liberal government, to look at national marketing legislation. Bud Olson made it very clear that the federal government had no power to pass any marketing board legislation without the provinces’ willingness to transfer responsibility to Ottawa. It was a complicated issue, resulting in months of meetings and negotiations. Jack Horner, the Progressive Conservative MP from Alberta, led the charge against the legislation. The Farmers’ Union of Alberta, Alberta Federation of Agriculture, and then Unifarm after amalgamation in March 1970, argued strenuously in favour of a federal marketing board. A national marketing act could not come fast enough for Alberta producers impacted by surplus eggs coming from outside the province and forcing prices down. In the meantime, the Alberta government reluctantly agreed to give the Broiler, Turkey, and Egg and Fowl Producers Marketing Boards the power to limit the selling of product to what was produced under quota granted by the respective boards. According to Alberta Minister of Agriculture Henry Ruste, this would be a temporary measure until poultry production in other provinces was brought into line or until the federal marketing scheme was implemented. The first marketing board legislation, the National Farm Products Marketing Act, introduced by the federal minister of agriculture came under attack from many sides. Unifarm came out in full support of the bill, but the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association and the Western Stock Growers’ Association45 put pressure on Agriculture Minister Bud Olson to exempt cattle from the legislation.Advertisements in some farm papers in April 1971 claimed that Bill C-176 would result in “reduced freedoms,” “eastern domination,” “corporate control,” “lower feed grain prices,” and “less livestock production.” The new president of Unifarm, Dobson Lea, discounted this and accused groups seeking to delay national farm products marketing legislation as grossly unfair to producers who needed the legislation immediately. Agriculture Minister Bud Olson lashed out at cattle and hog producers at meetings in Westlock and Onoway, saying that the idea that his “umbrella” legislation was compulsory was a “lot of garbage.” If beef and hog producers did not want a national board, they could simply vote against it in a provincial plebiscite.46 He also stated that ninety-five percent 45 Many

of the people opposed to marketing board legislation were members of both groups. 46 The Organized Farmer, May 1971: 1.

200



CHAPTER ELEVEN: “WE HAVE GOT TO GET ORGANIZED”




of Canadian producers adjusted their production to demand but that a small minority of “big producers” attempted to frustrate this. He reaffirmed his support for marketing boards when he stated at the 1971 Unifarm convention: “In my job as Minister of Agriculture I would say that most of the grief that has come to farmers has been when we’ve had very small surpluses that caused very great depressions in market prices. I think it’s important to realize that the actions and efforts of farmers acting independently really does very little to improve the farmers’ position.”47 Livestock producers were adamant that they did not want to be covered under national marketing board legislation. Eventually, Unifarm President Dobson Lea made a formal request on behalf of Unifarm and its cattle and hog producing members to amend the legislation to exclude cattle, calves, beef and veal, and hogs and pork. Unifarm wanted the bill to pass quickly to benefit other segments of the agriculture industry. Agriculture Minister Bud Olson and his capable deputy minister, Sid Williams, realized they would have to rewrite the legislation so it did not trigger a challenge from the provinces, which had the responsibility for marketing legislation under the constitution.The legislation also had to take into account what might happen in the future to change the size of the provincial quota for each product. To solve the problem of setting quotas and determining which commodities would be covered, Olson and Williams crafted enabling legislation that made it possible to establish federal marketing boards and allowed each group to negotiate its own arrangements. The revised National Farm Products Marketing Act was introduced in Parliament in 1971. Specific commodities were not named, but the legislation outlined how marketing agencies would work.The legislation provided for a council to be established with the authority to set up national agencies for agricultural products, but only on request from a majority of the producers of that commodity. More than a simple majority of provinces and producers was required before a national marketing agency would be authorized. After some heated debate in the House of Commons, Bud Olson’s enabling legislation was passed late in 1971. Members of Alberta farm organizations were justifiably proud of their role in the establishment of provincial and federal marketing boards and commissions. Paul Babey went on to make his mark at the federal level as chair of the National Farm Products Marketing Council, where 47 Farm Trends,

December 1971: 7.

201



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

he was responsible for establishing national marketing agencies for eggs, turkeys, and chicken. Dick Page of Didsbury became chair of the Alberta Hog Producers Marketing Board (AHPMB),48 while Harry Gordon of Rose Lynn became the chair of the Alberta Cattle Commission (ACC). However, they soon discovered that their job was not done. Inflation in the early 1970s focused everyone’s attention on the rising cost of food, particularly beef, pork, eggs, and vegetables. Consumers were angry and looking for someone to blame. In spite of the fact that much of the price increase could be explained by higher wages, pre-packaged, pre-cooked, and highly processed convenience foods as well as attractive packaging and upscale shops, consumers blamed farmers and marketing boards. To address the problem of rapidly rising food prices, the Food Prices Review Board was established under the leadership of Beryl Plumptre by the federal government in May 1973. The review board had two choices: overall action on prices including a general price freeze or selective action on specific products.The Canadian Federation of Agriculture spoke out quickly against a general food price freeze, explaining that farmers would simply stop producing food if the price they received fell below the cost of production.The overall approach to control prices was rejected after studying the British model; the wisdom of doing so was confirmed by the experience in the United States where price freeze policies were not successful. The board went ahead with the selective approach by concentrating on a few basic food products. The first commodity to be analyzed was bread. Wheat prices rose considerably in 1974, resulting in hardship for families with limited incomes when the price of bread increased. The federal government acted on the recommendation of the Food Prices Review Board by increasing the subsidy on wheat for domestic consumption to moderate further anticipated increases in bread prices. Consequently, the price of wheat to millers remained constant at $3.25 per bushel.The Board’s recommendation to increase family allowances to cover increased costs was also accepted by the federal government. The Canadian Egg Marketing Agency drew particular criticism from the Food Prices Review Board because egg prices had risen faster than any other major product in the food price index, despite the fact that during some of this time, feed costs were falling. Attention was riveted on the new Egg Marketing Agency when millions of stored eggs spoiled 48 Dick

202

Page was named to the Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame in 1989.



CHAPTER ELEVEN: “WE HAVE GOT TO GET ORGANIZED”




because the agency was unable to ensure that the provincial boards matched production to demand. Unifarm President Dobson Lea described board chair Beryl Plumptre’s reaction to the regrettable situation and criticisms of the agency as “inflammatory and misleading.”49 Dobson Lea defended marketing boards in response to a Winnipeg Tribune editorial reprinted in the August 28, 1975, Edmonton Journal that criticized the egg marketing board and the demise of the old laws of the marketplace with their fluctuations based on supply and demand. The editorial accused marketing boards of protecting small producers at the expense of consumers. In response, the Unifarm president pointed out that consumers would not be well served if large producers were able to gain control of the market by forcing small producers out and then raising prices. Lea reminded everyone that small producers were worth defending because they were the backbone of the rural community, who in turn supported small town business, schools, and hospitals. Consumers who felt they were paying inflated prices for food were hard to convince. The new Liberal minister of agriculture, Eugene Whelan, told an Ontario Kiwanis Club that, in spite of the perception, food costs in Canada actually went down on a national basis. It was higher costs for housing, clothing, transportation, and wages that drove up the cost of living index.50 The Canadian Federation of Agriculture used its annual presentation to the federal government to express its concern over the preoccupation with food prices.The brief to the government went on to comment on “the ‘almost frantic delight’ that the media has taken in attacking managed systems of agricultural pricing and production, particularly in the areas of eggs and industrial milk, which presumably reflects a sense of loss that the good old days of a cheap food policy may be coming to an end. The economics of present day farm operations ensure that regardless of policies, cheap food will not be easy to come by in future.”51 Attacks from consumers, consumers’ associations, and the Economic Council of Canada as well as government departments such as the Bureau of Competition Policy of Consumer and Corporate Affairs were relentless. Consumers’ associations were particularly active in their criticism of marketing boards. On several occasions, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture was required to issue news releases to refute “irresponsible” 49 Unifarm

Press Release, Edmonton, September 10, 1974. 1976: 11. 51 Farm Trends, May 1976: 11. 50 Farm Trends, April

203



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

statements such as the one made by the president of the Consumers’ Association of Canada that marketing boards in milk, eggs, and poultry were responsible for exploiting the consumer. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture attempted to point out that the Consumers’ Association was using data that did not show the complete situation.52 Unifarm Presidents Dobson Lea and Howard Falkenberg wrote articles, gave countless speeches, and responded to innumerable reports and news articles to patiently explain the misconceptions and misunderstandings that developed as prices continued to skyrocket during the inflationary 1970s. Unifarm responded to the Economic Council of Canada (ECC) report commissioned by the federal and provincial governments that reported Canadians were paying high prices for food because of marketing boards.The recommendation of the ECC that production of supplymanaged commodities be progressively increased and prices reduced until quotas had no value simply amounted to recommending that producers should be underpaid for their labour management skills and for capital investment. Unifarm made it clear that farmers benefit from marketing boards and government regulations while consumers benefit from stable prices and supplies. Governments and taxpayers benefit when farmers are protected by marketing boards because there is less need to be constantly monitoring and subsidizing domestic farmers who are essential if Canadians are to have an assured local source of food. As far as Unifarm was concerned, the Economic Council of Canada seemed to be saying that farmers did not deserve the same income as other members of society. This challenged the fundamental belief of Unifarm and of all its predecessors that farmers had every right to enjoy the same standard of living as other people.Acting on this belief, Unifarm had been instrumental in the development of marketing boards and other forms of commodity groups and then watched with pride as the new boards provided stability in their respective markets. It was a slow process to educate producers to realize that either they had to control their own marketing or they would have to depend on erratic government subsidies.

52 Farm Trends,

204

October 1976: 8.

CHAPTER TWELVE




UNDER THE UMBRELLA—OR NOT

T

he continuing debate over marketing boards and commissions highlighted organizational and philosophical changes taking place in the agricultural sector. Unifarm had been forged out of the desperate need for farmers to “speak with one voice” during the turbulent 1960s by melding individual farm members with an assortment of agricultural organizations. It was an umbrella organization, a “farmers’ parliament,” which included individual direct members and twenty-six organizations in 1970. Organizational members of Unifarm included the Alberta Wheat Pool and United Grain Growers, three dairy organizations, two poultry marketing boards, eight livestock associations including the Western Hog Growers and the Western Stock Growers, five farm supplies co-ops including UFA Co-op and Pembina Co-op, four speciality crop organizations including the Alberta Vegetable Marketing Board and the Alberta Honey Producers, plus the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Women of Unifarm. Not everyone was under the umbrella, however. Organizations outside Unifarm in 1970 included the Alberta Cattle Commission (ACC) and Alberta Hog Producers Marketing Board (AHPMB). Even though the ACC and the AHPMB owed their existence to the Farmers’ Union of Alberta and Alberta Federation of Agriculture, some cattle and hog producers were beginning to question the value of a general farm organization, believing that individual commodity groups would be more successful in arguing on their behalf. A group that joined shortly after Unifarm’s formation, the Alberta Rapeseed Growers’ Association (ARGA), was organized in 1971 with active FUA/Unifarm executive member Mike Nikolaychuk1 as founding chair. Rapeseed was initially planted in Alberta in the 1960s when farmers were advised to diversify during a time of grain surpluses.To the

1

Mike Nikolaychuk of Woking was the FUA representative to the first annual meeting of the Rapeseed Association of Canada in 1968. As the founding president of the Alberta Rapeseed Growers’ Association, he coined the phrase “Cinderella Crop” to refer to rapeseed, now canola.

207



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

The idea of Unifarm as an umbrella organization was important to the members of Unifarm. President Dobson Lea’s daughters-in-law made and decorated this cake for a Unifarm staff party. It has an umbrella over the top and sections representing grain producers, livestock producers, farmers’ co-operatives, and other components of the organization.

consternation of dairy farmers, consumers began to show an interest in products such as margarine and cooking oils made from rapeseed. As an agricultural umbrella organization, Unifarm was drawn into the debate between dairy associations and rapeseed growers over the twelve percent tax on margarine to protect dairy producers that the Consumers’ Association of Canada (Alberta) wanted removed. Unifarm also was involved in the controversy surrounding supply management for rapeseed and then in the debate and vote over how producers wanted to market their rapeseed crops—in an open system or through the Canadian Wheat Board. The Alberta Rapeseed Growers and Unifarm published articles in Farm Trends and prepared an information brochure for distribution to meetings of producers throughout the province. Unifarm and the Rapeseed Growers stayed neutral in the vote conducted in December 1973 to determine whether rapeseed growers wished to continue the current open system of marketing, whether they wanted to have rapeseed included under the Canadian Wheat Board, or if they were still undecided. Results announced in January 1974 indicated that rapeseed 208



CHAPTER TWELVE: UNDER

THE

UMBRELLA—OR NOT




growers wished to continue the current open market system. At its third annual conference in 1974, the Alberta Rapeseed Growers’ Association voted to approach Unifarm to seek full commodity membership status and joined the same year. Rick Ure, who joined the Unifarm staff in 1973 as commodity committee secretary, became secretary to the Alberta Rapeseed Growers’ Association on a fee for service basis doing research for the association. Rapeseed is now known as canola.2 While Unifarm continued working as a general farm organization on behalf of farmers, other forces were becoming active. In a rare desire for change, Alberta changed governments in August 1971. After thirtysix years of Social Credit administration, the new Progressive Conservative government burst onto the scene with an election platform called “New Directions for Alberta in the Seventies.” Farm income was very low in 1970, the weather was unpredictable, and there were enormous stockpiles of grain that could not be sold. Premier Peter Lougheed and his new agriculture minister, Hugh (Doc) Horner, were determined to increase the importance of agriculture in the economic life of the province. The section of the new government’s election platform called “Expansionistic Agricultural Policies” was a shot across the bow for agriculture in the province.3 In a document sent in November 1971 to the deputy minister, Dr. Glen Purnell, and all Department of Agriculture division and regional directors, the new minister of agriculture outlined the challenges and the direction for the future.4 To reach a target of $1 billion gross farm income in Alberta from the previous figure of $700–$800 million, Hugh Horner proposed to expand markets by developing marketing policies to improve domestic and export sales. Expanded markets meant increased agricultural production, more reliable farm income, secure jobs on the farm, and stable communities. He encouraged diversification into other crops such as rapeseed, sunflowers, mustard seed, and some buckwheat crops. Hugh Horner made no secret of his support for secondary 2

The issue of coloured margarine tested the “umbrella concept” of Unifarm when the dairy industry challenged a Canola Growers’ resolution calling for margarine to be coloured.The situation was eventually resolved according to appropriate Unifarm rules of procedure. 3 Progressive Conservative Party (of Alberta), “New Directions for Alberta in the Seventies,” photocopy. 4 The structure of the provincial Department of Agriculture in 1970 was essentially unchanged from what had existed in the 1920s.

209



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

processing of agricultural produce, which he saw as a solution for the problem of high unemployment, particularly in the rural areas. His manifesto also indicated that he would be looking closely at freight rates that appeared to discriminate against Alberta agriculture, suggesting alternative transportation methods such as vegetable oils moving by tanker truck and other farm produce moving through pipelines. The new government was prepared to back up new and increased production with financing, product research, better rural highways, and a provincial sales force to renew the sales effort in Europe and North America and to expand into Japan and the rest of Asia.The new activist Department of Agriculture passed more legislation in the 1972 spring session than any other government department and its budget was increased by eighty-eight percent between 1971 and 1973. All members of the provincial Department of Agriculture were exhorted to become aware of product marketing. The Agricultural Products Marketing Council, previously a regulatory body, was expanded to promote marketing of agricultural products and to act as an advisory board to the government and the minister as well as to the new marketing division of the Department of Agriculture.5 Members of all Alberta marketing boards and commissions were warned that their actions could improve—or curtail—the economic well-being of their industry. They were put on notice that the new marketing council would co-ordinate the efforts of each board and commission to improve sales of Alberta products. Everyone was expected to contribute suggestions on how and what to produce as well as how it should be marketed and how to improve sales in the domestic, national, and international markets. Individual farmers were expected to rise to the challenge by stepping up production in response to increasing marketing opportunities. The provincial government indicated that it would attempt to ensure that no farmer had to produce below the cost of production even though the government admitted it would be a challenge because of world-wide implications of that policy. Several proposals brought the Alberta government into conflict with existing policy and institutions, including some interprovincial trade 5

210

In the past, the marketing council was made up of one farmer, one processor, and four civil servants.The new council was made up of two civil servants and had representatives from the producer, processor, homemaker, and academic fields.The first council included Eleanor Greenwood, homemaker from Edmonton; Dr. Murray Hawkins, professor of agricultural economics, University of Alberta; Clare Anderson of Barrhead, producer; Harvey Buckley of Cochrane, producer; Larry Lang of Spring Coulee, producer; and Earl Masterson of Mayerthorpe, producer. Clarke Ferries of Edmonton remained as chair and Douglas Radke as secretary.



CHAPTER TWELVE: UNDER

THE

UMBRELLA—OR NOT




restrictions and the Canadian Wheat Board.The Alberta government was opposed to marketing restrictions that closed borders and produced only for the domestic market. Major co-operatives, such as the wheat pools and United Grain Growers, and the newly established marketing boards, were seen as obstacles as well. Grain handling companies, both private and co-operative, were warned to diversify into the processing field if they wanted to be in tune with the government philosophy. High volumes of grain shipped out of the province would no longer be considered an accomplishment—it would be considered better to ship grain out after it had been processed in some way, or at least cleaned and sorted by Albertans in Alberta facilities. The new government’s ultimate objective, to process all Alberta grain into livestock or other products, was seen as a threat to supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board and those who worried that secondary producers or processors would be on the prowl for cheap grain.Agriculture Minister Hugh Horner attempted to reassure all those with concerns that the Canadian Wheat Board would always act as the export agency for Alberta grain. In spite of Horner’s assurances, many Unifarm members felt that the Canadian Wheat Board was being used as a whipping boy for opposing groups to challenge the status quo that governed grain marketing. One of the organizations set up by Hugh Horner in the initial flurry of activity caused resentment and suspicion in Unifarm ranks. Unifarm, led by its president, Dobson Lea, had asked for a feed grain commission to deal with increasingly complex issues in that industry, but instead the government set up a commission that covered all grains. The Alberta Grain Commission (AGC) was established by Ministerial Order dated March 27, 1972,6 with the overall goal of increasing the net incomes of Alberta producers and stabilizing the pricing mechanism for feed grains. The new Alberta Grain Commission was expected to examine all facets of the grains and oilseeds industry in Alberta and to do what was necessary to improve the net income of Alberta farmers. Unifarm members became wary of what they perceived to be clandestine motives of the Alberta Grain Commission. Not only did 6

Members of the Alberta Grain Commission included the chair, John Channon; Marvin Moore, MLA from Smokey River; Art Rendfleisch, executive assistant to the Minister of Agriculture; and grain producers David Berntson, Foremost; Allan Hodge, Lacombe; Gunnar Lindquist, Mellowdale; Joe Ferrence, Elk Point; Constantine Yurko, Hairy Hill; and Jack Gorr,Three Hills. Orland Bratvold of the Department of Agriculture was appointed secretary to the commission. Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, “Alberta Grain Commission: 25 Years of Service,” Dedication, June 1997: 4.

211



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

commissioners act as though they represented well-accepted opinions of Alberta farmers, they appeared to be undermining the Canadian Wheat Board. Anyone who doubted the underlying hostility of the Alberta Grain Commission to the Canadian Wheat Board would have wondered at the dedication in the Alberta Grain Commission twenty-fifth anniversary publication.The dedication to Dr. Hugh Horner and John Channon indicated that the chair, John Channon, “tried to find a new mailing address for the CWB—Moscow he often suggested.”7 Unifarm members were extremely uneasy about John Channon’s role as chair of the Alberta Grain Commission because of comments he made at meetings and social events about his hostility to some farm organizations and marketing boards, including the Canadian Wheat Board.8 Another employee of the provincial Department of Agriculture, Omar Broughton, was also outspoken in his criticism of some agricultural associations, including the Alberta Wheat Pool. Omar Broughton had served as secretary to the board of directors of the Alberta Wheat Pool until he left during the November 1971 Wheat Pool annual meeting. He was hired almost immediately by the Alberta Department of Agriculture, where he headed the commodity section, providing support to agricultural and commodity organizations, including the Alberta Grain Commission. Unifarm had questions about the type of support it received from a man so outspoken in his criticism of co-operative philosophy. Unifarm expressed its resentment and opposition to the activities of the Alberta Grain Commission in its annual brief to the cabinet committee in February 1977,9 and in April 1977, President Dobson Lea called for the dissolution of the AGC if it continued to depart from the mandate established in 1972. In a letter to the provincial minister of agriculture, Lea indicated his frustration with the AGC for deviating from its original terms by masquerading as a producer group and purporting to represent 7

Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, “Alberta Grain Commission: 25 Years of Service,” Dedication, June 1997: 1. 8 In an address in 1977 to the Palliser Wheat Growers’ Association (PWGA), John Channon reminisced about his first contact with the organization in the fall of 1969. He had been invited to visit former federal Progressive Conservative Minister of Agriculture Frank Hamilton at the Regina Inn and was shown a folder Hamilton had just received at a meeting with a small group of people who called themselves the Palliser Triangle Wheat Growers’ Association. John Channon had a great deal of empathy for the sentiments expressed in the folder and became a card-carrying member and admirer of PWGA policies. John Channon, “Policy Issues in the Western Grain Industry,” Palliser Wheat Growers Association Seventh Annual Meeting and Convention, January 4–6, 1977: 55.

212



CHAPTER TWELVE: UNDER

THE

UMBRELLA—OR NOT




producers. Although Lea recognized that some members of the Alberta Grain Commission were respected members of the farm community, he felt that non-producer members of the commission were influencing them. There was confusion in the farming community because some Alberta grain commissioners expressed opinions as though they were views held by significant numbers of producers. Members of Unifarm indicated their concern about the activity of the AGC by calling again for its dissolution at the 1979 annual convention. As far as Unifarm was concerned, producers had an opportunity to make their views known through existing farm groups. If those organizations were not adequate, farmers could organize other ones, but it was not up to an appointed government commission to get involved. Provincial Opposition Leader Bob Clark attacked the Alberta Grain Commission in his speech to the convention the same year, saying that it was “one organization we don’t need in this province.”10 He also challenged the increasing level of government involvement in agriculture by the Progressive Conservative government. Dobson Lea of Unifarm and Bob Clark of the Social Credit Opposition were not the only ones concerned about Alberta government involvement in grain marketing. In a speech to the 1976 Unifarm convention, federal Agriculture Minister Eugene Whelan criticized Premier Lougheed for holding talks with a visiting United States senator on bilateral U.S.–Canada tariff negotiations. On the eve of a provincial trade mission to the Soviet Union in 1977, Unifarm reminded the provincial government that trade and tariff negotiations were a federal matter—a point provincial Agriculture Minister Marvin Moore conceded on his return. In spite of the fact that rank and file Alberta producers liked to think their provincial politicians could sell wheat directly on the foreign market, that is not how it was done. Marvin Moore acknowledged that it was the responsibility of his federal counterpart to further trade negotiations and praised the Canadian Wheat Board for the work it did in handling international grain sales.11 9

“We wish to make it clear that we resent and oppose any attempt by organizations, agencies, or individuals to misinform and mislead primary producers in their search for reasonable and legitimate procedures that will bring them just returns for the highly efficient manner in which they supply food to this nation and its trading partners.” “Unifarm Annual Brief to the Provincial Cabinet,” Farm Trends, February 1977: 5. 10 Farm Trends, January 1979: 16. 11 “Moore concedes . . . trade a federal matter,” Farm Trends, June 1977: 3.

213



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Relations between the provincial government and Unifarm became even more stressful.12 Unifarm reacted with alarm when Premier Lougheed proposed in the Legislature on May 8, 1978, that MLAs from grain-producing provinces be appointed to the Canadian Wheat Board. In a May 12, 1978, news release, new Unifarm President Howard Falkenberg announced that Unifarm did not take kindly to this and would use every means at its disposal to block appointments by the provincial government. The Canadian Wheat Board was a federal institution, so involving the provincial level of government was not acceptable because of the temptation of political appointees to draw the board into federal-provincial squabbles. Unifarm was troubled by Peter Lougheed’s statement that the Alberta government supported the Canadian Wheat Board “at this stage,” wondering if it was a threat to withdraw support if Ottawa did not agree to Alberta’s wishes. Others in the agricultural community saw the problems of production, handling, and marketing of wheat from a different angle. In April 1970, five months after the Farmers’ Union of Alberta rejected the Saskatchewan-based National Farmers’ Union and joined with the Alberta Federation of Agriculture to form Unifarm, the Palliser Wheat Growers’ Association was organized. It was formed by frustrated farmers who saw that while other commodity organizations were making an impact on agriculture policy, wheat growers had no commodity organization to speak for them. By default, the provincial wheat pools assumed responsibility for policy formation, leaving farmers who did not support the pools no process to discuss and formulate policy. The Palliser Wheat Growers’ founding convention was held January 15–16, 1971 in Regina, Saskatchewan. It attracted most of its members from that province—4,359 of the total membership of 4,508 in 1970; 2,555 of 2,681 in 1975; and 1,931 of 2,328 in 1979. Alberta membership during those years was 128 in 1970, 165 in 1975, and 257 in 1979.13 Wheat growers in Alberta did not rush to join Palliser, nor did they attempt to set up their own provincial wheat producers’ commodity group, although some saw a need for one.14 In spite of the low 12 Relations

between the provincial government and the Alberta Wheat Pool also deteriorated during this time. 13 The balance of the membership came from Manitoba. 14 Harry Gordon feels that grain growers as a whole abdicated their responsibility, including himself in that assessment. It is true that the Alberta Wheat Pool and the United Grain Growers, as farmer-controlled organizations, were active members of Unifarm, but some saw a contradiction in a business representing farmers in a 214 farmer organization.



CHAPTER TWELVE: UNDER

THE

UMBRELLA—OR NOT




membership in Alberta, the Alberta government subsidized the Palliser Wheat Growers, later renamed the Western Canadian Wheat Growers’ Association, with annual subsidies that ranged from $6,000 in 1975–76 to $80,000 in 1982–83 and $50,000 in 1990–91.15 At the founding convention of the Palliser Wheat Growers’ Association, President Walter Nelson acknowledged that general farm organizations like Unifarm played an essential role in the agriculture industry and that government and grain officials should listen to them regarding general farm policy. However, he felt that the new commodity groups being formed to deal with pricing and marketing of specific products should also be taken seriously. Nelson made the point that proposals from the new commodity groups had not gone through “the compromising, watering down protectionist mill”16 that he saw as a feature of a general farm organization. He used an example from a meeting of the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture, where a vote to remove hogs from a controversial farm produce marketing bill was lost 15 to 17, but there were only three hog producers in the room. Harry Gordon of Unifarm echoed Nelson’s concerns. He found it troublesome that 400 delegates at a Unifarm convention determined policy for everything from hogs and chickens to grain and wildlife whether they knew what they were doing or not. An organization for barley growers, the Western Barley Growers’ Association, burst onto the scene with the financial backing and assistance of the Alberta government through the Alberta Grain Commission. The first meeting in Olds, Alberta, in 1977 attracted fifty barley growers from Alberta and Saskatchewan to hear speakers from the Palliser Wheat Growers and the Flax Growers of Western Canada. The Western Barley Growers’ Association (WBGA) was another group with its headquarters in Regina that received substantial funding from the Alberta government. To the chagrin of Unifarm, the WBGA received start-up funding of $15,000 from Alberta Agriculture in 1977–78, $27,919 in 1979–80, and then substantial yearly subsidies including $57,000 in 1982–83, $90,000 in 1989–90, and $45,000 in 1991–92.17 According to the financial statement for the Western Barley Growers 1981–82 annual general meeting, the association had raised about 15 Alberta

Public Accounts. Nelson, President’s Address, Palliser Wheat Growers’ Association, Founding Convention Programme, Regina, Saskatchewan, January 15–16, 1971: 6-10. 17 Alberta Public Accounts. 16 Walter

215



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

$12,000 in voluntary membership and had been given an Alberta government grant of $35,000.18 According to the twenty-fifth anniversary publication of the Alberta Grain Commission, the AGC considered that one of its most successful actions was the formation of the Western Barley Growers’ Association.19 Unifarm did not deny the need for an organization, but questioned the active participation of civil servants and the motivation for setting up this particular group from the top down when other groups had developed as a result of a more open process beginning with individual producers. Unifarm saw its role as a democratically representative organization being jeopardized by groups appointed by and financially propped up by the government. Unifarm members were particularly incensed that the Western Barley Growers’ Association, in conjunction with the Alberta Grain Commission, had conducted courses attacking existing agricultural organizations such as the grain co-operatives. Confronted with new groups with new philosophies and a provincial government that seemed less than sympathetic to its co-operative instincts, Unifarm decided to fight back. Unifarm acknowledged that it had to make substantial changes to stay relevant and continue to serve as a “farmers’ parliament” where issues of concern to the agricultural community could be resolved. As more commodity organizations formed, Unifarm’s umbrella structure had to be redefined to encourage each group to join and to consider the impact of its policies on another commodity or the long-term impact on the whole agricultural community. Unifarm policy was hammered out on the convention floor when delegates examined standing policy, proposed changes, and made recommendations. Final decisions were made by all delegates in a plenary session, giving credence to the concerns of some people that policy was sometimes developed by people who did not have specific knowledge of a particular issue. A task force established in 1976 recommended that a policy position arrived at in this fashion be accepted by Unifarm, subject to challenge by a Unifarm delegate who could prove that the proposal was detrimental to another commodity group. The troublesome 18 “Unifarm

216

Plans November Membership Campaign,” Unifarm Press Release, October 26, 1982.The $35,000 grant from Alberta Agriculture is confirmed in Alberta Public Accounts. Another group that received financial help from the Alberta government was the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange, which received a commitment for $250,000, apparently to enable it to become involved in the prairie feed grain business, particularly in Alberta. 19 Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, “Alberta Grain Commission: 25 Years of Service,” June 1997: 10.



CHAPTER TWELVE: UNDER

THE

UMBRELLA—OR NOT




policy would then be sent to the Unifarm board, which was given the responsibility of arranging a compromise or trying to persuade the commodity group to amend its position. Unifarm accepted these recommendations and sought to fulfil its role as a general farm organization with the authority and mandate to speak for agriculture. In a prophetic statement, a 1976 news release worried that “Unifarm is concerned that a fragmentation of the farm front could result from different interest groups going separate ways and the single strong voice weakened by some groups acting unilaterally and adding their concerns to the already complex problems facing the industry.”20 As a result of the task force findings, Unifarm announced changes to its programs, structure, and policies to encourage greater participation by individual and organizational members, and greater understanding among all farmers and ranchers of the special problems of producers of various commodities from various regions. It encouraged more producers to participate in farm policy formulation through commodity groups and to work with Unifarm to improve the co-ordination of various policies to ensure the well-being of all groups. Unifarm set out to strengthen the regions through the formation of regional councils in each of its fourteen regions. The new regional councils were chaired by the regional director and included the regional Women of Unifarm director, district chairs, and representatives of other member organizations. The 1976 Unifarm task force recommendation that policy forums be held in each district in November was accepted, and the date of the annual convention was changed from December to January to allow time for the office to integrate new policy suggestions into the convention program. There was a secondary social benefit to these policy forums—the opportunity for farmers to work with each other as well as with leaders and staff of Unifarm, the co-operatives, and commodity groups to develop policy.These “mini-conventions” were followed in the spring by meetings to report on the progress of various policy initiatives or the reaction of government officials to suggestions from Unifarm. Armed with its new structure and a renewed sense of purpose, Unifarm approached the two major commodity groups still outside the Unifarm umbrella: the Alberta Hog Producers Marketing Board, which did not join, and the Alberta Cattle Commission, which did. 20 Unifarm

Press Release, December 10, 1976.

217



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Although Dick Page, Harry Gordon, and many other Unifarm members were instrumental in its formation, the Alberta Hog Producers Marketing Board never did join Unifarm, a fact that may be explained by the makeup and structure of the Hog Board. The first elected board included some supporters of the National Farmers’ Union who were still disappointed by the 1969 vote to amalgamate provincially to form Unifarm. These producers did not join Unifarm as individual members themselves and were not interested in having their commodity group become a member. On the other hand, supporters of the Western Hog Growers who also served on the Hog Board did not take kindly to some of Unifarm’s policy statements although the Western Hog Growers were founding members of Unifarm. Hog Board Chair Dick Page needed all his skills as a negotiator to reconcile the divergent opinions on the board. Unfortunately, his position as vice-president of Unifarm proved to be a lightening rod for discontent, so he sought advice from the minister of agriculture, Hugh Horner, about the problems he was having. The minister encouraged him to stay on as chair of the Hog Board.To re-establish harmony, Dick resigned as vice-president of Unifarm in June 1972, citing full-time duties as chair of the Hog Marketing Board even though he continued to be a loyal Unifarm member.21 When the resolution to join Unifarm was brought to the floor of the Alberta Hog Producers Marketing Board convention, as it was on a regular basis, it was hotly discussed by all sides and then defeated.22 As the Alberta Cattle Commission became increasingly involved in debates over agricultural policy, it realized the importance of having input into policy development on the Unifarm convention floor. After several months of negotiation in 1977, the Alberta Cattle Commission joined Unifarm and attended the January 1978 annual convention.23 Membership in Unifarm gave the Cattle Commission the opportunity 21 When

Page’s term on the Hog Marketing Board ended, he was appointed to the Alberta Agricultural Products Marketing Council. 22 AHPMB made substantial contributions to other organizations. Using five cents of the thirty cents charged for marketing each hog, the pork board implemented a respected, long-term research program that provided benefits for them as well as for students and faculty in the Department of Rural Economy and the Department of Animal Science at the University of Alberta.Their promotional campaign set out to educate consumers to overcome negative attitudes to pork as a food.The AHPMB also became a strong supporter of the youth programs at Goldeye Centre. 23 ACC membership was phased in with a first-year membership fee of $20,000, about $42,000 in the second year and $70,000 in the third year. Farm Trends, January 1978: 8.

218



CHAPTER TWELVE: UNDER

THE

UMBRELLA—OR NOT




to discuss policy resolutions at the provincial level before they were taken to the Western Agricultural Conference, made up of the Manitoba Farm Bureau, the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture, United Grain Growers, and Unifarm. From there, the resolutions went to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and then the federal government. Unifarm’s reputation was enhanced when the Cattle Commission joined because its cattle policy was developed by and reflected all groups involved in the industry. However, Harry Gordon, past chair of the Cattle Commission, must have had a very clear crystal ball when, during a Unifarm board meeting in Goldeye in 1978, he stated that Alberta Cattle Commission membership in Unifarm would probably cause more problems that it solved in the short term.24 Additional changes to the structure of Unifarm attempted to serve the evolving demands of farm organizations and the need to accommodate powerful sectors of the agriculture community because when producers felt that the umbrella organization did not serve their needs, other groups grew up to fill the void. Unifarm President Howard Falkenberg expressed his concerns about a new organization called the Western Feed Grain Council that had been formed by users and producers of feed grain to lobby for changes to the federal regulations and system of assistance for feed grain. In a 1982 “Viewpoint” article for Farm Trends, he indicated that he could not understand how some people could advocate removing the restrictions that kept them from a constant source of feed grain at distress prices and then claim a right to government assistance when their own industry was in trouble. Falkenberg considered it “unfair to want to remove controls in favour of a ‘free competitive market’ and yet be prepared to accept government funding as a production subsidy, and also use the funding for advertising and promotion in competition with producers of products who have not received similar funding, but who have their houses in order as far as supply is concerned.”25 A Unifarm provincial council, established through a constitutional change at the 1979 annual convention, was made up of the president and two vice-presidents of Unifarm, fourteen regional directors, two Women of Unifarm representatives, and a minimum of one and maximum of 24 The

statement was made during his last annual report to the board before stepping down as District 11 director in 1978. 25 Howard Falkenberg, “Viewpoint,” Farm Trends, July–August 1982: 2.

219



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

three representatives of each member organization relative to the size of the organization.This rather large council met at least every six months and was responsible for ongoing policy development between annual meetings. In addition to the provincial council, a board of directors included the president, two vice-presidents, seven council members representing the direct membership, and seven council members representing member organizations, elected by and from the provincial council. This more streamlined group met at least every three months to carry on the business of the association.They were also responsible for maintaining close contact with district officials as well as officials of the member commodity organizations.A smaller group, the provincial executive, was made up of the president, two vice-presidents, and one member to represent each of the direct and organizational sides of Unifarm.The executive met more often to carry out the directions and policies as established by the annual convention, provincial council, and board of directors. With this new structure and budgetary process, Unifarm set its course to deal with the raging storm over transportation that had appeared on the horizon.

220

CHAPTER THIRTEEN




“A GREAT DEGREE OF MISUNDERSTANDING” 1

U

nifarm, the umbrella organization formed to develop policy so agriculture could “speak with one voice,” ran into trouble during the debate on the “Crow Rates” during the 1970s and 1980s.The Crow’s Nest Pass Agreement had come into being during Canada’s nation building— and railway building—era at the end of the nineteenth century. Contrary to public perception, the Crow’s Nest Pass Agreement had nothing to do with the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) transcontinental line across Canada. The building of that railway enticed the Crown Colony of British Columbia to join Confederation on July 20, 1871, on condition that a railway linking eastern Canada with the Pacific coast be commenced within two years and finished within ten years. The route to completion of Canada’s transcontinental railway was strewn with incentives, successful and unsuccessful, to persuade private enterprise to take on the challenge. Eventually, a contract was signed with what became the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that provided a grant of $25 million and twenty-five million acres (over 10 million hectares) of land including rail lines already built or being built by the government. Other incentives included tax concessions, a twenty-year monopoly privilege (which lasted only seven years), tariff duty exemptions on construction materials for the rail line, and exemption from all taxes on all stations, station grounds, workshops, yards, and rolling and capital stock. After encountering formidable economic, political, and geographic barriers, the last spike was driven at Craigellachie, British Columbia, on November 7, 1885.2 1

The Hall Commission (1977) summarized the transportation debate by saying that it (the grain handling and transportation system) consists of a mix of private, cooperative, and public ownership; varying degrees of public control; and a great degree of misunderstanding. Government of Canada, Grain Handling and Transportation Commission, Grain and Rail in Western Canada,Vol. 1 [Emmett Hall] (Ottawa: 1977), 520. 2 This site was declared a significant engineering accomplishment by the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers.

223



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

There was no time to rest. Although 1885 brought the transcontinental line through the Rocky Mountains at Banff, southern British Columbia lacked transportation facilities to develop its rich mineral deposits and declare Canadian sovereignty over the area in the face of north-south branch rail lines across the international border. It was apparent that a rail line through the difficult terrain of the Crow’s Nest Pass could take coal from Alberta to fire the smelting furnaces at Trail, B.C. and then transport the minerals out to markets in the east.This rail line could also solve another problem that had always inhibited development of this large northern country. Freight rates to cover the costs of transporting goods and agricultural produce to and from the sparsely populated prairie on the new transcontinental rail line were too high. It was so bad by 1894 that companies were making a tidy profit using the old abandoned system of freighting with horses and wagon.3 Under the Crow’s Nest Pass Agreement, the CPR was induced to build a 330-mile (531 km) line from Lethbridge, Alberta, through the Crow’s Nest Pass to Nelson, B.C., with a land grant offer from the B.C. government of 20,000 acres per mile of track constructed.The Canadian government assumed an obligation to subsidize construction by $11,000 per mile of railroad to a maximum of $3.63 million, paid in instalments. Other clauses of the agreement specified that the CPR was to operate the line forever and submit for government approval all rates for goods originating or terminating on CPR lines in southern B.C. The specifications that would be crucial to deliberations three-quarters of a century later were the ones that called on the CPR to reduce rates on settlers’ effects and other specified westbound goods by ten percent in most cases and charge no higher rate after January 1, 1898. In addition, the CPR was to reduce eastbound rates for grain and flour from points west of the Lakehead by 1.5 cents per hundredweight by September 1898 and by another 1.5 cents by 1899. The CPR made its contribution to Canadian sovereignty, western settlement, and economic development with the agreement to maintain low freight rates into and out of the struggling western plains. In return, the CPR received benefits that were perceived to be gold plated and unfair to the western farmer. The CPR received a federal government subsidy of $3.4 million, plus the B.C. government land grant of 3

224

Allan Beattie, “The Crow’s Nest Pass Agreement: How It All Began” (Alberta Wheat Pool, 1978), 3.



CHAPTER THIRTEEN: “A GREAT DEGREE OF MISUNDERSTANDING”




3,755,733 acres (1,519,889 hectares) that was turned into income of $3,215,933. The last of the land was sold in 1948. With expenses and taxes of $1,381,435 deducted, the CPR received a net return from government subsidies of $5,239,218 for building the line that cost $9,894,392 to construct.4 Justified or not, the western farmer never forgot the millions of dollars in subsidies, tax breaks, and land grants handed over to Canadian Pacific Rail. The Crow’s Nest Pass Agreement was suspended because of the disruption and subsequent inflation during and after World War I, but reinstated as a result of pressure from the west to do something about the serious economic downturn in the early 1920s.The railways retaliated to the legislation that rolled shipping rates back to 1897 levels by applying them to the 289 shipping points that existed in 1897—out of over 1,600 points that existed in 1924.When this interpretation of the Crow’s Nest Pass Agreement was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, Parliament passed legislation in 1925 freeing westbound goods from the agreement and placing those rates under the control of the Board of Transport Governors.The new law prescribed rates at the 1897 level for grain and flour going east to the Lakehead from all existing and future points on all railways.The freight rates on grain were no longer set by an agreement between the federal government and the CPR, but by federal statute, the Statutory Rates, imposed unilaterally on all railways. When the Statutory Rates superseded the “Crow,” the name should also have been discarded, but it has remained to describe a confusing, hated or loved phenomenon of western political culture. The law was extended in 1927 to apply to export grain going to the west coast, and in 1931 export grain to Churchill, Manitoba, was covered. The rates eventually applied to various by-products of the milling and brewing industries, and, in 1961, Parliament amended the law to apply to rapeseed. Agricultural producers were always nervous about the “Crow,” and the Crow’s Nest Pass Agreement was a topic of discussion at many conventions. The Farmers’ Union of Alberta passed a resolution in 1952 in reference to the Crow agreement “that we as Canadian citizens demand that in the event of the discontinuance of the Crow’s Nest Pass Agreement, the CPR be legally ordered to return to the people of Canada all the aforementioned monies and grants together with interest 4

Allan Beattie, “The Crow’s Nest Pass Agreement,” 5.

225



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

including also all properties, railways and oil rights accruing to them through the agreement.”5 The MacPherson Commission on Transportation, formed to study the Statutory Rates based on 1897 prices, issued a report in March 1961 indicating that, by the 1950s, Canadian railways were losing money at these Statutory Rates. One of the myths surrounding the “Crow” is that it has always been a subsidy, either to farmers or the railways. Until this time, the railways made money on the rate they were able to charge— there was no subsidy involved. In their submission, the railways maintained that they lost $70 million annually on freighting export grain while the commission was prepared to suggest that the railways lost $22.3 million. In a minority report, one of the commissioners stated that he was not convinced the railways had lost any money, and if they had, they had received enough benefits from the agreement to more than compensate their small loss. In another minority report, two of the commissioners disagreed with the Statutory Rate and suggested it not be accepted for all time and be increased immediately to help the railways overcome losses on transporting export grain.The majority report took a middle road and recommended that the Statutory Rates be continued but that the Canadian government pay an annual subsidy to the railways totalling $22 million.6 Whether anyone believed they were losing money at the time, by the early 1950s, railways had gradually stopped investing in rail cars and equipment specifically for the grain trade.The grain transportation business was able to ignore the severity of the problem because old rail cars were put into use as grain cars when the railways updated their equipment for other commodities. Other efficiencies in grain transportation, pooling, and block shipping made it possible for the same number of rail cars to handle more grain. There was a limit to how long grain transportation could benefit from these developments. When the federal government awoke to the situation in 1972, it ordered 2,000 new grain hopper cars, eventually putting more than 8,000 into the railways’ grain service before its financial constraints program came into effect. By 1978, the Canadian Wheat 5

Norman Priestley and Edward Swindlehurst, Furrows, Faith and Fellowship (Edmonton: Co-op Press, 1967), 278. 6 The Farmers’ Union commented that any industry that got itself into trouble should qualify for a subsidy but was not prepared to agree that the railways’ loss had anything to do with the Statutory Rates. FUA News Release, April 13, 1961.

226



CHAPTER THIRTEEN: “A GREAT DEGREE OF MISUNDERSTANDING”




Government of Canada grain cars sitting on track beside the Alberta Pool Elevator in Aldersyde, Alberta. Photo: Canada Agriculture, Information Division.

Board (CWB) was forced to order 2,000 new grain cars to replace old boxcars that were being taken out of the system at a rate of about 1,800 cars each year. This was a controversial step for the CWB because the funds came out of the pockets of grain producers, but the board explained that the alternative was to lose even more sales in the future. Later, the Alberta and Saskatchewan governments each purchased 1,000 grain cars and the federal government purchased and leased several thousand more. In spite of FUA President Paul Babey’s comment that CPR President Norris Roy Crump was screaming “blue ruin” over having to haul grain at Statutory Rates, transportation issues in the 1960s were not the flash point they would become a decade later. Rail transportation continued to disintegrate because of reduced maintenance and a deteriorating grain-gathering prairie network. Some lines could only be used at reduced speeds, and some had to be eliminated because of poorly maintained trestles and bridges.The federal government stepped in with $600–800 million for a ten-year branch line rehabilitation program. At the same time, transportation evolved with the advent of a new generation of bus, truck, and airline transport. In 1970, a two-year federal study on grain handling and transportation was initiated by the Liberal minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, the Honourable Otto Lang.The Grains Group, a special group set 227



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

up to carry out the Grain Handling and Transportation Study, produced a final report consisting of eleven separate studies. One volume, Grain Handling and Transportation Costs in Canada, provided a valuable description of the handling and transportation system in the early 1970s. According to the study summarized for distribution to Unifarm members,7 there were approximately 5,000 country elevators operated by co-operatives, corporations, and individuals located at about 1,900 delivery points with a storage capacity of about 400 million bushels collecting from an area of about 190,000 square miles (492,000 sq. km). Over the previous ten years, each elevator handled an average of 130,000 bushels of grain—a far cry from the one million bushels that could be put through many of those elevators.At the beginning of the 1970s, railway facilities available for the movement of Canadian grain included 20,000 boxcars that took an average of fifteen trips a year on about 19,300 miles (31,000 km) of railway lines in the prairie provinces.There were terminal elevators operated by co-operatives, corporations, and governments on the west coast, Churchill,Thunder Bay, and other eastern points. There was a fleet of bulk carriers on the Great Lakes to get the grain to elevators beyond Thunder Bay and on the St. Lawrence River, although winter grain transport was by rail. Historically, farmers took the responsibility for trucking grain to the elevator in farm trucks while the local elevator agent was responsible for grading it and providing the personal contact with the system, ensuring the loyalty of the farmer to the elevator company.This was a convenient system for the farmer who only had to drive about seven miles (11.3 km) to the nearest elevator, keeping direct costs at a very low level, but increasing the inefficiencies and hence the cost of the whole transportation system. From the elevator, grain was loaded onto rail cars and hauled to port. At port, the Canadian Grain Commission was responsible for determining the official grade, cleaning, and loading the grain for export. It was a labour-intensive system with low capital costs because of the age of most of the country elevators and the grain cars. Change was inevitable. The Grain Handling and Transportation Study presented four alternatives for discussion over the next few years. One recommendation was to rationalize the system of country elevators to reduce the number from about 5,000 to 3,600. Another recommendation was to abandon low-traffic railway lines and eliminate most 7

228

“Summary of Federal Study on Grain Transportation and Handling,” Farm Trends, September 1972: 17–19.



CHAPTER THIRTEEN: “A GREAT DEGREE OF MISUNDERSTANDING”




country elevators, leaving 389 concrete high-throughput country elevators on the prairies.The third recommendation was to retain the country elevator system to receive grain from the farmer and then concentrate on an inland terminal-satellite elevator system from where the grain would be shipped on unit trains to the ports. The fourth recommendation was to establish a transportation system that required the farmer to deliver to about ninety inland terminals where it would be cleaned and loaded on unit trains for shipment. Otto Lang’s Grain Handling and Transportation Study was received with some trepidation by Unifarm members. In true farm organization tradition, members were kept informed through local and regional meetings. Unifarm economist Elmer Allen provided the economic analysis and Executive Director Wilf Plosz provided the historical framework for the debate at meetings and official hearings. Everyone on staff contributed, often working overtime to finish a presentation or a brief. Allen did the research, Plosz did the writing late into the night, and the office staff, including Olia Patan and Minnie Reich, retyped the documents early in the morning before they were copied and bound, just in time for distribution and presentation. It was becoming apparent—and the study confirmed—that freight costs were rising on coal and other commodities such as agricultural inputs and finished products. At the same time, more raw agricultural produce was being shipped out of the province at Statutory Rates to be processed elsewhere. Two years after the release of the Grain Handling and Transportation Study, Unifarm and other agricultural organizations were still grappling with its implications. People’s lives and livelihoods were at stake and it was not easy to grasp the hard choices highlighted by the study. In 1974, Unifarm organized a seminar on the need and requirements for an improved transportation system, REDA sponsored a seminar on the Crow’s Nest Rates, and the Canada Grains Council held a two-day seminar to provide insight into transportation problems, including the heart-wrenching problems associated with rail line abandonment. A freeze on branch line abandonment, which had been implemented during the deliberations, made planning difficult.The federal government paid subsidies to the railways to keep uneconomic lines open, an expensive proposition for taxpayers that also freed the railways from making hard decisions and left them wondering which lines should receive infusions of resources that were desperately needed.The problem 229



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

continued down the line, leaving elevator companies trying to decide which elevators to abandon and producers wondering if they should buy larger trucks to transport grain longer distances or go into livestock production. Fully aware of the costs of delay, the Unifarm transportation committee recommended that the freeze be lifted and rationalization of the grain and handling system be allowed to develop. Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways were not the only ones to feel the impact of Statutory Rates for grain. Efforts to compensate the railways for losses on export grain transportation distorted the market and affected grain and livestock producers. A strong thrust for change came from the Alberta livestock industry, which pointed out that the purchase price of domestically consumed grain was higher to them because of the Statutory Rates. Producers of oilseed derivatives complained that, while grain was transported by rail to the east and west at less than thirty percent of the compensatory cost, they paid the true cost to haul their products to the same markets. As well, raw rapeseed moved under Statutory Rates while rapeseed products such as meal moved at a much higher rate. Serious attempts had been made over the years to establish a fair feed grain pricing policy for western grain and livestock producers that did not conflict with Canadian Wheat Board programs.The feed grain policy in effect until 1972–73 helped livestock producers but was hard on feed grain producers because of price instability and the lack of a floor price. Non-board feed grain prices often dropped below the average pooled Canadian Wheat Board price because farmers desperate for cash were tempted to sell at distress prices if there was a hint of a surplus. Feed grain policy established in the mid-1970s guaranteed western feed grain producers a floor price but caused distortions for western livestock producers.The ridiculous situation of western hogs and cattle heading east to be fed western feed grain in eastern feed lots began to rankle Alberta livestock producers. This trend intensified as a result of Quebec government funding for the construction of hog barns. The hog commodity group reported to the 1975 annual Unifarm convention that they had noticed a pronounced swing in hog production from Alberta to Quebec. Hog gradings in Quebec increased by 14.3 percent from 1973 to 1974, while there was a decrease of 9.1 percent in Alberta in the same period. The complexity of the issue caused the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to defeat all the resolutions presented at its 1975 annual 230



CHAPTER THIRTEEN: “A GREAT DEGREE OF MISUNDERSTANDING”




meeting, leaving the current less-than-satisfactory policy untouched. Some members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture did not grasp the importance of the cattle feeding industry and did not realize how much the western industry was hurt when western livestock and western grain were sent to eastern feedlots and from there to eastern processors. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture adopted Unifarm’s stance that the Statutory Rates for grain should be maintained and that costs to move other products should encourage the development of maximum processing within the regions of Canada producing the raw materials. Any financial assistance proposed for western farmers had to be allocated in such a way that one agricultural commodity or input was not favoured over another. It would not be easy. To the consternation of Unifarm, Otto Lang, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, was reported to be considering abandoning the Statutory Rates and compensating prairie farmers to the same extent as the railways had been compensated for rehabilitating branch lines and purchasing grain cars. He was not clear on how the prairie producer would be compensated.8 At a press conference in Red Deer on April 25, 1975, Lang denied advocating cancellation but suggested that it was time to review the rates and to study the feasibility of giving farmers a substitute subsidy. On the eve of the deadline for lifting the freeze on rail line abandonment, the government announced a “freeze” until the year 2000 on abandonment of about 4,300 miles (6,920 km) of track in Alberta, a “freeze” for one year on about 1,453 miles (2,339 km), and a proposal for abandonment on about 143 miles (230 km). Here was another issue to be studied and assessed by Unifarm committees and staff. Elmer Allen, the Unifarm economist, took pains to explain in Farm Trends 9 that the cost of keeping low-density lines open would be the responsibility of the federal government, not the railway. Rail lines that were “frozen” for one year before a decision was made on whether to abandon them or transfer them into the category that would be protected until the year 2000 were the first priority for discussion.The federal government chose these 8

There was discussion at the 1974 Unifarm convention about asking Lang to step down as minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, but no resolutions or motions were proposed then. In 1975 and again in 1976, the Unifarm grains committee proposed a resolution to have the Canadian Wheat Board removed from the jurisdiction of Otto Lang to become part of the Department of Agriculture. Unifarm Convention Programmes 1975: 29 and 1976: 27. 9 Elmer Allen, “Proposed Rail Line Closures Concern to Producers,” Farm Trends, April 1975: 12.

231



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

routes because claims had been made for subsidies on these lines or there was reason to believe that subsidies would have to be paid because revenue was projected not to cover future expenses. Retired Superior Court Justice Emmett Hall was appointed by the federal government in early 1975 to conduct hearings into potential rail line abandonment, examining the social and economic impact on local communities.10 Unifarm swung into action, and in partnership with the provincial Department of Transportation, now under the direction of former Agriculture Minister Hugh Horner, established “Trans-Com,” a rural participation program to evaluate transportation needs in Alberta. Trans-Com was financed by the Department of Transportation and run with the co-operation of agricultural development committees and district agriculturists.11 Trans-Com, consisting of staff from Alberta Transportation and Unifarm, prepared information packages and visual aids to be distributed to community committees to provide them with background information in advance of the Hall Commission’s arrival. Everyone who participated (2,339 from 146 communities) was encouraged to make individual submissions to the Hall Commission. Unifarm made its own presentation to the Hall Commission, noting a concern that parts of the rail branch line system were uneconomic and deteriorating quickly. In fact, on subsidized branch lines, the subsidy to the railway and cost to the government increased as more grain was hauled. Unifarm argued that the freeze on branch line abandonment be continued until research had been carried out to ensure that the alternative system would be more economic and efficient. It recommended that branch lines be examined not only from a financial point of view, but also based on current and future needs of the region.The Unifarm brief also drew attention to the discrepancy between highways, railways, and ports that were publicly financed and rail lines that were privately financed through high freight costs. In a supplemental submission to the Hall Commission to broaden the debate, Unifarm delved into some of the economic factors governing rail 10

In addition to Chief Commissioner Emmett Hall, the commission included four commissioners, R.E. Forbes of Brandon, Manitoba; Lloyd Stewart of Rockglen, Saskatchewan; R.H. Cowan of Rosetown, Saskatchewan; and Reinhold Lehr of Medicine Hat, Alberta. Lehr was an FUA/Unifarm director from Region 13 until 1973. 11 The Province of Alberta entered into an agreement with Unifarm to operate TransCom from September 5, 1975 to December 31, 1976. For its work, Unifarm received $63,000.

232



CHAPTER THIRTEEN: “A GREAT DEGREE OF MISUNDERSTANDING”




line abandonment and the resulting elevator shutdown.The federal government and the railways stood to benefit when rail lines were abandoned because the railways were no longer responsible for maintaining uneconomic lines and the federal government was absolved of its responsibility to pay subsidies to the railway for grain hauled on that line.The problem did not disappear but rather devolved to the producer and the local rural municipality. Farmers were responsible for transporting their produce longer distances in larger-capacity, more expensive trucks while the municipality was threatened with higher expenses to maintain rural roads and highways that were subjected to higher traffic volumes. In an attempt to remedy a complicated problem, Unifarm suggested that the producer be compensated with a subsidy to cover the longer trip to a grain delivery point and the municipality be compensated on the basis of ton-miles. At the same time, Unifarm analyzed its stand on the Statutory Rates in anticipation of the work being done by another commission, the Snavely Commission, to examine the cost of moving grain compared to revenue received under the rates.12 The Unifarm transportation committee supported the retention of the full benefit resulting from Statutory Rates, but was willing to consider changing the method by passing that benefit on to grain producers rather than through the transport system. It was obvious to Unifarm that subsidized freight rates were having a severe impact on the use of agricultural resources, discouraging livestock production on the prairies and encouraging production in the east whenever Canadian prices for feed were lower than prices on U.S. corn.13 Unifarm suggested that assistance based on the Statutory Rate could be directed to grain producers directly rather than indirectly through the transport system. The debate at regional meetings and annual conventions on changes to the Statutory Rates was intense and sometimes inconsistent. Unifarm was a grassroots democracy, and this was grassroots democracy in action.The Unifarm transportation committee had advised the 1974 convention to accept a system of equitable and uniform freight rates that would be applicable to all of Canada—which the convention interpreted to mean abandoning the existing Statutory Rates. Delegates to 12

Economist Carl Snavely Jr. was appointed in 1976 as a one-person commission to look into the economic aspects of hauling grain by rail. 13 Unifarm brief to the Hall Commission, summarized in Farm Trends, January 1976: 19.

233



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

the convention felt that Unifarm should not be the first farm organization to take a public position asking for the abolishment of Statutory Rates, so they passed a resolution to stand firm against any change in the Crow’s Nest Pass Agreement unless it was accompanied by a similar relinquishment of special privileges and grants to the railways. In its report to the next annual convention, the Unifarm transportation committee patiently explained that the resolution passed at the previous convention was based on incorrect information. First, there is no “Crow’s Nest Pass Agreement” because it was terminated in 1925, and second, the grant of $3.4 million from the federal government to the CPR was part of an agreement between one railway company, the CPR, and the federal government to build the railway from Lethbridge to Nelson. There was no intention in the agreement that this subsidy would go to operate the railway. In addition, other companies and other rail lines that had not participated in the original agreement had no special privileges to relinquish as suggested in this policy statement.14 This was a difficult argument to broach in the west. Many Alberta farmers, particularly members of the National Farmers’ Union, were convinced that the subsidy to the railroad was intended to cover operating costs in perpetuity.The CPR was the nemesis for all prairie farmers: the big, unsympathetic corporation that held them for ransom every year at harvest time. As far as many western farmers were concerned, the CPR had always taken advantage of them, and any attempt to get rid of the Statutory Rates was another attempt to continue doing so.This attitude proved to be a problem that influenced every discussion on the Statutory Rates. And the discussion continued. Unifarm joined beef, hog, and grain producer groups as well as meat packers in a 1976 presentation to the provincial government highlighting concerns about high input costs in the livestock industry. Western Canada had become one of the most expensive areas in North America to produce livestock and meat products because of inequities resulting from the effect of transportation policies. Alberta livestock producers were giving up, to the detriment of their suppliers and processors. In 1975, hog processors were operating at thirty-five percent of capacity in response to the decline in hog production in Alberta since 1969 of twenty-eight percent, while hog production in Quebec increased by thirty-five percent in the same 14

234

Sixth Annual Unifarm Convention Programme, December 8–12, 1975: 35.



CHAPTER THIRTEEN: “A GREAT DEGREE OF MISUNDERSTANDING”




time period.15 There was a danger that the cattle industry would be similarly affected. The joint presentation to the provincial government recommended that Statutory Rates for movement of feed grains for domestic use be removed because it was felt that this would recognize natural comparative advantages within Canada. In addition, the presentation recommended that feed freight assistance be removed on all points west of the Maritimes to eliminate one of the programs that subsidized one major livestock producing region over another.16 To ensure equitable treatment east and west of the prairies, both recommendations had to be implemented. The presentation also recommended that the Canadian Wheat Board be required to offer board stocks to the domestic feed grain market whenever the commodity exchange price exceeded the export selling price at Thunder Bay to ensure adequate supplies of feed grains to Alberta livestock producers during periods of tight supply.17 The Snavely Commission analyzing the costs of transporting grain by rail produced some startling figures when it released its report in December 1976.18 The total cost of moving grain by rail was estimated to be $234.4 million. Of this, western grain producers paid $89.7 million through Statutory Rates, the Canadian government paid $55.4 million, and the railways absorbed $89.4 million. The average gap between the cost incurred by the railways to move grain and the revenue generated from the Statutory Rate for grain was calculated as 19.3 cents per bushel of wheat to Vancouver from Calgary in 1974. By 1977, Alberta Transportation estimated the gap to be 26.4 cents. For the first time, farm organizations had sound numbers to deal with. These stark facts ran headlong into the emotion surrounding the “Crow” debate. Many farmers believed that the railways had been handsomely rewarded with tracts of land, mineral rights, and other concessions for accepting the Crow’s Nest Rates that would have to be taken 15

“Concern expressed about jeopardy to Alberta livestock industry,” Farm Trends, April 1976: 3. 16 This step would have damaged the British Columbia dairy industry. 17 When Unifarm included these ideas in its 1976 brief to the Provincial Cabinet, cabinet ministers noted that the government’s position was identical.“Cabinet responds favourably to annual presentation by Unifarm,” Farm Trends, February 1976: 6. 18 During the formal inquiry, the Commission conducted thirty-six days of hearings, received thirty-six submissions, seven volumes of working papers, 213 hearing exhibits of twenty different costing issues, and produced over 7,000 pages of transcripts. Canada, The Commission on the costs of transporting grain by rail (microform) [Carl Snavely] (Ottawa: 1976).

235



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

into consideration if the rates were abandoned. If the railways could not make a go of it with all the benefits they had received, then many in the farm community felt that the government should be prepared to offer the railway a subsidy. Western farmers had come to consider that the Statutory Rates were part of their birthright, believing that low freight rates were one of the few benefits received by the grain economy from the Canadian economic system. The Hall Grain Handling and Transportation Commission handed down its recommendations in a 545-page report in May 1977 after conducting two years of meetings and hearings across the western provinces. The Hall Commission made many recommendations regarding rail line abandonment and the construction of “off-line” elevators combined with no-charge trucking to central transportation points and federal assistance to municipalities for road maintenance, but its major thrust had to do with Statutory Rates.19 It recommended that the Statutory Rates be retained and that the federal government be responsible for paying the railway to make up the difference between the rates and the actual cost of transporting grain. Previous federal government subsidies had been given to purchase grain cars or upgrade railbeds; this was the first attempt to bring the payments for shipping grain up to the perceived cost of the service. Unifarm was pleased with the “generally realistic” recommendations, although it had some concerns with the ambiguity regarding what was to be done about the shortfall between perceived costs and the present (statutory) rates. Unifarm’s policy, which had always been grounded in the belief that a transportation policy should take advantage of a region’s natural comparative advantages, would be tested by the Hall Commission recommendations, which retained Statutory Rates for domestic grain movement to eastern markets to be used in the livestock industry there. In spite of statements that called for a transportation policy in line with the natural advantage in a region, the east (and particularly Quebec) was receiving an unnatural advantage from a combination of the Statutory Rates and the Feed Freight Assistance Program. 19

236

The CPR abandoned 450 miles (725 km) of track and the CNR abandoned 384 miles (618 km) in Alberta between the release of the Hall Commission and 1990. Alberta Transportation and Utilities, Strategic Planning Branch, Railway Networks and Abandonments in Alberta [George Antonakis], (Edmonton: April 1990), 23 & 26. There were 469 elevators receiving grain in the 1989/90 crop year and only 270 receiving grain in 1998/9. Agriculture Canada, Canadian Grain Commission, Grain Deliveries at Prairie Points, (Ottawa: June 21, 2000), 30.



CHAPTER THIRTEEN: “A GREAT DEGREE OF MISUNDERSTANDING”




The Hall Grain Handling and Transportation Commission acknowledged that the grain handling and transportation system was an extremely complex one, consisting of a mix of private, co-operative, and public ownership; varying degrees of public control; and a great degree of misunderstanding. In its two years of study, the commission met no one who understood all facets, operations, transaction, mechanisms, and interactions of the system, not unusual for an industry of such diverse interests.20 There was still confusion at the time of the Unifarm 1977 conven21 tion surrounding what the Hall Commission was actually recommending regarding Statutory Rates and the effect on livestock producers. Livestock producers could not accept a recommendation made at the end of the Commission report that the Statutory Rates be retained and the difference between the Statutory Rate and the cost of transporting grain be paid directly to the railways. Lower freight rates for grain could not be imposed on truckers or foreign shippers. In addition, lower freight rates would have to be extended to other agricultural products such as rapeseed oil and meal, poultry, dairy, mutton, pork,22 and most important, beef. Unifarm policy called for the retention of the Statutory Rates, but left the door open to pass the benefit of Statutory Rates to farmers in a different way. But how could the benefit be passed on in a way that was acceptable to those who considered it a birthright and at the same time not penalize those who were branching out into “value-added” production? The transportation committee was quite aware that the problem was getting worse as freight rates increased on other agricultural commodities and agricultural inputs, probably to subsidize Statutory Rates that were below the rate that compensated railways for hauling grain. The Alberta Cattle Commission became a member of Unifarm at the January 1978 convention. A resolution passed at the convention that subsidies for transportation be paid directly to the railways conflicted with Alberta Cattle Commission (ACC) policy that Statutory Rates for grain should be paid to the western grain producer but that grain be 20

Canada. Grain Handling and Transportation Commission, Grain and rail in western Canada,Vol. 1, 520. 21 The 1977 convention was held in January 1978, breaking a long-running tradition of a December convention. 22 At the same time, the Hu Harries Report recommended that southern Alberta hog producers be paid a transportation subsidy; Unifarm recommended that this should only be a temporary measure.

237



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

moved at compensatory rates. At the root of the ACC policy was opposition to subsidies of any kind for its industry, a point they made often. A report released in 1978 on the impact of Statutory Rates on the cattle industry in Alberta, initiated by the Cattle Commission and carried out by Dr. G.A. MacEachern, fuelled the fire.23 According to the report, Alberta’s cattle industry lost an estimated $37.1 million annually because of the impact of feed grain being shipped out of the province at Statutory Rates well below the actual transportation costs or equivalent commercial rates. Livestock producers in the west found that grain prices were higher than would otherwise be the case, distorting the “natural” production advantage of the region. According to data and information from 1974 to 1977, feeding costs to Alberta producers were approximately 30 cents per hundredweight higher than costs in Colorado and Iowa.The report indicated that the Statutory Rates had probably caused a relative reduction of ten percent in cattle and eight percent in hogs. In September 1978, Tom Thurber,24 chair of the Alberta Cattle Commission, predicted that Alberta’s meat packing industry could decline by fifty percent in the next three or four years if changes were not made.Alberta had the capacity to slaughter 30,000 head of cattle per week, but slaughtered only 20,000. Exports of feeder cattle, the basis of the feeding industry, had increased by 175,000 head over 1977 levels, with most of them being shipped to eastern Canada and the United States to be fed and slaughtered.25 Efforts by the commission to bring some equilibrium to the cattle industry by advocating for changes in the Statutory Rates raised suspicions in the grain industry. Grain producers felt threatened by the ACC call for removal of the Statutory Rates on market grain and the retention of the Statutory Rate to be paid to producers. It was a complicated problem, made all the more confusing by the unintended effects of the Statutory Rates. In spite of their common roots in the agricultural community, livestock producers thrived when feed grain was cheap, while feed grain producers were protected from the threat of cheap grain by government stabilization programs and the Statutory Rates. The Cattle Commission tried to dispel fears by reminding all agricultural producers 23

“Cattle commission releases study on statutory rate impact,” Farm Trends, July 1978: 8. Tom Thurber went on to become the Progressive Conservative MLA for Drayton Valley-Calmar in 1989 and served as the minister of public works, supplies and services and then minister of municipal affairs. 25 The meat packing industry was the province’s largest industrial employer at the time. Farm Trends, September 1978: 15. 24

238



CHAPTER THIRTEEN: “A GREAT DEGREE OF MISUNDERSTANDING”




that the ACC was not trying to set itself up as a separate entity free from ties with the grain industry.They were not interested in cheap grain, but they wanted grain priced fairly relative to prices in the United States. The ACC also believed that it was in the best interests of the west to have the transportation problem resolved by western Canadians through negotiation by all parties concerned. It was a very difficult situation—a situation that the Unifarm board of directors was expected to resolve through discussion and consensus building. After calling representatives together, the Unifarm executive turned the issue over to the grain, livestock, and transportation committees to continue the process. Howard Falkenberg, new Unifarm president, warned the committees to be wary of exaggeration and hysteria.26 It was a volatile issue and rumours were already circulating. One rumour implied that Unifarm was completely against change and another indicated that Unifarm had already abandoned the Statutory Rate, leaving grain producers with no support. Falkenberg reaffirmed Unifarm’s quest for a solution that would retain the benefit of the Statutory Rates for grain producers but which was delivered in such a way that it did not distort feed grain prices. Elmer Allen, Unifarm’s research economist, worked diligently on the problem and proposed twenty-nine possible solutions to be considered by the committees, from which it was hoped three or four would be acceptable to both sides.27 One possible solution, to use the Western Grain Stabilization Plan (WGSP) machinery as an alternate way of delivering the Statutory Rate benefit to grain producers was pursued by a technical committee consisting of Allan Beattie of the Alberta Wheat Pool, Chris Mills and Roman Hrystak of the Alberta Cattle Commission, Bernie Butterwick of the Western Stock Growers, Paul Earl of United Grain Growers, and Elmer Allen of Unifarm. Unifarm’s livestock committee was interested in this proposal even though the technical committee reported that there would be some shortcomings in any proposal to use the WGSP to deliver the benefit. In the meantime, another proposal was investigated and resulted in the five-part proposal that was accepted, with reservation, by the grains and livestock committees, and then presented at the Unifarm convention in January 1979 for approval.28 The first of the five proposals called for 26 “Steps

toward resolution please Unifarm president,” Farm Trends, June 1978: 14. Farm Trends, July 1978: 4. 28 The 1979 convention was the culmination of the 1978 year. 27

239



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

the federal government to pick up the difference between the cost to the railways for shipping grain and the revenue they received from the Statutory Rates. The second proposal called on the Canadian Wheat Board to rectify the situation whereby poultry and livestock producers paid higher rates for feed grain by amending the CWB asking price and increasing the shipper’s portion of domestic freight rates.The third proposal recommended that anomalies between grain and oilseed products and between commodities moving to Thunder Bay and the west coast be cleared up.The fourth proposal recommended that since rapeseed and flaxseed crushers were disadvantaged by the Statutory Rates, rates and subsidies be modified to clear this up. The fifth proposal called on the federal government to establish an authority to ensure that the railways provided satisfactory service. This five-part proposal, which had been developed after an enormous amount of work by the grains and livestock committees and then the transportation committee of Unifarm, was subjected to hours and hours of intense and emotional debate at the annual convention. Hartmann Nagel, member and then chair of the Unifarm transportation committee, gained a deep appreciation of how difficult it was to understand the ramifications of Statutory Rates on different sectors in the agricultural industry as he listened to the debate. After much discussion, the five-part proposal was rejected and turned back to the committee chaired by Nagel and consisting of Allan Smith, Neil Harvie, John Prentice, Harry Patching, James Boyd, Einar Loveseth, and Norman Jacobsen. It was the second proposal that could not be accepted, but since the proposals were interdependent, the whole package had to be rejected. Provincial MLA and leader of the official opposition, Bob Clark, congratulated Unifarm on its efforts to attempt a compromise on the transportation issue, saying,“if you don’t make that move, we politicians, animals that we are, will feel the pressure to move.” At the 1979 presentation of the Unifarm brief to the government, Marvin Moore, provincial agriculture minister, thanked Unifarm for its efforts and the courage it had shown working with the problem. Congratulations and thanks notwithstanding, the problem was still not solved and the transportation committee, which had struggled with the problem in 1978, had a big job ahead in 1979.A survey conducted by the United Grain Growers (UGG) indicated that, even with a guarantee of better rail service, forty-five percent of prairie farmers opposed increasing freight rates on grain above Statutory Rates.The average freight rate 240



CHAPTER THIRTEEN: “A GREAT DEGREE OF MISUNDERSTANDING”




Unifarm organized meetings across the province to discuss proposed revisions to the Statutory Rates for hauling grain. Here in this photo from page three of the November 15, 1979, Grand Prairie Herald-Tribune, Unifarm research economist Elmer Allen and two future Unifarm presidents, Stan Bell of Carstairs and Hartmann Nagel of Woking, discuss meeting plans. Photo courtesy of Grande Prairie Daily Herald-Tribune.

on grains amounted to 20 cents per hundredweight, and the acknowledged rate that would compensate the railways fully to haul prairie grain to ports was 80 cents. Even though they understood this, prairie farmers were not prepared to countenance an increase because they did not believe service would improve. Changes were noted, however. UGG President Mac Runciman commented that it was the first time less than half the farmers opposed a hike in freight rates, and guessed that ten years earlier over ninety percent would have opposed an increase.29 In spite of the information dispensed through the Hall Commission and the Snavely Report, as well as through a well-written publication of the Alberta Wheat Pool, “The Crow’s Nest Agreement—How It All Began,”30 there was still a great deal of misunderstanding about the “Crow.” Unifarm executive and committee members who conducted information sessions at regional meetings were often confronted with glazed looks when they tried to explain the five-part proposal to farmers 29 30

Farm Trends, February 1979: 13. Written by Allan Beattie, public affairs director of the Alberta Wheat Pool, April 18, 1978.

241



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

who had not kept up to date on the issue. Many people were still convinced that cash and land grants were provided to the CPR for building and operating the railway. They could not be persuaded that the railway had not received any benefit to compensate for future operating expenses. It was also hard to explain that other railways governed by the Statutory Rates had not received similar benefits. After the rejection of the five-part proposal at the 1979 annual convention, Hartmann Nagel, chair of the transportation committee, returned home disappointed that neither side had made any effort to understand the other and unconvinced that a policy could be developed that would be agreeable to both grain and livestock producers. He had been shocked at the intensity of the debate and feared that Unifarm might not survive the convention. An excerpt from the journal kept by Eileen and Hartmann Nagel gives some insight into the depth of feeling that surrounded the transportation debate. January 11, 1979:The delegates, after a heated debate at which there were times we wondered if Unifarm would survive, turned down Part 2 of the transportation policy. It was a great disappointment to all the directors and executive to say the least. It is back to the drawing board to get a proposal both grain and cattlemen will agree upon. Hartmann is very disappointed but is relieved that at least Unifarm still exists. At this point a policy on which the grain and cattle people can agree upon seems very remote.31 Unifarm had survived and progress had been made in the quest for an efficient grain handling and transportation system that would not penalize producers who ventured into value-added processing. The second point of the five-part proposal, to rectify the discrepancies in the cost of feed grain, was rejected because it was seen as a ceiling on feed grain prices without some sort of floor price as protection for grain producers. The transportation committee agonized over the issue throughout 1979 and eventually came up with policies they hoped would be accepted at the next convention in January 1980.To address the second proposal on non-competitive feed grain prices, the transportation committee proposed that the CWB feed grain pricing formula be amended and a price support program for feed grains be established to minimize 31

242

Eileen Nagel, “The Nagel Journal” 1979.



CHAPTER THIRTEEN: “A GREAT DEGREE OF MISUNDERSTANDING”




the effect of statutory freight rates on western domestic feed grain prices. The transportation committee prepared further alternatives to the five-part proposal in case the revised second point was still unacceptable. The three-part proposal was formulated to establish by statute a freight rate schedule for oilseeds and grain producers that was directly related to their ability to pay; to equalize public support of the railway to other modes of transporting statutory grain, oilseeds, and products; to minimize the negative impact that statutory freight rates have on livestock, poultry, livestock products, and other value-added process sectors within the prairie region; to assure oilseed and grain producers that an adequate railway network system and rolling stock will be provided and maintained; and to improve railway service, performance, and efficiency.32 The revision to Part 2 of the five-part proposal and the new threepart proposal were discussed extensively at Unifarm’s fall forums in preparation for the annual convention in January 1980. Both proposals were presented for information to the delegates on the morning of the first full day of the convention. The transportation committee was impressed with the level of discussion and looked forward to the debate scheduled for the next day. The morning opened with a debate on the sequence in which the proposals would be debated. Wide-ranging discussion on the two alternatives and other resolutions that had been submitted resulted in a combination of the five-part and the three-part proposals into what became the five-part proposal with two amendments added—or a seven-part proposal. The vote on the combined proposal resulted in a unanimous vote, with very few abstentions, in favour of the transportation policy everyone hoped would solve the problem. The transportation committee, chaired by Hartmann Nagel, was elated that the policy was accepted at the 1980 Unifarm convention. Members of the committee had worked so hard, including Nagel who planned to resign because he was growing increasingly concerned about the impact of all his duties on his livelihood and his teenaged children. Nagel’s resignation from all duties with Unifarm—Region 1 director, member of executive board, and all committees—became effective at the annual convention in January 1980. It was the end of an era. Gordon Blanchard of Bow Island stepped into his shoes as chair of the transportation committee. 32

Farm Trends, October 1979: 9.

243



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

HOWARD FALKENBERG

H

oward Falkenberg’s grandparents were descendants of German families who had been persuaded to settle in Russia by Catherine the Great in the eighteenth century and who emigrated to North America during the turmoil in Russia at the end of the nineteenth century. Howard’s father’s family had settled in the Rabbit Hill area and his mother’s family had settled near Leduc. Howard Falkenberg was born in Howard Falkenberg 1920 in Ponoka and lived in Leduc and on a farm in the Dinant area where he attended school. Howard and his wife Alice rented land and then purchased a mixed farming operation southwest of Camrose, where he became one of the first to specialize in the production of chicken broilers. Howard had a strong belief that agricultural producers had a right to be compensated fairly for what they produced and was prepared to work with others to accomplish that goal. He was a member and then president of the Camrose West Local of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta. During the 1960s when broiler chicken farmers found themselves in serious financial difficulty, he was in the forefront of a campaign to establish the Broiler Growers’ Association of Alberta. Howard Falkenberg was the first secretary-treasurer. Under his capable leadership, the Broiler

244



CHAPTER THIRTEEN: “A GREAT DEGREE OF MISUNDERSTANDING”




Growers joined forces with the Alberta Turkey Producers’ Association to convince a reluctant provincial Social Credit government to pass marketing board legislation. Howard Falkenberg became a member of the newly established Alberta Broiler Growers Marketing Board in 1966 and served as chair for ten years. During his tenure, poultry producers worked together for mutual advantage. Howard also served as director of the Canadian Broiler Council as well as director and then chair of the Poultry Products Institute of Canada. His leadership roles in the poultry business led him to become a director of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture and, after amalgamation, director, vice-president, and then president of Unifarm. He brought his experience and belief in co-operative business to his role as president. He was also a director and chair of the Western Agricultural Conference (the organization made up of the Manitoba Farm Bureau, Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture, Unifarm, and United Grain Growers), executive member of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and director of the Canada Grains Council. As president of Unifarm, he served as chair of the Rural Education and Development Association and founding chair of the Goldeye Foundation. Howard Falkenberg spent a lifetime working on behalf of agricultural producers and the wider community. His service to his community included positions with the Duhamel Rural Telephone Company, the Alberta Rural Electrification Association, Camrose Savings and Credit Union, and the Camrose and Edmonton Chambers of Commerce. He was a determined man with a fine sense of humour and a wonderful ability to tell stories—stories that often had a message illustrating the point he was making. Howard Falkenberg passed away July 6, 1988, at the age of sixty-eight.

245

CHAPTER FOURTEEN




SHOWDOWN

T

here was trouble on the horizon for Unifarm and for those who thought an acceptable compromise had been reached in the ongoing transportation debate. As Unifarm worked diligently on behalf of the whole agricultural community to provide policy direction in response to the Hall Commission and the Snavely Report, many of the commodity groups established with the help of Unifarm began to see conditions through the prism of their own sector. The Alberta Pork Producers Marketing Board1 did not ever join Unifarm, although the two groups worked closely together. The hog industry was wrapped up in huge issues of its own as it continued its battle with the packing industry for a fair share of financial returns. Hog producers, noticing a shift in production from Alberta to the east because of the confusing inequities of the Statutory Rates, began to wonder about the unquestioning insistence of their grain-producing neighbours to continuing the “Crow.” Some grain producers, questioning whether their interests were in tune with the existing general farm organizations, had established their own commodity organization, the Palliser Wheat Growers’ Association, later called the Western Canadian Wheat Growers’ Association. The Western Barley Growers’ Association was formed in March 1977 to establish better communication between growers and users and to represent the views of barley growers to industry and government agencies. Barley growers, finding it difficult to get car allotments for transportation out of their barley-growing areas, organized to combat the domination of wheat and the growing importance of canola competing for limited space on the railway. Barley growers wanted to be able to sell as much as they grew in whatever market existed, but they were limited by the existing transportation system. Not everyone was in tune with Unifarm’s egalitarian, consensusbuilding approach. Activity outside the Unifarm community happened 1

Formerly the Alberta Hog Producers Marketing Board.

247



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

in an environment encouraged by the philosophy of the Progressive Conservative government and its first minister of agriculture, the Honourable Hugh Horner. Early in the government’s mandate, Horner indicated that the Department of Agriculture would be pursuing a policy of developing secondary processing industries to take advantage of the raw materials produced in Alberta and create jobs for Albertans. He believed that market grain could be cleaned in Alberta with the added benefit that some of the dockage and other screenings could be used for feed. Oilseed crushing and malt production were other industries that he supported, as well as the potentially huge livestock feeding industry. He was careful to say that the Canadian Wheat Board could still operate as the export agency for Alberta grains. The Statutory Rates would have to be dealt with for this vision to come to fruition. In 1979, Hugh Horner, now Alberta economic development minister, commented that a proposal to pay freight rate subsidies to farmers rather than to the railways could be a breakthrough in the transportation impasse.2 According to Horner, this would allow railways to charge freight rates that would cover their actual expenses, resulting in improved and faster services. He also commented that making freight rates for grain comparable to rates for processed products such as rapeseed oil and meal would stimulate the secondary processing and livestock industries in the province. Alberta, British Columbia, and Manitoba agreed to send this proposal to the federal government for discussion while Saskatchewan supported the retention of the Statutory Rates.This debate, Statutory Rates vs. compensatory rates, became an important factor in the wider debate. Although Unifarm represented the majority of agricultural producers in the province through its direct memberships and commodity organizations, some producers attended meetings of the Palliser Wheat Growers and the Barley Growers where they discussed approaches to the problem of Statutory Rates that contradicted Unifarm’s position. Some of this discussion did not find its way back to Unifarm head office in Edmonton. A group calling itself the “Commodity Alliance,” which included the Palliser Wheat Growers’ Association, the Barley Growers’ Association, and the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, came out in favour of grain producers paying the actual cost of shipping grain, the compensatory rate, to the railways 2

248

“Freight Rate Aid to Farmers ‘Breakthrough,’” Edmonton Journal, July 6, 1979: 1.



CHAPTER FOURTEEN: SHOWDOWN




with the value of the statutory benefit being returned to them in the form of an acreage payment. While these voices were being heard in other places, the Unifarm transportation committee took part in discussions and policy-making sessions at the Western Agricultural Conference (WAC) and at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA). The WAC and CFA were made up of member organizations such as Unifarm that were entitled to send a specified number of voting delegates to the annual meetings where policy was determined by majority vote. Transportation became the most important and contentious topic at these meetings, where policies proposed by Unifarm could not be adopted unless the other member organizations agreed. Some tensions arose at Western Agricultural Conferences because the cattle industry in Alberta was pushing Unifarm into spheres that were not understood or widely accepted by the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture or Manitoba Farm Bureau. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool Vice-President Bill Marshall questioned the value of the Western Agricultural Conference because each group came to the conference with fixed positions and did not compromise, going so far as to say that Alberta and Manitoba “dictated” to Saskatchewan on grain transportation issues in which Saskatchewan had a larger stake.3 After years of debate, which corresponded to the years of uncertainty in Unifarm over the transportation issue, the Western Agricultural Conference accepted Unifarm’s modified seven-part transportation proposal at its meeting in early 1980, but with further minor amendments that would turn out to be not so minor.The decision was made after a ninety-minute discussion on the first day of the Western Agricultural Conference, followed by evening discussions and then a session that took up most of the morning of the second day of the conference. This decision was made after an address by the new Conservative minister of transport, the Honourable Don Mazankowski,4 who stated that the statutory freight agreement would remain unchanged unless there was consensus among western farmers that change was needed. Soon after, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the next level in the democratic process of developing 3 4

“WAC Weathers Harsh Debate,” The Western Producer, February 8, 1979: 25. Don Mazankowski became transport minister in the short-lived Conservative government of Prime Minister Joe Clark, elected in June 1979 and defeated in February 1980.

249



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

national policy, supported the resolution that had been passed with modifications by the Western Agricultural Conference. After further discussion of the modified proposal, the Alberta Cattle Commission withdrew its support because it claimed that the proposal’s intent had been changed.5 The Alberta Cattle Commission was particularly concerned about changes that sought to reduce the impact of the Statutory Rate on western users of feed grains and oilseeds. The new feed grain pricing proposal called for an amendment to the formula that was based on prices for U.S. corn so the equivalent of a compensatory rate would be applied in place of the Statutory Rate in arriving at the asking price for feed grains on the prairies.This was not satisfactory to the ACC because the original formula was seen to be unfair, so amending it in this way was not the solution. They wanted a completely new approach—which, according to their interpretation, would have been allowed under the original Unifarm proposal but not under the amended one. The Alberta Cattle Commission was also concerned that while the 1980 Unifarm convention had agreed that any future rate increases would be shared between producers and government, the Western Agricultural Conference amendment stipulated that future increases would be arrived at through negotiation.6 In spite of all attempts, there was still a lack of understanding of the position of the Alberta Cattle Commission because the Cattle Commission was not at the table to argue its point. It had joined Unifarm in the hopes of having its voice heard, but Unifarm’s attempts to represent the views of the Cattle Commission did not carry the day with other prairie representatives on the Western Agricultural Conference. Thus, the lack of agreement was carried through to the national level when the Western Agricultural Conference met as part of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Canadian Federation of Agriculture member organizations from British Columbia and central and eastern Canada offered full support for the Western Agricultural Conference proposal to fully compensate the railways while retaining the Statutory Rate structure. According to the 5

Howard Falkenberg, in a column in Farm Trends, mentions that the original proposal that formed the base of the WAC and CFA proposal had been passed without a dissenting vote, but that there may have been some abstentions. Farm Trends, August-September 1980: 2. 6 The negotiations which led to further changes to accommodate Saskatchewan farmers probably led to the ACC comment that this was a “Made in Saskatchewan” solution.

250



CHAPTER FOURTEEN: SHOWDOWN




proposal, what was still known as the “Crow benefit” would be paid to the railways in return for guaranteed service. In addition, any future increase in the compensatory rate due to an increase in freight costs would be arrived at through negotiation between the federal government, the railways, and the producer. However, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture withheld support for the pricing formula proposal of the Western Agricultural Conference, which provided that the Canadian Wheat Board sell grains for feed use in the prairies at the Thunder Bay corn-competitive price less the estimated fully compensatory cost of movement. Some members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture did not accept this because of concerns that it would have a negative effect on their position relative to that of the western user of feed grains and oilseeds. On the other hand, the Alberta Cattle Commission7 could not accept the amendment because the current corn-competitive formula was seen as discriminating against western livestock producers, so applying a different freight rate would not remove all of the discrimination. As Gordon Blanchard put it in the transportation committee report to the 1981 Unifarm convention,“thus while some western organizations feel that WAC policy was not good enough, a major part of B.C. and Central and Eastern Canadian producers feel it is too good for the West.”8 According to Howard Falkenberg, there were rumours in Ottawa that the Commodity Alliance was lobbying against the Western Agricultural Conference position, which according to a news leak had been under active consideration.9 Unifarm was aware that other very different proposals for solving the statutory grain rate dilemma were being presented to government and civil servants. In an address to the Palliser Wheat Growers’ convention in January 1983, Ivan McMillan, chair of the Prairie Farm Commodity Coalition, talked about “trudging around Ottawa day after day, year after year, trying to explain to junior bureaucrats why the Crow was important.”10 In spite of the lobbying and the appearance of dissension within the agricultural community, 7 The ACC presented its own resolution for debate at the 1981 convention, but it was defeated. 8 Unifarm Transportation Committee Report, Eleventh Annual Unifarm Convention Programme, January 12–16, 1981: 41. 9 Farm Trends, August-September 1980: 2. 10 Ivan McMillan, chair, Prairie Farm Commodity Coalition,Thirteenth Annual Palliser Wheat Growers’ Association Convention Programme, January 3–6, 1983, Palliser Wheat Growers’ Collection, Glenbow Archives, Calgary.

251



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Unifarm was confident that other proposals did not offer appropriate solutions and that a large majority of the agriculture community supported the Unifarm proposal. It was time for a decision to be made and the Liberal minister of transport, Jean-Luc Pepin,11 had two proposals to consider. One proposal came from the Commodity Alliance and called for grain producers to pay a compensatory rate with the Statutory Rate benefit being returned to them in the form of an acreage payment. According to the Commodity Alliance, this method of payment would eliminate the negative impact of the low rates for shipping market grain on prairie livestock and other grain and oilseed related industries. Unifarm contained within its own membership many people who subscribed to this view. One of its largest financial supporters, the Alberta Cattle Commission, had presented a resolution to the 1981 convention that would replace the five-part proposal with one which had at its heart payment to the producer. In addition, the Unifarm Hog Commodity Committee recommended that the Statutory Rate benefit be paid to the producer. The other proposal came from Unifarm and, in an amended form, from the Western Agricultural Conference. This proposal called for rates paid by producers to remain the same temporarily, with the shortfall in revenue at the time of implementation paid by the federal government directly to the railways. Grain producers would pay present rates, plus a share of future increases.12 The Unifarm/WAC proposal would minimize the impact of lower rates on secondary industry by amending the formula by which feed grain prices were established on the prairies and by pinpoint revision of the list of commodities qualifying for Statutory Rates. The federal government, having received two contradictory recommendations, asked farm groups to come up with some compromise. Unifarm could not see how a compromise could be found between the positions, one which called for payment by government to the railways and the other which called for an acreage payment to producers. In spite 11 Jean-Luc

Pepin had taken over from Don Mazankowski as transport minister when the Liberals returned to power after defeating the Conservatives under Joe Clark in 1980. 12 The UGG supported the WAC position on transportation issues, but President Mac Runciman pointed out that the policy did not clearly define who would pay the inflationary increases in rail freight costs, and how they would be paid. Runciman and the UGG board of directors stipulated that, regardless of the method, there would have to be a neutral impact on livestock and secondary agricultural industries. “United Grain Growers return A.M. Runciman as president,” Farm Trends, November 1980: 10.

252



CHAPTER FOURTEEN: SHOWDOWN




of majority support for the Unifarm position, Howard Falkenberg issued a news release acknowledging conflict and then placed the problem in the hands of the Unifarm transportation committee, which eventually announced the establishment of a technical committee to deal with it. Jean-Luc Pepin, minister of transport, wondering what else he could do, made an announcement at the 1981 Unifarm convention that the government was establishing yet another task force to solve the age-old problem of statutory freight rates. In the meantime, changes were overtaking the frozen stalemated committees. Other resource industries were beginning to provide greater competition for existing rail line capacity. It was becoming apparent that if railways continued to haul grain under current conditions, grain would be placed at the end of the priority list when lines became crowded. Gordon Blanchard’s attendance at a meeting of the Coal Association of Canada exposed him to the viewpoint of other resource industries critical of statutory freight rates for grain. A year later, the fateful 1982 Unifarm convention opened on January 11 at the Hotel MacDonald in Edmonton. Connie Osterman, MLA from Three Hills,13 brought greetings from the provincial government of Peter Lougheed.The Unifarm transportation committee reported that its technical committee, made up of a technical representative from the United Grain Growers, Alberta Wheat Pool, Alberta Cattle Commission,Alberta Canola Growers, Pork Producers Marketing Board, and the provincial government, had met on several occasions. Given the fact that members of the technical committee had firm ideas on the method of payment, it was no surprise that Gordon Blanchard reported that no new concrete proposals had emerged and the committee remained divided.14 The Unifarm transportation committee acknowledged the stalemate on the transportation issue by stating that the 1980 policy for grain transportation, which had been affirmed by a majority vote in 1981 but then questioned by the cattle and hog sectors of Unifarm, was 13 Connie

Osterman was elected in 1979 and served as party whip, minister of consumer and corporate affairs, minister of social services and community health, and minister of career development and employment before resigning in 1992. 14 A position statement by the Alberta Cattle Commission distributed at the convention refers to the fact that Unifarm’s own technical committee was open to the idea of “pay the producer.” Addition to Twelfth Annual Convention Programme, January 11–15, 1982: np.

253



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

still under discussion. Fundamental support for the pay-the-railways position came from the Alberta Wheat Pool and grassroots Unifarm supporters who were deeply concerned about what would happen to the family farm if change was too abrupt and radical. The “Crow” had been a fact of life for over eighty years, and it was difficult to think of western agriculture without it—or the suspicion that always accompanied any dealings with the railways. Many grain farmers felt that abandoning the familiar structure threatened them and left them at the mercy of large cattle operations and feed lot operators who were interested in acquiring lower priced feed. The biggest problem arose when discussion turned to paying the producer rather than paying the railway because no one could envision a fair way to make that payment. There were problems with an acreage payment because not all acreage was utilized for growing board grains; it was estimated that about one-third of the acres under cultivation were in summer fallow or seeded pasture. An acreage payment to all farmers for all acres under cultivation would dilute the payment to farmers growing board grains, the ones who would need the payment to pay increased rates to move their grain for export. Many grain producers had concerns about the fate of small country elevators and branch lines because the railways would be able to charge individual farmers what it cost to pick up grain at isolated Alberta points. Concerns were expressed by people such as Alberta Wheat Pool President Allan Macpherson that a producer payment would be subject to political whim, even if covered by statute, much more than would a payment to the railways. Another concern was the question of control over performance if the payment was diverted from the railways to the producers, who were seen as having less clout than the government in forcing the railways to provide efficient service. A more comfortable solution involved retaining the concept of the Statutory Rates and adjusting other subsidies and stabilization programs to equalize conditions for all sectors and geographical areas. The Alberta Cattle Commission found itself leading the charge into less comfortable territory.The Cattle Commission predicted dire results for cattle and hog producers as well as the rapeseed crushing, meat packing, and processing industries if the “pay the railway” solution prevailed. Their research told them that this policy would result in continued export of grain and oilseed to other areas of Canada for processing there. It was the Cattle Commission that had prevented any resolution of the debate by arguing for a “pay the producer” position within the technical 254



CHAPTER FOURTEEN: SHOWDOWN




committee. The Alberta Cattle Commission continued to argue at the 1982 convention that producers should pay the total rail costs as established under a new rate structure and would receive a substitute benefit based on acreage payments in place of the Statutory Rates. In spite of this attempt by the Cattle Commission to persuade Unifarm to change its policy, delegates to the 1982 convention reaffirmed their support for the policy to “pay the railways.” There was a great deal of emotion during the discussion, fuelled by frustration and fatigue, because the issue had been a point of contention for so many years. Although it was an ongoing issue and many people were well versed in the details, new delegates and convention chairs did not always grasp the intricacies of the debate. People close to the issue, those who had served on the executive, the transportation committees, and the most recent technical committee, knew that adjustments would have to be made, but they wanted those who would be profoundly affected by them to have a measure of control over what would happen.They also did not want it to happen too fast, because rapid change would be most damaging to those who stood to be most negatively affected. The emotion and confusion on the convention floor during the fateful discussions may have made things worse. Unifarm President Howard Falkenberg and convention chair Ralph Jespersen were caught in the crossfire of debate, amendments, and challenges from the floor.15 As overall chair of the fateful meeting, Ralph Jespersen did everything he could to accommodate the Alberta Cattle Commission, giving delegates such as Des Carney and Brian Heidecker more than the usual time to try to explain their point of view, until he was reminded that longheld rules of debate had to be followed. The conflict over Statutory Rates got lost in the debate over rules of procedure that proved difficult to apply as the debate became so emotionally charged. The Alberta Cattle Commission had joined Unifarm and participated in the 1978 convention with the understanding that if any policy adopted by Unifarm was challenged by representatives of any commodity organization, that policy would not go forward until an acceptable compromise was found. There had been confusion at recent conventions over how to apply these rules of procedure, partly because 15 Howard

Falkenberg may have been in a difficult position on this issue. Since he was in his second year as president of the Western Agricultural Conference, he may have felt an obligation to support the policy solutions to the transportation debate that had been hammered out at the last Western Agricultural Conference meeting.

255



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

there had been so few occasions to implement them and partly because new people were often called upon to interpret them.At those times, the convention chair sought the assistance of others at the table. On one occasion, procedures were halted while officials of Unifarm and the Cattle Commission consulted. Eventually, Unifarm Vice-President Dan Manderson confirmed that the Cattle Commission was correct to assume that a policy that had been challenged would not go forward. Because this was such an important issue to the Cattle Commission, Unifarm’s confusion over the application of the rules of procedure during the 1982 debate made some members of the Alberta Cattle Commission nervous. On one hand, the Unifarm convention had voted to confirm its “pay the railway” position and seemed intent on taking that policy forward. On the other hand, the Cattle Commission did not want that policy to be taken to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. No one knew quite what to do, but most of the delegates attending the convention wanted to reach a compromise that would leave the umbrella group intact. It was not to be.The Alberta Cattle Commission had a new chair, a strong, determined man who wanted to move quickly to a new policy. Alberta Cattle Commission Chair Sten Berg of Ardrossan had been an active opponent in the debate over the formation of a hog marketing board and had established himself as a successful exporter of hogs and cattle. Berg could not understand why grain producers wanted to continue the Statutory Rates and government payments to the railways. He was also sure that most grain producers would prefer direct payment of the “Crow” benefit so they could decide what to plant and how to get it to market. When the convention confirmed its support of the “pay the railways” position rather than the Alberta Cattle Commission position to “pay the producer,” Cattle Commission delegates to the Unifarm convention held a hurried meeting in Berg’s hotel room.The decision they made has reverberated through Alberta agricultural politics since 1982.A short time later, Berg stood up on the convention floor and announced that Cattle Commission delegates would be leaving the convention and recommending to their board and delegate body that the Commission suspend its membership in Unifarm and its financial contribution to it. Everyone was shocked by the startling turn of events, particularly since many people felt that Unifarm was beginning to come to terms with the issue that had consumed them for so long. In spite of the 256



CHAPTER FOURTEEN: SHOWDOWN




misunderstandings over procedure, Unifarm was treading carefully. Des Carney, a cattle producer and loyal Unifarm board member, knew something had to be done. Carney was very aware of the problem and could see that, in some cases, participants in the debate had a different interpretation of what the proposals—and the rules of procedure— actually meant. Des Carney’s roots in both Unifarm and the Alberta Cattle Commission were deep. He was asked to serve as the Alberta Cattle Commission representative on the Unifarm board of directors after the Commission joined Unifarm. He was an active member of the Unifarm transportation committee that struggled to develop compromise proposals to settle the conflict. Because of his commitment to both organizations, Carney tried, unsuccessfully, to clear things up at a meeting of the Unifarm board of directors after the Cattle Commission made its drastic announcement to withdraw.There were strong personalities involved and hard positions were taken by both sides. When Carney tried to explain the confusion, he was given a limited time to speak and was not allowed to continue speaking when it took longer than that.To the frustration of everyone, no compromises were reached and the walkout in the heat of the moment became the reality. Some cattle producers did not agree with the actions of the Cattle Commission delegates at the meeting of Unifarm.Allan Parker, Unifarm district chair and former cow-calf operator from Two Hills, called the walkout a power play by the large cattle feeders who dominated the Alberta Cattle Commission. According to Allan Parker, the commission was run by cattle feeders, not the small producers, resulting in policies that favoured larger operations.16 A new Unifarm direct member delegate and cow-calf-grain producer from Consort, Roger Buxton, was clearly upset at the developments during the Unifarm convention. He could see the complexities of the Statutory Rate controversy, but felt that Unifarm was moving toward a solution and, more important, was taking a leadership role in moving the Western Agricultural Conference towards a solution. Buxton talked to Alberta Cattle Commission zone representatives at the Unifarm convention and summarized his thoughts in a letter to the editor.17 Buxton 16 “Stern Words

from a Little Guy,” Edmonton Journal, January 14, 1982: D1. the Beef Producers of the Province of Alberta,” Mailbox, Farm Trends, JanuaryFebruary 1982: 16.

17 “To

257



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

clearly indicated that he was convinced the executive of the Cattle Commission had not consulted zone representatives or the zone membership before making their sudden decision and therefore did not have the required permission to do what they did. On the other hand, Sten Berg feels that he had the right to withdraw. The Alberta Cattle Commission board of directors ratified the action at its next meeting, as did the delegates to the semi-annual general meeting in June 1982. Firm positions took over and efforts to compromise failed.18 Nineteen eighty-two saw the appointment of Dr. Clay Gilson of the University of Manitoba to consult with western agriculture leaders to establish a framework for new legislation governing Statutory Rates. Minister of Transport Jean-Luc Pepin announced that the government was committed to cover the current shortfall in grain transportation revenue and to guarantee the performance of the railways. Clay Gilson was responsible for bringing representatives of all agricultural groups together to discuss guidelines for covering future cost increases. Fifteen groups were invited to participate: three provincial farm organizations, three prairie pools, the National Farmers’ Union,19 two railways, and a loose alliance called the Prairie Farm Commodity Coalition that included the Alberta Cattle Commission, Western Hog Growers, United Grain Growers, Canola Crushers of Western Canada,Western Barley Growers, and Western Canadian Wheat Growers. Unifarm was represented at the Gilson Hearings by its president, Howard Falkenberg, and the chair of the Unifarm transportation committee, Gordon Blanchard. It took a little persuasion, but Falkenberg was able to convince Clay Gilson that Unifarm qualified to send two delegates to sit at the table because of its structure involving direct and organizational members. Falkenberg and Blanchard were assisted by Unifarm economist Elmer Allen, who prepared in-depth documents on the transportation issue. Grain producers were represented at the Gilson Hearings by Unifarm,Alberta Wheat Pool, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Manitoba Pool Elevators, United Grain Growers, Palliser Wheat Growers’ Association, and the Canola Producers, but they had different positions. United Grain 18 Roger

Buxton believes that this incident significantly stalled the process of solving the Statutory Rates issue and may have delayed finding a solution. It was difficult for members of the two organizations to work together in the climate of hurt feelings and misunderstanding that was created. 19 The NFU refused to participate because they were vehemently opposed to any changes to the “Crow.”

258



CHAPTER FOURTEEN: SHOWDOWN




Growers had a great deal of sympathy for livestock producers. The Canola Producers felt they were being discriminated against because they received the benefit if they exported their canola, but they had to pay higher freight costs if they shipped canola oil. Palliser Wheat Growers, as part of the Commodity Coalition, argued for massive changes to the Statutory Rates. Unifarm made its presentation to the Gilson Hearings on April 5, 1982, making it clear that its first priority was to ensure a fair share of rail capacity well into the future for western grain producers—not to provide extra revenue for the railways. Unifarm was very aware that the increasing gap between estimated railway costs and revenue from grain transportation meant that grain traffic was losing out to other commodities. In addition, the gap created inequities for western processing industries. Representatives from Unifarm also stressed that freight rates should be controlled by Parliament, particularly the procedure for establishing the rates and determining future increases.There would also have to be guarantees that the railway would provide good service to the agricultural community. Unifarm still wanted the difference between the Statutory Rate and the compensatory rate paid to the railways, ensuring that the government could enforce performance and service standards. Recognizing that retaining statutory freight rates did not address the problem for prairie livestock and poultry producers or for producers of livestock products, Unifarm recommended that the Canadian Wheat Board offer grain to prairie feeders at the same price paid by eastern and B.C. buyers, less compensatory freight rates (and providing that it was not lower than the initial price plus handling charge). To resolve the problems of agricultural commodities not qualifying for Statutory Rates, Unifarm recommended that rapeseed oil and flaxseed oil be added to the statutory list, and that freight rates on raw rapeseed and flaxseed be equalized with those on their respective processed products. The obstacle in the Gilson Hearings was how to deal with the impact of inflation on future grain transportation costs.The majority of producer groups represented at the hearings indicated that they were not prepared to commit their members to increased responsibility for a share of inflationary changes. Unifarm was willing to take some responsibility, but had already indicated that this was not an open-ended obligation. Grain producers were eventually worn down and began to consider alternatives to accommodate the livestock industries and the railways without creating hardship for grain producers. A compromise proposal 259



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

began to develop at the hearings in Winnipeg that called for payment to the railways initially with a gradual shift to payment to the producers. After years of discussion, the Statutory Rate debate hurtled to a conclusion. The Gilson Hearings, announced in February 1982, concluded four months later with the release of the Gilson Report on June 28. Dr. Gilson recommended that the total railway revenue for 1981–82 be set at $644.1 million and that the federal government payment to the railways be phased in from 1982–83 to 1986–87 with full compensation beginning in 1986–87. The phased-in benefit would be paid totally to the railways in 1982–83 with an increasing portion of this payment being paid directly to the producer each year thereafter until 1989–90 when the proportion would be fixed at eighty-one percent to producers and nineteen percent to the railways. Other recommendations to neutralize the effects of these changes on other producers and in the event of future cost increases or grain price decreases were also made.20 The recommendations meant that by 1989–90, producers would receive eighty-one percent of the $644.1 million federal contribution plus the government’s share of cost increases due to inflation, with the balance of federal funds being paid to the railways. It was no surprise that the report caused some concern. Unifarm still believed that the federal government should pay the railways because the Statutory Rates were a transportation subsidy to compensate land-locked prairie farmers for the distances they had to haul their produce to compete in world markets. In the spirit of the Gilson Report, Unifarm and the other participants agreed to take the recommendations to their membership to consider. There was some confusion at the outset because the Commodity Coalition was under the impression that Unifarm, the prairie wheat pools, and the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture had agreed to some sort of payment to the producer.These groups were then accused of being devious when they did not wholly accept the Gilson Report. As far as Howard Falkenberg was concerned, Unifarm had made its “pay the railway” position clear but was prepared to discuss the “pay the producer” idea with its members. No matter what the negotiators might have consented to, this was a democratic organization governed by members. Through discussions and the democratic process, by September, Unifarm had reaffirmed its position that this was a transportation subsidy and the only solution was to pay the railway. 20 “Gilson

Report Released,” Federal Minister of Transport Information Release, June 28, 1982.

260



CHAPTER FOURTEEN: SHOWDOWN




The prairie pools also reacted negatively to the assumption that they had reached consensus on the method of payment, stating that they continued to have concerns about the pay-the-producer suggestion. President Allan Macpherson of the Alberta Wheat Pool and Edward (Ted) Turner of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool were also governed by their members and boards of directors, who were not at the negotiating table and who did not accept the consensus to pay the producer.21 Because a direct producer payment could be seen as a subsidy to the west funded by the larger taxpayer base in the east, paying the railways was seen as a more stable proposition. Allan Beattie,22 Alberta Wheat Pool public affairs director, warned “payments to railroads are seen as subsidies for transportation which, in this country, tend to be long-lasting. But payments to farmers look like commodity subsidies, and you may get a cabinet minister in future deciding to end them.”23 Other groups, which proved to be unlikely bedfellows, also rejected the Gilson Report. At the summer Canadian Federation of Agriculture board meeting, Quebec, Ontario, and the Maritimes stated that they could not support the pay-the-producer principle because it would increase the price spread of grain between east and west to the detriment of eastern producers and because production quotas would shift from the east to the west.24 Quebec’s Union des Producteurs Agricoles managed to convince several Quebec members of parliament that ending the Statutory Rates by paying a direct benefit to prairie producers would hurt Quebec.This convergence of views between Unifarm, the prairie pools, and eastern farmers raised eyebrows at meetings of the Palliser Wheat Growers’ Association. Clay Gilson’s report precipitated a realignment of policy positions on the transportation debate.While Unifarm,Alberta’s general farm organization, and Alberta Wheat Pool, the largest grain handling company in the province, continued to see eye to eye on the Gilson Report, 21 The Alberta Wheat

Pool had been forced to review its stand on the “Crow” just as the Gilson Hearings were getting under way when over half of the seventy AWP delegates signed a petition requesting a special review meeting. “Alberta farmers force wheat pool to review Crow,” Calgary Herald, March 19, 1982: A21. 22 Allan Beattie could be forgiven if he uttered a quiet “I told you so” when the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien paid out and cancelled the Statutory Rates in 1995. 23 “Changing of the Crow,” Calgary Sun, June 29, 1982. 24 “Questions and Answers on Grain Transportation Consultations,” Farm Trends, July-August 1982: 5.

261



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Manitoba was not exhibiting the same consensus. Manitoba Pool Elevators pulled out of the Manitoba Farm Bureau, Unifarm’s sister organization in that province. Members of the Prairie Farm Commodity Coalition, particularly the Alberta Cattle Commission, were unanimous in their support of Gilson’s recommendations. United Grain Growers also broke ranks with the prairie pools to support Gilson as well. The Unifarm convention of January 1983 took place during the uncomfortable interlude before Jean-Luc Pepin introduced legislation to change the Statutory Rates. Unifarm calculated that it had spent $135,000 on the Gilson consultations, including extra expenses on printing, travel and accommodation, special board and executive meetings as well as staff time that could have been used on other activities. Farm Trends was not published in November-December, possibly as a result of overspending in the transportation debate.Tensions within the organization erupted in a contested election for president that saw Stan Bell of Carstairs defeat the incumbent, Howard Falkenberg.25 Transport Minister Jean-Luc Pepin needed a police escort at an Edmonton news conference in February 1983 when the National Farmers’ Union demonstrated against the government’s proposed legislation based on the Gilson Report. Other groups opposed to the recommendations included the Alberta Wheat Pool, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Manitoba Pool Elevators, the Saskatchewan Liberal, New Democratic and Progressive Conservative parties, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture,26 and the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee. Unifarm had concerns because Unifarm members still preferred payment to the railways, while the Alberta Cattle Commission wanted all payments to go to the producer. Former Supreme Court Justice Emmett Hall, who had headed up the 1975 commission looking into grain handling and transportation, was concerned about the Gilson recommendations. He organized a group to fight the proposed changes to the Crow Rate. Others joined the fight, including the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, the 25 In

1981, Charles Archibald of Camrose, later Rosalind, a Unifarm vice-president, had challenged Howard Falkenberg for the presidency. 26 By the summer of 1983, the Western Agricultural Conference had voted to put the organization “on hold.” Unifarm Trends, July-August 1983: 4.The Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture ended its forty-year existence on May 31, 1984, because of the fall-out from the “Crow” debate. An attempted restructuring failed as organizational members withdrew and funding evaporated.The Western Agricultural Conference, which began in 1935, ended in 1984 as the UGG withdrew, the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture disintegrated, and the Manitoba Farm Bureau attempted to restructure.

262



CHAPTER FOURTEEN: SHOWDOWN




National Farmers’ Union, Federated Co-operatives Ltd., provincial federations of labour, and the Western Cow-Calf Producers Association as well as the Quebec Liberal caucus and the Manitoba Legislature. In the face of such intense opposition, the federal government reassessed its position that would have phased in a “pay the producer” solution to the Statutory Rate debate.As president of Unifarm, Stan Bell attended a briefing meeting in Jasper,Alberta, in the spring of 1983 with other western agriculture leaders (Allan Macpherson of Alberta Wheat Pool, Ted Allen of United Grain Growers, Chris Mills of Alberta Cattle Commission,Ted Turner of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Bob McGillivray of the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture, and Lorne Parker of the Manitoba Farm Bureau) and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau before the proposed legislation was announced. It was obvious that many pressures were being brought to bear on the federal government and that no one would get everything they wanted. Eastern producers, particularly in Quebec, had awakened to the fact that the Statutory Rates had been a great benefit to their industry, and if changes had to be made, it would be better for them to have any benefits paid to the railways rather than the producer. Western supporters of the pay-the-railways proposal, while uncomfortable with support from that quarter, continued to have concerns about how a pay-the-producer plan would be implemented.Any plan to base payment on total seeded acreage faltered because much of the seeded acreage was used locally for feed and not transported anywhere. Including those acres in the calculation diluted the actual acreage payment to each producer, leaving farmers who exported their grain at the mercy of higher transportation rates. There was always the perception that pressure from the livestock industry would lower grain prices for local feed consumption. On the other hand, there was a great deal of pressure from other groups to pay the producer.The federal government under Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau risked alienating farm groups in the east and the west if it accepted the Gilson proposal to reduce payments to the railways until the producer received eighty-one percent of the annual transportation subsidy. What Stan Bell and his provincial counterparts heard from Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in Jasper was a compromise package, the best that could be cobbled together in the face of opposition from all sides. There was fiery debate when the Western Grain Transportation Initiative legislation was introduced on May 10, 1983, to change the 263



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

historic “Crow” Statutory Rate. The legislation shepherded through the House of Commons by Jean-Luc Pepin included higher freight rates for moving grain.The rate schedule announced increases from an average of $4.89 a tonne to $12.71 a tonne on August 1, 1983, with further increases to $19.56 by 1985. However, these rates would be offset by a subsidy that would mean that the farmer would pay $5.48 (instead of $12.71) in 1983 and $9.35 in 1985. The new “Crow” package also included a promise by the federal government to spend $3.7 billion by 1986 in subsidies to allow freight rates to be increased and encourage the expansion of the western rail system. In the first year, most of the subsidy would be paid to the railways, with the amount paid annually to producers increasing to enable them to pay higher rates. The proportion was to reach 50-50 by 1985–86, a compromise between the Gilson recommendations and the staunch pay-the-railway supporters.The share to the producer could be increased toward the eighty-one percent recommended by Clay Gilson only by another Act of Parliament after an assessment at the time.There was a cap on the amount that would be covered by this new agreement. Farmers would pay the full freight cost to ship grain above the 1981–82 volume of 31.1 million tonnes. Most of the recommendations made by Clay Gilson were included in the new proposal, but some details of how to pay the producer were left to a task force that included Unifarm’s economist, Elmer Allen.The plan to replace the Statutory Rates included higher freight rates for grain movement, partially offset by Statutory Rate benefit payments to producers.Also included was a $14 billion undertaking by the federal government to finance double tracking, new tunnels through the mountains, and upgrading of branch lines. Not only did this contribute positively to the western economy, western grain began to flow to markets at a rate not seen in a long time. The legislation forever changed the historic “Crow’s Nest Pass” Statutory Rates that had been a fixture in the western Canadian grain trade for eighty-five years. Transportation slipped into the background as other issues confronted Unifarm. Unifarm was resigned to the changes that had occurred and continued to monitor the details that caused anxiety, reiterating its fundamental belief that grain transportation should continue to be subsidized due to its importance to the Canadian economy. The feed grain issue figured prominently in a letter Unifarm sent to Federal Transport Minister Jean-Luc Pepin, expressing its reservations about the 264



CHAPTER FOURTEEN: SHOWDOWN




new legislation. Members of Unifarm continued to fight any attempt by large producers or corporate processors to gain an advantage because of low grain prices paid to the family farmer. Unifarm continued its opposition to the volume cap stipulation in the Western Grain Transportation Act in 1984 when increased grain shipments during the 1983–84 crop year resulted in higher shipping rates for 1984–85. Unifarm did not think it was fair for farmers who may not have shipped grain the previous year to pay higher rates in the current year. A federal election called in mid–1984 brought a new government to power under Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Justice Gordon Hall27 of the Manitoba Appeal Court, appointed in spring 1984 by Liberal Prime Minister John Turner, studied annual grain transportation subsidies and made recommendations in a report tabled a year later by the new Progressive Conservative minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Charlie Mayer.The Hall Committee investigation into the grain transportation refund recommended that the nearly $700 million annual grain transportation subsidy be paid directly to producers and that payment be made for net sales and weighted for distances from port. By the time the report was released, Unifarm President Stan Bell and board member Hartmann Nagel expressed relief at having a decision so farmers could concentrate on other pressing matters. With funding from Alberta Agriculture, Unifarm and REDA conducted forty-seven information meetings throughout the province in late 1985 to explain the report. The federal government began the process of gradually changing the way the subsidy was paid. By 1986–87, Unifarm had re-established its transportation committee, made up of Einer Loveseth of Viking, Ray Schmitt of Milk River, Jim Allan of Berwyn, and Barry Marshall of Edgerton, to respond to changing transportation policies at the federal and provincial level. The new transportation committee monitored suggestions from the Winnipeg-based Grain Transportation Agency (GTA), headed by former Alberta agriculture and transportation minister, Hugh Horner, that the federal government pay out its Crow Benefit obligations.The GTA recommended that a task force be established to determine the best way to make this payment—based on acreage, marketings, production, or some other way. 27 Manitoba Appeal

Court Justice Gordon Hall—not Emmett Hall, Chief Justice of Saskatchewan and later Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada who chaired the Grain Handling and Transportation Committee in 1975.

265



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Some proponents of the “pay-the-railway” argument began to reassess their position.At the 1988 Unifarm convention, a resolution was proposed by Region 15 that “Unifarm support the Alberta Government in its ‘pay the producer’ approach to the payment of the Crow Benefit.”28 A similar resolution calling for the federal government’s contribution to the western grain export freight bill to be paid directly to producers instead of the railways was tabled at the 1989 convention.This meant that grain shippers would be required to pay higher freight rates.The resolution was tabled because a task force set up by the Alberta and British Columbia29 governments and assisted by staff from Alberta Wheat Pool was preparing a report on the issue. Unifarm passed a resolution sponsored by Alberta Wheat Pool at the 1990 convention that Unifarm adopt the “pay the producer” proposal of the Alberta/B.C. government task force.30 Although earlier information on how to pay the producer was not specific enough to allow individual producers to understand the impact on their operations, recent policy proposals were more detailed and acceptable.The issue of dilution of the benefit, because it would be paid to all producers whether or not they used the transportation system to get their grain to market, had been a major stumbling block.The new proposals seemed to protect producers who used the transportation system from paying higher freight rates. After more than a decade of debate, Unifarm was reasonably comfortable with the concept of “pay the producer,” as long as producers would not be worse off financially than under the present system. Everyone hoped a new method of payment would finally allow the market for feed grain to settle into a regime that was fair to grain and livestock producers on the prairie. Federal Progressive Conservative Agriculture Minister Charlie Mayer announced in July 1993 that after decades of discussion, the philosophical question of whether the transportation subsidy should be paid to the railways or the producer had been decided in favour of paying the producer. He appointed a six-member producer payment panel, chaired by University of Alberta Dean of Agriculture Dr. Ed Tyrchniewicz to advise him on details of how payment should be 28 Eighteenth Annual

Unifarm Convention Programme, January 11–14, 1988: 7. British Columbia government was involved because the Peace River Block of B.C. would also be affected. 30 Twentieth Annual Unifarm Convention Programme, January 8–11, 1990: 28. 29 The

266



CHAPTER FOURTEEN: SHOWDOWN




made.31 Before the producer payment panel was to make its report in November 1993, a new Liberal government led by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien replaced Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives and Agriculture Minister Charlie Mayer. The report was released in July 1994, and Unifarm President Roy Jensen urged Liberal Agriculture Minister Ralph Goodale in September, to “get on with it,” when asked for advice on how to reform the Western Grain Transportation Act.32 Jensen based his comment on the fact that delegates at the 1994 Unifarm convention had recommended that producer payments be made on the basis of cultivated acres before the fund eroded or disappeared. Prompted by these pressures and changes in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin announced in his February 1995 budget that the ninety-eight-year-old “Crow” would end August 1, 1995. In its place, he announced a $1.6 billion Crow Benefit buy-out package to be distributed to prairie farmers who owned Crow-affected land on February 27, 1995 based on historic benefit, distance from market, productivity and other factors. The $1.6 billion was to go to farmers to compensate them for the anticipated fall in the value of their land when the subsidy ended. In addition to the financial changes, the government also repealed the Western Grain Transportation Act, putting grain under the National Transportation Act; implemented a maximum rate scale based on the 1995 rate and reflecting annual cost changes; lifted all rail line abandonment protection by December 31, 1995; and eliminated the Grain Transportation Agency and the Senior Grain Transportation Committee as legislated bodies. Many predictions were made, dire or otherwise, but the reality was that, buffered by rising grain prices, the demise of the Statutory “Crow” Rate became a non-event.The discussion had gone on in some form for so long that when it ended, calm and resignation descended on the prairies. Some predictions came true. Many farmers diversified into livestock or specialty crops. Rail transportation costs went up while rural municipalities scrambled to maintain highways affected by heavy truck traffic. Predictions that feed grain prices would fall were only partly correct. Lower feed grain prices for chicken producers in the west resulted in a call for higher quotas for those provinces to take advantage of lower 31 The

panel also included Doug Livingstone of Vermilion, former president of Alberta Wheat Pool and participant in REDA’s Agrileader program. 32 “Jensen Tells Goodale to get on with WGTA Reform,” Unifarm Trends, OctoberNovember 1994: 1.

267



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

STAN BELL

S

tan Bell was born and raised in the Wintering Hills area of Alberta. His mother came to the area with her family in 1901 and his father homesteaded with his father near Dorothy in 1910. In 1941, the family moved to a mixed cattlegrain farm in the Carstairs area, where their neighbours were the Henry Wise Wood family. After graduating in 1954 with a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine from the Ontario Veterinary College in Stan Bell Guelph, he and his wife Janet moved to Calgary where Stan worked in a veterinary clinic.Three years later, they settled with their sons on the family farm in Carstairs, where he also operated a veterinary clinic for six years before turning to full-time farming. Stan was born into a family of strong Alberta Wheat Pool and Farmers’ Union of Alberta supporters. His father, Raymond Bell, was one of the original members of the Alberta Wheat Pool in 1923 who encouraged others to sign up with the “pool.” Stan Bell was immersed in farm organization, attending his first UFA local meeting with his father when he was eleven years old and then becoming involved with the Carstairs FUA Local in 1965. He became alternate regional director and then Unifarm regional director in 1972.

feed costs. At the same time, feed grain prices increased in some places such as the area around Lethbridge because of increased demand and higher world prices. Surprisingly, the value of land went up in spite of the loss of the subsidy.33 Prairie agriculture continues to evolve and adjust to the changes 33 Barry Wilson, “Tallying

1998: 46–7.

268

the cost of the Crow’s demise,” The Western Producer, April 9,



CHAPTER FOURTEEN: SHOWDOWN




Stan served on the Unifarm beef committee and travelled to Ottawa in the early 1970s with Charlie Mayer (later a Progressive Conservative member of parliament and cabinet minister) to look into the meat packing business in Montreal on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.A bomb had been exploded on the lawn of one of the owners of a major Montreal meat processor, raising fears of possible Mafia control of the meat packing business.To strengthen the case for a police investigation, the government contacted the CFA to provide information about the impact of extreme price fluctuations on beef producers such as Stan Bell. Stan was a thinker, a philosopher, and a man of action. In 1973, when the price of propane was skyrocketing and costs varied considerably at various outlets, Stan called a meeting to discuss the situation. By the end of the evening, the Mountain View Propane Co-operative had been formed and a board of directors elected; within a week, farmers were able to buy propane at a considerable saving. As president, Stan worked within Unifarm to establish interestshielding programs in the mid-1980s and a program that reduced provincial taxes and royalties on natural gas to reduce the cost of fertilizer. Stan Bell was on the front lines of the debate over the Statutory “Crow” Rates, attending countless meetings, including meetings with Transportation Minister Jean-Luc Pepin and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. His knowledge of the issue, which came from personal experience as well as from the province-wide country meetings he attended as Unifarm vice-president, showed him that this was a conflict that could be solved only by careful negotiation and ensuring that everyone was well informed. Stan Bell served as Unifarm president for four years, although he had intended to serve only two. He announced that he was stepping down after three years but, true to his nature, agreed reluctantly to serve another term when no one else was prepared to step forward.

wrought by the demise of the Statutory Rates. Poor economic conditions in the agricultural sector have refocused attention on problems in the rail transportation sector. Unifarm’s lean and efficient successor, Wild Rose Agricultural Producers, continues to be in the forefront of the debate over high transportation costs and government subsidies to compensate for the fact that Alberta farmers are still a long way from world markets.

269

CHAPTER FIFTEEN




CHANGING TIMES

L

oyal Unifarm members who trekked from farm to farm to sell or renew memberships in the early 1980s confronted a changed social landscape. Statistics Canada continued to report a steady decline in the number of census farm units.1 There were 58,056 farm units in 1981 to provide the membership and support for Unifarm, down from 62,702 in 1971 and 73,212 in 1961.2 The Unifarm local, which for many years had been the foundation of an active membership, succumbed to the increasing popularity of other recreational and educational opportunities readily accessible nearby. The Unifarm curling bonspiel, with regional playdowns and provincial championships, ended in 1982 because fewer and

The very last rock won the Alberta Wheat Pool Trophy at the Unifarm bonspiel in Edmonton in 1974.The new Unifarm curling champions from Region 13 pictured here were Lloyd Robinson (skip) from Burdett-Bow Island, Lynn Thacker, Jim Calder, and Ron Calder. All fourteen Unifarm regions entered their top rinks for the provincial double modified knockout event. 1

A census farm unit is defined by Statistics Canada as an agricultural operation that produces at least one of the following intended for sale: crops, poultry, livestock, animal products, and other agricultural products. Statistics Canada, Agricultural Division, Historical Overview of Canadian Agriculture (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 1997): xxxi. 2 Statistics Canada, Agricultural Division, Historical Overview of Canadian Agriculture, 38.

271



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

fewer rinks participated. With the decline in the rural population came the disappearance of rural schools and community buildings, depriving locals of places to meet, while the district organization proved to be too large to respond comfortably to local member concerns. Direct membership slipped to fewer than 8,000 in 1980 from 11,000 in 1977. At the same time, there were sixteen commodity organizations, farm co-operatives, and special interest groups on the commodity side of Unifarm’s membership structure. Declining direct membership led to an imbalance between the two sides of the organization and threatened the “umbrella system” that was fundamental to Unifarm’s purpose. Producers began relying on their membership in a commodity group for input into Unifarm, causing problems in the case of conflict between commodity groups because not enough members in the general farm organization were available to mediate on behalf of the whole agricultural community. Unifarm staff and the membership committee of Stan Chynoweth, Syd Greyson, and Jean Buit launched another major personal-contact membership drive in 1981. The committee hoped that the renewed campaign would counteract the less than successful mail-in membership campaigns of the past few years and the pessimism being expressed about the future of Unifarm. Membership totals to the end of June 1981 were 6,811, below the 7,145 total of one year earlier, despite the activities of the membership committee. The membership drive was continued in the fall, but nothing had changed. It was difficult to persuade people to get involved—unfortunately not everyone is blessed with the ability to sell memberships, no matter how devoted they might be to the organization. In spite of all the difficulties, enough memberships were sold to maintain the level at 7,000 members for 1981. Financial problems, particularly the cost of conducting membership drives, began to affect Unifarm. The two membership drives in 1981 each cost $10,000, a great deal of money for an organization experiencing problems with its balance sheet. A decision was made to eliminate advertising for membership renewals and to limit the renewal notice to a one-page fact sheet produced in Unifarm central office. Information was provided on request, but there was no attempt to canvass for members in an area where there was no expression of interest. By the mid1980s, many of the older officials wanted to ease up on their commitments, but there was no one to replace them when they gave up. While they struggled with their own membership problems, 272



CHAPTER FIFTEEN: CHANGING TIMES




Unifarm officials began to question why some groups were able to collect compulsory memberships through a government-approved checkoff. Not only did Unifarm have to contend with groups that had been established through the efforts of the Unifarm organization such as the Pork Board and the Cattle Commission, it was confronted with government-created organizations such as the new agriculture development committees, with paid employees, and a government-supported revival of the agricultural societies, funded through a granting system.The presence of these organizations and the services they offered further weakened the local farmers’ organization because Unifarm, as a volunteer organization with a membership that had to be renewed each year, lost ground to the government-funded groups. Adding to the pressure were the Western Canadian Wheat Growers and the Western Barley Growers, who also received government funding. While some members of the agricultural community fell into step with the new government agencies, others worried about the downside of close co-operation with government. The policy development and problem-solving that had been done by farmers through Unifarm locals could now be done through the municipal agricultural development committees, which in many cases had direct contact with the minister of agriculture or the minister’s staff. While it was nice to have paid employees organize and promote farmers’ interests, farmers who became more closely involved with these government committees were in danger of compromising their independence and their ability to be critical of government. The sale of the Unifarm building at 9934–106 Street, Edmonton, in 1981, originally built for the FUA in 1955–56, was a landmark occasion. It provided the farmers’ organization with a large amount of money to invest, but the new location at 14815–119 Avenue did not satisfy everyone. The old building in Edmonton’s central business district was close to government offices and the elected officials and staff who were so important in the policy development process. The new office building was in a light industrial area further removed from the centre of power. Revenue from the sale of the old building, razed to make way for a multi-storied office tower, delayed the financial crisis, but maintenance expenses in the new building caused problems. The Unifarm board of directors made a crucial decision the next year when production of the multi-page bi-monthly magazine Farm Trends ended, to be replaced by a new-style single-fold newsletter format to be called Unifarm Trends.This 273



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

move recognized the reduced membership as well as the reduced budget and staff available to publish a more extensive magazine. Unifarm Trends was published six times yearly. Unifarm’s dream of being the sole voice for agriculture by representing all members and commodity groups under its umbrella collapsed on the floor of the 1982 Unifarm convention when the Alberta Cattle Commission walked out and discontinued its membership. There were unexpected repercussions.The ACC included in its membership everyone who marketed at least one head of cattle per year. When it joined Unifarm, the Cattle Commission replaced the Unifarm livestock committee because the commission obviously represented all cattle producers in the province and received funding as a result of the check-off each time cattle were sold. Livestock producers who did not agree with Cattle Commission policy and who could not persuade the Alberta Cattle Commission board to listen to them turned to Unifarm for help. In spite of patient explanations that, according to Unifarm general procedure, the Alberta Cattle Commission established cattle policy for Unifarm and that the way to change it was to go through the procedures within the Cattle Commission, members were frustrated. They could not marshal the support there and could not understand why their Unifarm organization could not help. When the Alberta Cattle Commission quit Unifarm because Unifarm could not adjust quickly enough to Cattle Commission policy, other Unifarm members quit because they perceived that their organization was not doing enough to force the Cattle Commission to listen to them.3 Harry Gordon’s prophecy had come true; it was more trouble than it was worth. The situation surrounding the withdrawal of the Cattle Commission from Unifarm membership in 1982 prompted Stan Bell of Carstairs to run for president in 1983, defeating Howard Falkenberg, who had served as president since Dobson Lea stepped down in 1977. Ralph Jespersen was re-elected vice-president by acclamation to represent the commodity side of Unifarm while Gordon Blanchard defeated Herman Schwenk of Coronation in the contest for vice-president representing the direct membership side. The convention that elected Stan Bell also increased membership fees from $30 to $50, the first increase since 1976. 3

274

In 1984, dissatisfied members of the ACC turned to the National Farmers’ Union, which sponsored a petition to abolish the Alberta Cattle Commission. Unifarm did not support the petition and encouraged cattle producers to become more active in the ACC. “Unifarm Position on NFU Petition,” Unifarm Trends, November 1984: 1.



CHAPTER FIFTEEN: CHANGING TIMES




Stan Bell jumped into the quagmire of the ongoing transportation debate as well as a serious financial situation. Unifarm faced an operating deficit for 1982 of $233,749, up from $27,317 a year before.To partially alleviate the problem, Stan Bell did not draw a salary, as had previous presidents. Other presidents had either moved to Edmonton or lived close enough to enable them to work out of the office, but Stan continued to farm the home farm near Carstairs as well as another farm near High Prairie. He worked out a different arrangement for discharging his duties, knowing that the organization could not afford a full-time president, and that he was not able to put in the time. Long-time secretary Pansy Molen resigned in August 1983, to be replaced by another longtime employee,Willow Webb. Stan took office with a mission to strengthen the organization and increase membership. Unifarm provincial council established a task force to determine the future direction of the organization. The task force consisted of the chair Stan Bell; Gordon Blanchard, Unifarm vice-president;Wilf Plosz, executive director;Vera Rude,Women of Unifarm president; Alf Petersen, University of Alberta agricultural economist; Don Potter, secretary manager of Alberta Broiler Growers Marketing Board; and John Melicher, director of REDA. REDA was brought in to design the questions and conduct the interviews, a welcome re-connection with an organization that had spun out into other ventures after being established under the auspices of FUA and Unifarm.4 The REDA consultants set out to determine if it was possible for the agriculture community to speak with one voice when member expectations were so varied and numerous that attempting to meet all or most of them made it impossible to meet any of them consistently. Sixty men and women involved in the agricultural life of the province were asked what they liked and disliked about Unifarm, what they saw as their responsibilities, and whom it should serve. Another 240, including members of the Unifarm provincial council, were sent a questionnaire, with a return rate of approximately fifty percent. There was an overwhelmingly positive response to the basic question—whether there was a role for a general farm organization. People who were interviewed and who responded to the questionnaire agreed that the role of Unifarm was to make it possible to work together to 4

Sheila Devereux, an economic consultant with REDA and farmer from Ft. Saskatchewan, and David Whitfield, a human relations consultant from Calgary who had grown up on a farm, were engaged to carry out the study.

275



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

develop policy and to lobby government.They also agreed that Unifarm had a responsibility to provide a forum where people with all points of view could come together to try to understand the issues and, hopefully, come to some agreement. Based on comments from Unifarm members who had been so affected by the transportation debate, the task force also recommended a movement away from the “must win” strategy that seemed to take over the organization.There was also recognition that the grain organizations held a great deal of power, which contributed to the grain vs. livestock attitude evident in discussions on the floor of the Unifarm convention. Other respondents suggested that it should do a better job of representing “all of agriculture” and ensuring fair and balanced representation for both “sides.” In order to accomplish this and modify the balance of power, constitutional amendments were proposed to address the natural conflicts between different commodity groups. Membership as of October 31, 1983, stood at 6,370 units and fifteen commodity groups. Unifarm was holding its own, until the announcement that United Grain Growers had decided to withdraw from all groups, citing rising costs,5 and the Alberta Broiler Growers would not continue membership in Unifarm.The provincial government, approached in 1983 and again in 1984 to establish a check-off system to support general farm organizations such as Unifarm, declined as they had ten years earlier.This time the provincial government explained that they could not implement such a system because of budget constraints and a policy of only providing the framework for a check-off for commodity organizations that pursued specific purposes. The government indicated that it would change the legislation to provide a check-off if Unifarm could prove, through a large membership, that farmers wanted to participate. Based on recommendations from the 1983 task force, commodity groups accepted more financial responsibility and the number of direct delegates to the annual convention was reduced from 280 to 150, with a provision to reduce the number below 150 if direct membership dropped below 8,000. The size of the board of directors and executive was streamlined and reduced from nineteen to ten members. In spite of its financial difficulties, Unifarm continued to support REDA,6 but it 5

Many Unifarm members assumed that the UGG withdrew from membership in Unifarm because of the disagreement over Statutory Rates. “Unifarm on the Mend,” Alberta Farm and Ranch, June 1985: 43–5. 6 As early as December 1973 the Unifarm convention dealt with a motion to eliminate the $44,000 annual contribution Unifarm made to REDA.The motion was defeated, largely because the Women of Unifarm were opposed.

276



CHAPTER FIFTEEN: CHANGING TIMES




was forced to review its participation in the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in 1984 because of financial constraints. Delegates to the 1984 Unifarm convention discussed the membership issue at length. In spite of a declining membership base, Unifarm continued to carry out activities that benefited all Alberta farmers. Loyal members were fed up with paying membership fees to fund these programs, so they decided to take matters into their own hands.They agreed almost unanimously to request the provincial government to enact legislation that would require all agricultural producers to acquire a business permit and to channel the fee to a general farm organization of the producer’s choice. Reaction to this bombshell was swift. Unifarm had to back away from this idea because producer groups saw it as a requirement to obtain a permit to farm and the provincial government saw it as an unacceptable form of regulation. Unifarm increased its efforts to encourage other commodity groups to join the organization, compiling a list of all commodity groups and marketing boards, members and non-members alike, and calculating the number of delegates they could send to Unifarm conventions when they joined. In 1984, there were twenty-four commodity-oriented organizations in Alberta, ten of which were members of Unifarm. The number of delegates each group could send to the annual convention was based on a formula that took into account the relative size of each sector within the agricultural community. Until an intensified Unifarm campaign convinced them to join, the delegate spots of non-member organizations were kept in reserve. In an effort to prevent the situation that culminated in the walkout of the Cattle Commission, the rules of procedure for policy development were modified.The new rules of procedure provided for an opportunity to resolve inter-commodity issues, but if it were impossible to do so, Unifarm would state so publicly and would not take a position on the contentious issue.7 Many commodity groups responded positively to the changes in Unifarm, but only two of the fourteen non-members appeared interested, although in the end they did not join: the Soft Spring Wheat Growers and the Pulse Growers’ Association. The Alberta Cattle Commission indicated that it was willing to undertake joint projects with Unifarm, but zone representatives voted down a resolution to rejoin the 7

In 1989, Unifarm deleted its livestock policy, recognizing that Unifarm’s livestock committees had become inactive, and deferred to the Alberta Cattle Commission and the Alberta Pork Producers Marketing Board for policy development.

277



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

umbrella organization. In 1985, the Hatching Egg Marketing Board joined Unifarm, but the Western Hog Growers, a founding member of Unifarm, did not renew its membership. In 1989, the Alberta Irrigation Projects Association and the Alberta Dehy Association (representing alfalfa producers) took membership in Unifarm’s commodity section. Another membership drive was launched in 1984 by the committee, chaired by Vice-President Gordon Blanchard and assisted by Jerry Bauer of Thorhild, Sigrid Hanson of Mayerthorpe, and William Payne of Valleyview. Enthusiasm ran high. Hartmann Nagel in Region 1 was instrumental in organizing a seminar to familiarize canvassers with Unifarm procedures and activities so they could be more effective during the November canvass. To help defray the cost of contacting potential members, canvassers were paid $13.50 for each three-year $135.00 membership and $5.00 for each one-year $50.00 membership they sold. Life members made contributions of up to $1,000 and encouraged others to do so. Forty-Mile District of Region 13 in the southeast raised $8,500 for Unifarm through an auction sale at Whitla Community Hall, a bake sale and lunch sponsored by the Women of Unifarm, a bean supper sponsored by the still active Whitla-Seven Persons Local, and a curling bonspiel. Then they issued a challenge to other districts to match their success. One of the last concrete advantages of being a member of Unifarm disappeared in 1984 when Alberta Blue Cross discontinued coverage for Unifarm members at the existing group rate because the participation rate had declined to a point where the group arrangement was in a loss position. The Pincher Creek Municipal Unifarm District donated $2,904 to Unifarm’s coffers, money accumulated over the years through interest earned on the district’s Blue Cross Fund, plus $200, the final balance of the district, which was no longer active. An attempt in the early 1980s to establish a group dental plan for Unifarm members and employees of Unifarm members never attracted enough interest to allow it to be implemented. On the other hand, a fifteenth region was formed in the northwestern corner of the province in March 1983. Jim Morrison of Bluesky became the first director and Albert Pimm of Grimshaw became alternate director. Judy Pimm of Grimshaw became Women of Unifarm director and Ruth Wutzke of Hines Creek was named alternate Women of Unifarm director. Membership stood at 4,500 in 1984. The farm population was ageing and at least fifty percent of farmers worked off the farm. Many 278



CHAPTER FIFTEEN: CHANGING TIMES




rural residents were not farmers but acreage owners, so it became difficult to know how to communicate with farmers. Alberta Agriculture 1984 statistics showed there were fewer than 40,000 producers in the province with gross sales of more than $10,000, but many of those were hobby or part-time farmers. Using $50,000 gross income as the defining criteria, Alberta Agriculture estimated that there were 25,000 farmers in Alberta. With $75,000 gross income as the cut-off, there were an estimated 18,000 bona fide farmers.8 Unifarm’s deficit in 1984 was an unacceptable $86,179, but that was better than the deficit of $201,292 for 1983 and $233,749 for 1982. By 1985, the deficit was under $53,000 of which $24,000 was accounted for by the depreciation on the building, furniture, and fixtures. Rather than hire staff, Unifarm bought a computer (with the related problems) to fill the gap left in the secretarial and printing department. Stan Bell continued as president in 1985 and 1986. Gordon Blanchard and Ralph Jespersen served as vice-presidents in 1985; Blanchard stepped down in 1986 and was replaced by Hartmann Nagel. These were difficult years for Unifarm as membership declined and financial problems continued, causing problems in the office as everyone tried desperately to cope with changing realities. Unifarm found itself being drawn into a worldwide battle against inflation, which impacted the agricultural community in a multitude of ways. The value of farmland escalated and with it came the temptation to sell land near burgeoning urban areas and buy other land further away, increasing the cost of farmland everywhere.Young farmers found it difficult to get started, not only because of the price of farmland but because interest rates had been bumped up in an attempt to dampen the inflationary spiral. Knowing that this was not just a rural problem, Unifarm recommended solutions to assist young farmers and those whose debt was becoming unmanageable because of rising interest rates. The Alberta Agriculture Development Corporation responded in the early 1980s with the beginning farmer program, designed to assist young and beginning farmers with subsidized interest rates on loans. Federal and provincial governments became involved in providing assistance through the Farm Credit Corporation at the federal level and the Agriculture Development Corporation at the provincial level.When the federal government limited assistance to western farmers by putting a cap on further funding for the Farm Credit Corporation, Unifarm 8

“Unifarm on the Mend,” Alberta Farm and Ranch, June 1985: 43–5.

279



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

President Stan Bell spoke out against the restrictions. In August 1983, the Alberta regional manager for the Farm Credit Corporation informed Unifarm that all available funds, $97 million, had been loaned in the first quarter and a further $44 million had been approved but could not be released.9 Later, Unifarm joined the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in imploring the federal government to reduce the fourteen percent and fifteen percent interest rates being charged by Farm Credit Corporation. By November 1984, nearly fifteen percent of Farm Credit Corporation loans were in arrears, most of them recent borrowers.10 While the Farm Credit Corporation was a federal organization, Unifarm felt that the provincial government also had a role in helping to alleviate the credit crisis facing farm families. The Unifarm board of directors discussed a new concept of shielding borrowers from interest rates over a certain level and then passed along the suggestion to the provincial government.An interest-shielding program was announced by the provincial government in September 1982 and remained in effect for two years. Under the plan, which ended in March 1984, the provincial government covered interest payments over 14.5 percent on loans from registered financial institutions for farmers and small business owners. Unifarm monitored the interest-shielding program and in February 1984 expressed a need for extending the time the program would be in effect and lowering the rate of interest to be covered from over 14.5 percent to any interest payments over ten percent. Unifarm also requested that provincial lending agencies provide additional funds for extending existing loans and to delay any foreclosure action for one year. Unifarm President Stan Bell had to do some backtracking when it was reported that Unifarm was asking for a moratorium on the payment of farm debts. Knowing very well that credit would dry up if there was any hint of a moratorium on existing debt, Unifarm indicated that the organization had called for a delay, not a moratorium, in foreclosure action while the individuals concerned went through counselling and looked for other ways to pay the debt.11 At its 1985 convention, Unifarm determined to lobby the provincial government to extend the interestshielding program on Agriculture Development Corporation loans for beginning farmers for five additional years. 9

Unifarm News Release, July 7, 1983. News Release, November 6, 1984. 11 Unifarm News Release, May 7, 1984. 10 Unifarm

280



CHAPTER FIFTEEN: CHANGING TIMES




Unifarm continued to deal with other issues. As a result of a resolution passed at a Unifarm convention, the provincial government announced that load tolerances for farm trucks would be relaxed during harvest. Unifarm played a significant role in obtaining $142 million in the beef support program, $75 million a year in fuel rebates, and almost $50 million through the interest-shielding program.12 Unifarm can feel proud of the impact it had on income tax legislation. Unifarm economist Elmer Allen became well known in tax circles for his well-thoughtout suggestions for changing federal and provincial tax policy. Active Unifarm members shepherded tax policy resolutions from the local or the district through the region and onto the convention floor. One such tax change, on the books since 1968 and reaffirmed by the Women of Unifarm in 1977, was to allow unincorporated farmers and small businesspeople to deduct wages paid to a spouse when calculating taxes and to ensure that the spouse qualified for Canada Pension Plan benefits. The resolution went from Unifarm to the Western Agricultural Conference and then to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to be presented to the federal government.The proposal was eventually accepted by the tax department in 1980. Under the tax provision, the employer registered the spouse as an employee, deducted the proper tax from the salary, and filed a T4 information slip and Canada Pension Plan payments. Pension legislation was not exempt from Unifarm’s attention.A proposal to allow retiring farmers to shelter part of their capital gains for pension purposes was discussed at regional policy meetings in the fall of 1983 and made its way to the convention floor. From there, it went to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and then to the federal government. The 1984 federal budget responded with a partial tax shelter scheme, allowing retiring farmers who sold their farms to roll over capital gains into an RRSP. Unifarm and its economist Elmer Allen can also take a great deal of the credit for the $500,000 lifetime capital gains tax exemption for every taxpayer announced by the new Progressive Conservative finance minister, Michael Wilson, in his May 1985 budget. Unifarm used its position as a general farm organization to lobby for a reduction in input costs to all farmers. Rather than advocating for grain farmers or cattle producers, Unifarm called on governments to accept responsibility for lowering the costs of fertilizer by lowering the high taxes and royalties on natural gas used in its manufacture. Since 12 Unifarm

News Release, December 29, 1983.

281



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

petroleum products made up at least twenty-five percent of all farmers’ input costs, Unifarm urged the federal government to reduce taxes or, if that could not be done, to refund the excise taxes applied to gasoline and diesel fuel in recognition of the importance of petroleum products in agricultural production. The March 1985 issue of Unifarm Trends provided a summary of the impressive activities and accomplishments of the Unifarm organization in areas such as the volume cap established under the Western Grain Transportation Act, the effects of alternative methods of paying the “Crow Benefit,” hail and crop insurance, feed grain marketing, land use, and taxation. This issue, published on lighter paper than any of its predecessors, was the second last issue before it ended as a separate publication and was included in Alberta Farm and Ranch, a magazine published six times a year and distributed to all members of the United Farmers of Alberta Co-operative Ltd. Unifarm membership had fallen to about 4,300 in spite of valiant efforts during the most recent membership campaign.Another blow was the announcement at the 1986 convention that Unifarm could not honour its 1985 financial commitment to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the organization that allowed Unifarm to be a major player on the federal landscape. Unifarm’s membership in the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA) was a time-honoured and significant part of the process of developing national agricultural policy and then informing politicians, business groups, and consumers of ongoing issues. As a general farm organization, Unifarm was a credible representative to the CFA because it reflected all aspects of agriculture rather than the important but narrow13 interests represented by individual commodity groups. Beginning in the depression and war years in the 1930s and 1940s, the CFA had served as the national voice for agriculture. Because of its respect for the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the federal government acted on many of the policy resolutions that came up through the provincial organizations and the western and eastern conferences before becoming part of the CFA brief to the federal cabinet. The process of developing national policy was not without conflict because the democratic process was not always kind to policy resolutions 13 Some

Unifarm members would say “narrow-minded” interests because individual commodity groups did not consider how their actions affected agriculture as a whole.

282



CHAPTER FIFTEEN: CHANGING TIMES

Pansy Molen

Elmer Allen

Willow Webb

Wilf Plosz

Ivan Weleschuk

Audrey Panek




FUA and Unifarm Staff 283



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

Margaret Minchau

Jim McFall

Rick Ure

Minnie Reich

Olia Patan

284

Helmut Entrup FUA and Unifarm Staff

 CARROL JAQUES 



CHAPTER FIFTEEN: CHANGING TIMES




that addressed specific, local issues. Delegates who carried resolutions to the Western Agricultural Conference and then the Canadian Federation of Agriculture were often frustrated when their policies were altered to address the larger agricultural picture. CFA annual meetings rotated from province to province, giving delegates the opportunity to talk to other agricultural producers and visit them on their farms and around their kitchen tables. Many delegates marvelled at how their attitudes changed when they learned more about operations in other provinces, but it was often difficult to bring those ideas back to their local area, where many farmers accused them of “selling out” or “watering down” policy resolutions. Given the importance of this policy development process, it is no wonder that Unifarm was devastated by the financial problems that caused it to reduce its commitment to the CFA. The cost of Unifarm’s membership and travel on CFA business exceeded $110,000 per year. Because of the expense, Unifarm sent only eight rather than the full fifteen delegates to the 1983 Canadian Federation of Agriculture annual meeting. Using a little ingenuity, UFA Co-operative Ltd. observers to CFA annual meetings who were also members of Unifarm acted as Unifarm delegates. In this way, Unifarm continued to be the Alberta producers’ voice at the federal level in the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. It was a worried Stan Bell who stepped down as president of Unifarm at the January 1987 annual convention after serving since 1983. He had assumed the presidency the year after the Cattle Commission walked out, taking its substantial membership and large financial contribution to Unifarm’s budget. It was difficult to run an organization with considerable financial problems while at the same time dealing with challenges from outside forces, but the loyalty and dedication of the Unifarm staff provided the stability to weather the storm. Executive director Wilf Plosz, research economist Elmer Allen, secretary to the board Willow Webb,14 operations manager Ron Smith and his wife Frankie, as well as office staff Margaret Minchau, Minnie Reich, Audrey Panek, and parttime staff Olia Patan and Joe Marshall cared deeply about the organization. It was more than a job for all of them, and they put in countless hours of overtime and sleepless nights to make sure the work was done. 14 In

a cruel twist, much loved former Unifarm corporate secretary Willow Webb passed away in Edmonton just as delegates were gathering at the WRAP convention in Red Deer in January 2000.

285



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

In his farewell speech, Stan Bell referred frankly to the political climate that impacted on his struggle to hold Unifarm together. After the Alberta Progressive Conservative win in 1971, the Conservative government had been re-elected by majorities in 1975, 1979 and 1982, which left only six, then five, and then four seats held by opposition parties. Given this situation, Unifarm was sometimes perceived to be the farmers’ parliament in opposition to the government. Stan found it to be a very uncomfortable position. He welcomed the results of the 1986 election that returned sixteen NDP members, four Liberals, and two Independents. He hoped this would relieve the pressure on Unifarm to be the watchdog for rural issues.15 As far as many Unifarm members were concerned, the damage had been done. It was as though Unifarm was being punished for taking on the opposition role that had been thrust upon it. Unifarm found itself scrambling to compete with government-funded organizations for loyalty and financial support.There were serious questions to be asked about whether government-funded organizations acted at arms length or as arms of the agriculture department that funded them. Was the role of the Extension Branch of Alberta Agriculture being turned into an extension of the political aspirations of the Progressive Conservative government? Many Unifarm members also wondered if the philosophy within the provincial Department of Agriculture was having an effect on government actions. This philosophy seemed to run counter to the basic Unifarm philosophy of co-operation and support for marketing boards and the Canadian Wheat Board. It appeared to many Unifarm members that the problems they encountered had as much to do with political involvement that heightened divisions between farm organizations as with their own actions. Stan Bell was profoundly disappointed that he had not been able to rebuild the organization to its former glory. The size 12 boots he had threatened to use if Unifarm memberships did not increase were no match for the social, economic, and political forces that marched through his tenure on the Unifarm board, beginning as membership chair in 1976 and ending when he stepped down as president in 1987. In spite of its financial problems and declining membership, Unifarm continued to represent thousands through its member groups. It was a professional, respected, research-oriented organization, but times had changed. 15 Stan

Bell, “President’s Report,” Seventeenth Unifarm Annual Convention Programme, January 12–15, 1987.

286



CHAPTER FIFTEEN: CHANGING TIMES




All his working life a farmer took the benefits won for him by the union but he refused to become a member.Then on his deathbed he told his wife:“Darling, please do something for me. I want the union members in our local to be my pallbearers.” “But you never belonged to the union,” his wife objected. “Why do you want the members to be your pallbearers?” “Honey,” he replied,“they’ve carried me this far; they might as well carry me the rest of the way.” Well-known joke:The Organized Farmer, January 1960: 13.

287

CHAPTER SIXTEEN




WHAT TO DO?

U

nifarm had to face the reality that there were fewer people in the farming community to purchase memberships and get involved in a general farm organization. Affluence and apathy also played their part. Times were good, although nearly 300 Alberta farmers left the land in the five years between 1981 and 1986.1 It was easy to believe that individuals were responsible for their own success and for them to become apathetic about the organizations that had protected them when times were bad.The pendulum was swinging away from co-operative philosophy, which served as the bedrock of organizations like Unifarm, to a philosophy of individualism that encouraged risk-taking and a great deal of competition in a changing agricultural industry that had very little in common with the family farm. In the face of these changes, Unifarm persevered. Selling memberships continued to be a heartbreaking, never-ending problem.Along with countless others, Eileen and Hartmann Nagel in the north and Rita and Ken Graumanns in the south sold memberships during yearly campaigns, only to find that people did not renew memberships unless someone came to call and stopped for a visit. In an increasingly busy world, who had the time? Ralph Jespersen took over the presidency of Unifarm in 1987, serving with vice-presidents Hartmann Nagel of Woking and Jack Swainson of Red Deer. Jespersen had not sought to be president, but when Stan Bell announced that he was definitely not planning to run again, he stepped in. Realizing the importance of maintaining and increasing membership, Jespersen and the rest of the executive personally canvassed for memberships with a member from the area.The effort was very successful, proving that they just needed to get people out to sell memberships. During Jespersen’s tenure as president, Unifarm hired salespeople to increase membership—which was successful, until those memberships lapsed. 1

Census farm units decreased from 58,056 in 1981 to 57,777 in 1986. Statistics Canada, Agriculture Division, Historical Overview of Canadian Agriculture, 38.

289



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

As president of Unifarm, Ralph Jespersen became very aware that the relentless national and international debt spiral was having an effect on more and more farmers during the 1980s. The Canada Farm Debt Review Act, passed in early 1986 and based on suggestions from Unifarm, established provincial Farm Debt Review Boards. Under this federal legislation, indebted farmers reviewed their situation with a financial consultant and met with Farm Debt Review Board members and specialists as well as representatives of all significant creditors, including the Farm Credit Corporation. As a result of this extensive

RALPH JESPERSEN

R

alph Jespersen’s father Andrew Jespersen arrived as a fifteenyear-old from Denmark in 1892 and later moved with his wife to an area west of Edmonton in 1903. In 1945, Ralph joined his father in what began as a mixed farming operation but which Ralph and his wife Bernice eventually turned into a large and successful dairy operation. Ralph was very involved in agriculture research to improve the business of dairy farming. Ralph Jespersen Ralph Jespersen’s commitment to his community led him into politics as the Social Credit member of the legislative assembly for Stony Plain from 1967 to 1971. During his time as an MLA, he promoted the formation of the Dairy Control Board. He served on the board of the Alberta Milk Producers and, knowing that increased consumption of milk meant increased income for dairy producers, served as member and president of the Alberta Dairymen’s promotion committee.When he was president of the promotion committee, he convinced his colleagues to fund a $2 million advertising campaign that increased milk consumption in Alberta to the highest per capita in Canada. At the national level, Ralph Jespersen was a member of the board, vicepresident, and president of the Dairy Bureau of Canada.

290



CHAPTER SIXTEEN: WHAT TO DO?




process, the Debt Review Board made a recommendation either to reduce the debt load with the agreement of the lenders so the farm operation could continue or to wind up the farming operation. If the farm could not be rescued, training and relocation grants were made available to the farm family. Unifarm used its formidable resources to help farmers in southern Alberta who suffered in the late 1980s when the sugar beet market almost ceased to exist, the wheat crop dried up, and producers were pressured, unfairly some felt, to meet loan commitments with the Agriculture

Ralph Jespersen was a member of the Unifarm board of directors representing the commodity side of the umbrella organization from 1977 to 1990, becoming vice-president in 1980 and president from 1987 to 1990. In his capacity as a member of the Unifarm executive, he served on the board of directors of the Rural Education and Development Association (REDA) and as board chair from 1983 to 1986. He was a member the Canadian Federation of Agriculture board of directors, executive committee and, after he stepped down as Unifarm president, became president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.As president of the CFA, he was a member of the executive of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers, becoming the official host for the general meeting of the International Federation in Quebec City in 1991. Provincial Progressive Conservative Minister of Municipal Affairs Ray Speaker appointed Ralph Jespersen to the Minister’s Council on Local Initiatives in the late 1980s. He was inducted into the Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame in 1995. Ralph Jespersen’s communication skills and his ability to deal with people were important assets during his life of service to the community and the agricultural industry. He is very proud of his agricultural heritage and believes that the agriculture industry has a responsibility to produce food of high quality efficiently and in a way that sustains the environment. He also believes that agricultural producers have the right and the responsibility to make their farming operations productive and profitable to ensure everyone a decent standard of living. Jespersen believes in the importance of education and of working together to contribute to the larger community and to all members of that community. His contributions at the local, provincial, national, and international level are manifestations of that belief. 291



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Development Corporation. Knowing very well that they could not intervene in the business relationship, President Ralph Jespersen and VicePresident Hartmann Nagel travelled from farm to farm in southern Alberta to establish lines of communication between sugar beet farmers and the Agriculture Development Corporation about to call their loans. Unifarm worked with the Sugar Beet Growers to circulate petitions and persuade the federal government to provide some assistance until the market improved. Sugar beet producers such as Walter Boras of Iron Springs were impressed by the energy and sincerity shown by Unifarm executive and staff who travelled south to support one of the smaller commodity groups. During a time of very low grain prices and an escalation of the trade war between Europe and the United States in the late 1980s, Unifarm President Ralph Jespersen organized a meeting in Saskatoon of all prairie farm groups to discuss the problem and make recommendations. Groups from the three prairie provinces, including the Western Canadian Wheat Growers’ Association and the Western Barley Growers’ Association, accepted Unifarm’s invitation and, in spite of their different ideologies, worked to develop a program that a majority of the organizations could support. Then, instead of “speaking with one voice,” each organization was able to speak for itself while reinforcing the common message. As a result of this effort, the federal government responded with a two-year program for the grain sector, the Special Canadian Grains Program, which put nearly $2 billion into the prairie farm economy. At the 1988 convention, President Ralph Jespersen was able to report that the Unifarm budget was balanced, with the costs of day-today expenses and building operations being matched by revenues for membership fees and for services provided by the office for affiliated organizations. The Unifarm staff had been reduced through attrition during the year.A major factor in the balanced budget occurred the previous year when the Canadian Federation of Agriculture forgave the $205,733 debt owed by Unifarm for membership in the federation and accepted a $50,000 payment for 1986 membership rather than the assessed fee of $105,418. In 1989, the federal Conservative agriculture minister Don Mazankowski, released a discussion paper entitled “Growing Together.” It was the beginning of a comprehensive study that would have an impact on the whole agricultural sector, necessitating a broad response from agricultural organizations across the country. The paper addressed 292



CHAPTER SIXTEEN: WHAT TO DO?




the pressures on agriculture as a result of the new Free Trade Agreement with the United States and the ongoing discussions on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). It also dealt with the special interest groups that were beginning to highlight environmental issues, food safety, and animal rights, necessitating a response from agricultural producers to explain and defend themselves from unfair and unsubstantiated attacks. Powerful general farm organizations in central Canada, funded by provincial check-offs, co-ordinated all lobbying for provincial agriculture groups and the response to “Growing Together.” For example, Quebec producers who sold more than $3,000 worth of product were required to contribute to the L’Union des Producteurs Agricoles through a flat membership fee per member and a check-off on commodities sold, averaging about $250 per year for each producer. Ontario also had a powerful and well-funded general farm organization, while specific interests would be represented by the well-funded commodity groups. Prairie interests and inter-commodity interests were left to the volunteer general farm organizations in the west. Manitoba’s general farm organization had barely survived the “Crow Rate” wars and was now embodied in the fledgling Keystone Agricultural Producers, while the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture had dissolved. Unifarm, supported by about 4,000 volunteer members prepared to pay $100 per year, would be expected to respond in its typical professional way to the widespread study of Canadian agriculture. For twenty years, the most respected and well-known agricultural organization in the province had struggled to support itself financially by going door-todoor selling memberships to farmers.With these hard-won memberships and matching support from member organizations, Unifarm carried on its business and reacted to studies such as this one. Even members of the provincial Agriculture and Rural Affairs Caucus Committee indicated that they realized this was difficult and inadequate, compared with funds available to general farm organizations in some other provinces.2 To prepare for its responsibilities, Unifarm launched another comprehensive province-wide membership campaign through D.H. Ness and Associates. The campaign began in November 1989 in the Grande Prairie and Peace River area and was to end in April 1990. Unifarm paid 2

“Report of the Board of Directors,” Nineteenth Unifarm Annual Convention Programme, January 9–12, 1989: 11.

293



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

a substantial monthly fee for D.H. Ness and Associates to conduct the campaign and recruit local sales representatives who were paid a commission on sales by Unifarm. Unfortunately, there were serious disagreements about how the campaign was conducted, so the agreement was cancelled early in the campaign. By September, a new membership coordinator, Doug Folk, was hired by Unifarm to continue the interrupted membership drive. For this campaign, a package of benefits that included discounts on goods and services was included for new and renewing members. Potential members were reminded that Unifarm continued to pursue policy changes that benefited not just members but all Alberta producers. In addition to the Special Canadian Grains Programs initiated by Unifarm President Ralph Jespersen, important fuel and fertilizer savings programs had come about because of the efforts of Unifarm.3 In 1990, Unifarm campaigned for compensation for losses resulting from the trade embargo with Iraq, Canada’s fourth largest grain customer. In spite of the credible work being done by the organization, Doug Folk reported that although one membership representative recorded a fifty-five percent success rate and another recorded seventy percent success, the average rate of Unifarm memberships sold or renewed compared to the number of attempts averaged only thirty percent. During these membership campaigns, Unifarm suspended any attempt to establish a universal funding scheme, the elusive check-off promised at the time of amalgamation. Preliminary efforts to implement a check-off had landed the organization in hot water because, in talking about universal funding for Unifarm, a few members of the media had provoked some producers to react negatively to the suggestion. When the universal financing scheme was re-launched, Unifarm attempted to persuade producer organizations, individual producers, and government that since benefits were available to all agricultural producers, the cost of achieving those benefits should be shared by all.The most popular suggested method for collecting a universal fee was through a one-half cent a litre assessment on farm fuels because the other suggestion, a one-tenth 3

294

The 1991 provincial budget changed the Farm Fuel Distribution Allowance and the Fertilizer Price Protection Plan. Farm diesel and gasoline fuel would cost two and three cents a litre more as a result of the budget, while the Fertilizer Price Protection Program would end at the end of 1991. Part of the estimated savings of $70 million would be put toward the provincial government’s $49 million share of the cost of the new Gross Revenue Insurance Program (GRIP). “Provincial Input Support Cuts Confirmed in Budget,” Unifarm Trends, April/May 1991: 2.



CHAPTER SIXTEEN: WHAT TO DO?




of one percent levy on all sales of agriculture products, was much more cumbersome. A committee was struck to explain the need for universal financing, and members were encouraged to convince MLAs of the importance of an organization like Unifarm. Unifarm President Ralph Jespersen and other executive members discussed the issue on an ongoing basis with cabinet ministers and members of the agriculture and rural affairs caucus committee, but the government was not receptive to the idea unless Unifarm could prove its case with a large membership.

Unifarm members continued to devote countless hours to the organization: Ninety-two-year-old Carl Anderson of Bassano sent his regrets when he was unable to attend the Region 13 annual meeting in Medicine Hat on November 20, 1990—because he had to attend an Irrigation Projects Association meeting that day in Lethbridge. Carl Anderson joined the United Farmers of Alberta in 1920 and became a life member of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta, which was honoured by Unifarm in 1970. In spite of that, he paid his $100 membership fee in appreciation of the good work done by Unifarm over the years. Unifarm Trends, December 1990: 4

After an absence of about five years, Unifarm Trends was published and mailed to Unifarm members in 1990. Trends also reached most rural Albertans in Alberta Farm and Ranch magazine. There was a renewed sense of optimism as Ralph Jespersen ended his four-year term at the end of 1990. Unifarm worked harmoniously with commodity groups on various issues and committees. In recognition of the esteem in which Unifarm was held, Ralph Jespersen was asked to serve on committees such as the Round Table on Environment and the Economy as well as the Minister’s Council on Local Development. Unifarm board of directors member Ron Leonhardt of Drumheller represented Unifarm on the federally appointed Review Committee on Transportation in 1990, part of Don Mazankowski’s “Growing Together” initiative. There was a changing of the guard at the 1991 convention when Ralph Jespersen stepped down as president. In a contested election, Hartmann Nagel took over, defeating John Rebus of Stony Plain. As a 295



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

result of a constitutional amendment passed at the convention, Nagel was elected for a two-year term. First Vice-President Jack Swainson was acclaimed for a third term, and Ron Leonhardt was elected second vicepresident. In its first meeting with provincial Agriculture Minister Ernie Isley and Associate Minister Shirley McClellan, the new Unifarm executive was informed again that the universal farm financing proposal would not be accepted unless Unifarm could prove majority support from farmers. Agriculture news in the early 1990s revolved around the federal government’s safety net program, the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan (GRIP) and the Net Income Stabilization Account (NISA), which grew out of Don Mazankowski’s “Growing Together” initiative. These programs were proposed in an attempt to insure against crop losses and low prices and to eliminate the need for ad hoc assistance programs. Unifarm followed up on its participation in the early “Growing Together” consultations with suggestions for improvements in the programs as GRIP and NISA were developed.The Alberta government agreed to participate in GRIP, but when it put off signing the agreement to make NISA available to Alberta farmers, President Hartmann Nagel stepped in and asked the Alberta government to stop dragging its feet. After a great deal of pressure from Unifarm members who wrote letters and phoned MLAs, the provincial government finally signed the agreement to participate in NISA in late 1991. In further recognition of the stature of Unifarm, Second Vice-President Ron Leonhardt was appointed to a two-year term on the National Grain and Oilseeds Committee. Leonhardt continued to serve on the committee monitoring equity in GRIP across Canada, reviewing its operations, and recommending design or policy changes until the plan was phased out. Nineteen ninety-one was another year of upheaval in the agriculture sector. In his “President’s Corner” article in the April/May 1991 Unifarm Trends, Hartmann Nagel commented that the realized net farm income for Alberta producers of all commodities was projected to be $186 million—one-fifth of what it was three years previously.This situation, caused partly by the European/United States trade war and the loss of Iraq as a market for grain, resulted in spontaneous and sporadic protest meetings to call attention to the plight of Alberta farmers. The meetings did draw attention, but as Nagel pointed out, Unifarm was already working to solve some of the problems. Unifarm and other members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, having convinced the government that there was some 296



CHAPTER SIXTEEN: WHAT TO DO?




urgency, were given the responsibility of determining how much assistance was needed.The government eventually pledged $700 million to the grains and oilseeds sector in Canada, less than the $1.3 billion recommended ($1.1 billion for western farmers).4 The money was needed quickly, so many meetings and conference calls were held to work out arrangements to deliver the assistance.The process worked because Unifarm spent all its time and financial resources working to ensure that it did. Hartmann Nagel was growing increasingly alarmed at Unifarm’s declining membership and diminishing resources. The Alberta Canola Growers’Association did not renew its membership in 1991, nor did the Pembina UFA Co-operative, a founding member of Unifarm. Comments from some commodity organizations indicated that many felt overwhelmed on the convention floor and questioned Unifarm’s process of establishing policy. In another development, the Soft Wheat Growers focused attention on a problem that had simmered in the background and was now being talked about more openly: at their annual convention, the Soft Spring Wheat Growers voted against a motion to join Unifarm because they believed Unifarm was controlled by two organizations, the Alberta Wheat Pool and UFA Co-operative Ltd. In addition to these concerns, Hartmann Nagel continued to be haunted by the conflict between Unifarm and the Alberta Cattle Commission at the 1982 convention, caused, he believed, by an inflexible application of the Unifarm rules of procedure. He wanted these rules clarified so if there was no agreement, Unifarm admitted that its members could not agree and the issue could be shelved. During the 1992 convention, delegates voted to change the rules of procedure to eliminate the opportunity to challenge policy positions of another commodity group on the floor of the convention. Instead of a challenge on the convention floor, any controversial policy would be discussed by the policy development and resolution committee. If the controversy was not resolved, the matter could be referred to the Unifarm provincial council. Discussion of the “umbrella” concept at the 1992 convention provided Unifarm President Hartmann Nagel with an opportunity to unleash a brave new plan to develop more co-operation in the agricultural community. Nagel forced Unifarm members to think about the nature of their “umbrella” organization. Was Unifarm a true umbrella, with commodity groups sheltering under it, giving up space and position in order 4

Hartmann Nagel, “President’s Corner,” Unifarm Trends, November 1991: 1–2.

297



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

HARTMANN NAGEL

H

artmann Nagel’s father arrived in the La Glace area of the Peace River Country from Germany in 1930, relatively late in the history of the area when only heavily wooded land was still available for homesteading. In spite of this, his father and mother were able to clear ten acres of large aspen trees, plant a few oat crops, and build a small herd of cattle and a flock of chickens. According to Hartmann, the real heroes of the time were the women Hartmann Nagel who worked so hard and then gave birth with the help of a midwife summoned by riding the trusty saddle horse to a neighbouring farm. Hartmann was born in the log cabin on the homestead and as a five-year-old moved with his family to the Woking area where there was a school for the three Nagel children. There were other fellow countrymen in the Woking area, but school was still difficult for the little boy who spoke only German during the 1940s. Hartmann attended the Vermilion School of Agriculture and was profoundly influenced by his experiences there. Students who attended schools of agriculture were expected to become leaders in their communities, and they were trained accordingly. Hartmann took his education seriously and became Vermilion School of Agriculture student council president in 1959–60. He returned to farming with his wife Eileen, another student at the Vermilion School of Agriculture, and was soon

to stay there? This concept also came with the danger that, if a group felt uncomfortable, it had to leave. Another way of thinking about Unifarm was to describe it as a “forum” where individuals and organizations came together to discuss issues of concern, more like a flock of birds than a mother hen and her chicks. Nagel discussed his idea of changing Unifarm into a different type of organization with many Unifarm members as well as with Unifarm 298



CHAPTER SIXTEEN: WHAT TO DO?




involved in FUA local activities, becoming sub-district director and district chairman and then Unifarm Region 1 director in 1976. After doing yeoman service in the all-encompassing transportation debate in the late 1970s, Hartmann took a few years away from Unifarm activities during a crucial time for his farm and family. He returned to the fray when he became Unifarm vice-president in 1987 and president for two years beginning in 1990. Hartmann Nagel represented Unifarm on the board of directors of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. He also represented Alberta farmers as one of three farmer representatives from the prairies on the 1991 federal transportation committee. During his term as Unifarm president, Nagel lobbied the Alberta government to participate in the NISA program and promoted and helped the agriculture community understand and take part in the GRIP program. During intense trade discussions in the early 1990s, Nagel was part of a team that successfully built understanding between the supply-managed sector and other sectors of agriculture to present a balanced position to GATT negotiators. Nagel considers his greatest achievement to be the establishment of an Agricultural Round Table to counter the fragmentation caused by the growth of commodity-specific groups that do not represent the concerns of the whole agriculture community. Alarmed by groups financed through government-approved check-offs that seemed to advocate a philosophy of driving individualism without concern for others, Nagel worked to establish a forum where producers could talk and listen to each other.The Agricultural Forum still gathers to discuss issues of concern to Alberta producers. In 1995, Hartmann Nagel was appointed by the Governor General in Council to the office of assistant commissioner for the Canadian Grain Commission for Alberta and British Columbia.

Executive Director Wilf Plosz. Many Unifarm officials read and commented on the document Hartmann Nagel wrote outlining his plans. Nagel speaks fondly of an afternoon spent with Wilf Plosz in his office going over every possible angle and scenario. They were there so long that the staff began to wonder if they had done each other in. During the conversation, Nagel and Plosz tried every possible way to talk themselves out of the idea of a new type of organization, but they could not. 299



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

A new format was needed. As wonderful an organization as Unifarm was, it was not seen as the organization to do the job that commodity and special interest groups wanted done. At their 1992 convention, Unifarm members agreed to explore Hartmann Nagel’s new idea—an agricultural round table or forum.The first and second vice-presidents of Unifarm, Jack Swainson and Ron Leonhardt, headed up two committees to assess organizational and direct membership interest. One complication surfaced at the planning meetings for the “round table.” Ron Leonhardt’s direct membership committee had to fight to be considered part of the round table process because many commodity groups expressed concern about the role of direct members in an association of commodity groups. With President Hartmann Nagel supporting the inclusion of direct members in a round table, it was eventually decided that Leonhardt would represent the direct member committee as a separate group within the forum. The tone of the first meeting could best be described as “wary.” Everyone sat around a huge “round table” in a meeting room at the Chateau Airport in Calgary, with Unifarm as the facilitator for the first meeting.Terry Bocock served as chair, fielding questions regarding financing, structure, policy development, meeting format, and membership. During the afternoon, each group was given an opportunity to state where it fit into the concept. Representatives of the Alberta Cattle Commission indicated that they could see no difference between the forum and the existing Unifarm organization, which had not worked for them in the past. Most other groups felt there was merit in pursuing the idea as long as the issues of structure, financing, and membership could be solved.The Alberta Pulse Growers’ Commission indicated that they were supportive of a general farm lobby group because of the example Unifarm had set when it assisted the Pulse Growers in the past. Commodity organizations with small, localized memberships, such as the Southern Alberta Sheep Breeders’ Association and the Alberta Sugar Beet Growers Marketing Board, benefited from membership in a provincial organization. On the other hand, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers’ Association was less enamoured with the idea of co-operating with Unifarm in the forum. Meetings to set up an agricultural forum were held throughout 1992 with about twenty-five producer groups in attendance. A decision was made to go forward, in an unstructured way, for one year to try to build consensus on industry issues. All participants at the meetings agreed that under the “round table” concept, no formal voting procedure would be 300



CHAPTER SIXTEEN: WHAT TO DO?




used. If strong consensus was achieved and all members agreed, a representative would speak for the forum. However, if no consensus appeared likely, this would be readily acknowledged and each group would be free to pursue its own objectives. At the third meeting in 1992, a new Agricultural Forum Steering Committee was established to take the place of the Unifarm officials who had started the process. Unifarm stepped back to become one member of the group.The new committee included John Kolk from the Alberta Chicken Producers Marketing Board, Fred Van Ingen of the Alberta Cattle Commission, Henry Schmiemann from Agrifoods International (formerly Northern Alberta Dairy Pools and Central Alberta Dairy Pools), Neil Silver from the Alberta Wheat Pool, Tom Jackson of the Alberta Pulse Growers’ Association, Roy Jensen from the Alberta Irrigation Projects Association, and Ron Leonhardt representing Unifarm direct members. Ron Leonhardt was chosen by the group to chair the committee. Unifarm Secretary Shirley Dyck provided thorough and professional secretarial support for the group—not an easy task given the freewheeling rambling nature of the meetings. With this new structure, Hartmann Nagel’s Agricultural Forum was launched to provide a place where Alberta farmers could come together to discuss issues close to their hearts. The agricultural community, always aware that it had more power if it “spoke with one voice,” was still trying to find a way to reach consensus. If this could not be accomplished through Unifarm, maybe the Agricultural Forum could accomplish the dream that had resulted in the formation of Unifarm nearly a quarter of a century before. After a busy and productive two years, Unifarm President Hartmann Nagel announced that he would not seek re-election for another twoyear term. Under his presidency, Unifarm had monitored developments in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations and the North American Free Trade Agreement, become directly involved in the development and fine-tuning of GRIP and NISA, successfully promoted amendments to the Environment Protection and Enhancement Act, and called for reinstatement of a cash advance program, including the interest-free status of the first $50,000. Nagel served on federal Agriculture Minister Bill McKnight’s ad hoc committee to fine-tune a plan to deal with the ongoing issue of transportation payments. Hartmann Nagel was succeeded in 1993 by Roy Jensen of Shaughnessy, a relative newcomer to the Unifarm provincial organization. 301



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Jensen was appointed to the Unifarm board of directors to represent the Alberta Irrigation Projects Association in 1990, the year after it joined Unifarm. Jensen set out to ensure that all farmers realized their responsibility for maintaining Unifarm as the voice of agriculture in the province. By the time he took over the presidency, 3,000 dues-paying members, out of 57,245 farm units5 in the province, supported an organization that was still consulted on a regular basis by government and the media. Jensen encouraged members to sell more memberships so Unifarm could attain the elusive goal of satisfying the provincial government that it represented most farmers, which would prompt it to implement a universal financing scheme. Roy Jensen was joined on the Unifarm executive by First Vice-President Ron Leonhardt and Second Vice-President Alan Holt of Bashaw in uncontested elections. When federal Progressive Conservative Agriculture Minister Charlie Mayer announced a change in the system to market barley into the United States in the spring of 1993, Unifarm joined individual producers in criticizing the dictatorial way the decision was made.The creation of a continental barley market without holding a plebiscite on the issue violated an important principle of widespread consultation. Roy Jensen of Unifarm and Jack Wilkinson, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, expressed concern that marketing systems designed by Canadian producers could be arbitrarily weakened by the Canadian government. Canadian producers were not the only ones concerned about international sales and the opening up of a continental barley market. The Montana Farmers’ Union fear that this was the beginning of lower prices for all was typical of the reaction from United States farmers that could only harm trade in the long run. Roy Jensen was exposed to the unreasonable anger of Montana farmers when he attended a hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives in Great Falls, Montana.6 In an attempt to diffuse the situation, Unifarm organized a symposium in Lethbridge in July 1993 to assure United States farmers that Canadian farmers were not unfair trading partners. Interested farm groups, government, and trade representatives attended the Canada-U.S. grain trade symposium. Farmers on both sides of the border learned a great deal, 5 6

302

Statistics Canada, Agriculture Division, “Historical Overview of Canadian Agriculture,” 38. New Unifarm President Roy Jensen remembers feeling a little “green” at this hearing because, while he was an expert in irrigation issues, he was not as well versed in grain issues.



CHAPTER SIXTEEN: WHAT TO DO?




but it was recognized that it would be difficult to convince some United States senators, who had their own political reasons for holding their views. In the meantime, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, joined by Alberta Pool, took Ottawa to court over the government’s decision to pass an order-in-council to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act in an area where only Parliament had the right to make such amendments. When the federal court agreed with the pools and overturned Ottawa’s decision to open up the continental barley market, Unifarm continued to suggest that the issue should be decided in a plebiscite. Alberta’s new provincial minister of agriculture, Walter Paszkowski, appointed after the provincial election of 1993, welcomed Unifarm President Roy Jensen as his first official delegation. Not only did the provincial government show its respect for Unifarm through this meeting, but Paszkowski also complimented Unifarm on the meeting that Jensen had organized in Lethbridge. Former federal Progressive Conservative Agriculture Minister John Wise also paid tribute to Unifarm. In a speech in Edmonton, he said that whenever federal government officials needed information on agricultural issues, they pulled the Unifarm file from the library because it was the most dependable and showed the most common sense. The work done by Unifarm executive and board members as well as by Elmer Allen and Wilf Plosz was respected in all sectors of Canadian government and business. After the federal election of 1993 brought Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government to power, other international issues intruded into Canadian agricultural policy. The signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement and GATT forced policy makers to make changes to GRIP and NISA as well as the Western Grain Transportation Act to remove any hint that these could be construed as export subsidies. Unifarm Vice-President Ron Leonhardt represented Alberta producers on the National Safety Nets Consultation Committee that recommended “a new policy to promote long-term viability and competitiveness of the agricultural industry through a system of income stabilization/support programs designed to ensure that a producer can manage the risks associated with a family farm operation, while allowing adjustment to continually changing market conditions.” 7 Opinions varied across the country from those who preferred a needs-based approach to the Canadian Cattle Association who did not wish to participate in an 7

“Safety Nets Update,” Unifarm Trends, June 1994: 8.

303



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

ROY JENSEN

R

oy Jensen was raised on an irrigation farm near Shaughnessy, twelve miles (19 km) north of Lethbridge. He lived in the house where he was born until he sold the property at the age of sixty-five and moved to a farm in the Delburne area. Jensen was a member of FUA Newlands Local and served as local president during the discussions that led to the formation of Unifarm. He was on the board of directors of the Lethbridge Roy Jensen Northern Irrigation District beginning in 1967 and served as chair from 1978 to 1993. In 1971, he joined the board of directors of the Alberta Irrigation Projects Association, an association of Alberta’s thirteen irrigation districts and served as chair for five years in the late 1980s. He was an appointed member of the Environment Council of Alberta Public Advisory Committee and an advisory board member of the University of Lethbridge Water Resource Research Institute. Roy Jensen was highly involved in the Oldman River Dam project and fought for its construction to aid irrigation farmers in southern Alberta.As one of the main proponents, he prepared and presented briefs and papers to conferences on water management and environmental issues. During the summer of 1991, Jensen organized an impressive tour of the Oldman River Dam site and a number of agricultural operations in the Lethbridge Northern Irrigation District for the Unifarm council.

income safety net program. Eventually, the national committee reached a compromise, which was endorsed by federal Liberal Agriculture Minister Ralph Goodale. President Roy Jensen worked with a coalition of Alberta farm groups attempting to advise provincial Agriculture Minister Walter Paszkowski. Unifarm also took a firm stand in defence of Alberta sugar 304



CHAPTER SIXTEEN: WHAT TO DO?




His involvement in the Alberta Irrigation Projects Association led him into leadership roles with Unifarm, becoming a Unifarm council member and chair of the Water Resource Management Committee in 1989. He was on the Unifarm board of directors representing the Irrigation Projects Association, becoming Unifarm president in 1993 and serving for two years. As president, he was thrown into a trade dispute with American farmers who were upset by increases in exports of Canadian grain to northwestern states. In June 1993, he testified before a hearing of the United States House of Representatives agriculture subcommittee on general farm commodities, the only Canadian to respond to the invitation. Roy Jensen then hosted a Canada–United States grain trade symposium to discuss the growing conflict with Montana branches of U.S. national farm organizations, government representatives, and trade experts in Lethbridge in the summer of 1993.While participants learned a great deal, everyone realized that it would be difficult to pass on the information to U.S. senators who, with an election in the near future, had their own political reasons for attacking Canadian farmers. Roy Jensen stepped down as Unifarm president at the end of two years. It was an extremely busy time for Roy and for his wife, who accepted some major family responsibilities. He would leave the farm near Shaughnessy early Monday morning and not return until Friday, often after midnight. He had worked hard to try to provide some assured funding for Unifarm, but could not convince the Progressive Conservative government that the agriculture community would benefit from a well-funded umbrella organization to speak on common issues on behalf of all farmers.

beet farmers in 1993–94 when the United States reduced the amount of raw sugar Canada could export there. Canada only produces ten percent of the sugar it consumes, so it was important to support those producers who depended on exports to ensure that Canadian consumers were not entirely at the mercy of world sugar traders. In a heartbreaking move at its 1993 annual meeting, the Alberta 305



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Wheat Pool voted to discontinue its corporate membership in Unifarm. The Alberta Wheat Pool, a backbone of Unifarm, was often accused of having too much influence in the development of Unifarm policy.8 Alberta Wheat Pool delegates indicated that, while they supported the work of Unifarm, they preferred that Unifarm base its strength on support from individual memberships. Alberta Wheat Pool promised to encourage individual Pool members to buy Unifarm memberships, but because of financial concerns of its own, stopped financing it from organization revenues.The loss of the Alberta Wheat Pool’s 1993 assessment of $150,000 was a devastating blow to the struggling umbrella organization that still believed it had so much to offer. The first step in dealing with the $150,000 reduction in revenue was to talk to staff about taking a minimum ten percent salary reduction with a fifteen percent reduction for middle wage earners and twenty percent reduction for those who earned top wages. The staff agreed. The next step was a radical one—create something to take the place of the familiar Unifarm. The 1994 annual convention instructed the board of directors to continue the discussion of a new structure to rejuvenate general farm organization in Alberta, a discussion that had been ongoing during the early 1990s. Everything was examined in 1994—the purpose of Unifarm as well as a structure and a system that would accomplish that purpose. After planning and conducting sixteen meetings with members and other organizations with a legitimate interest in agriculture—meetings observed by representatives of the provincial government—Unifarm put together a report to the minister. The report stressed the importance of the research done by Unifarm and the importance of adequate funding to enable that research to continue so organizations did not pursue activities based on misconceptions and false assumptions. President Roy Jensen commented during his final president’s address that in 1994 Unifarm represented ten organizations and commodity groups and over 2,000 individual producers who voluntarily purchased memberships. Jensen had put all his effort and energy into promoting issues important to the farming community and in pursuing the elusive goal of some kind of assured universal funding for the organization. Early 8

306

The Alberta Wheat Pool was a democratic organization that included delegates and members with differing ideas on how to deal with the pressing concerns of the late 1980s and the 1990s. Some of them did not support membership in Unifarm.



CHAPTER SIXTEEN: WHAT TO DO?




in his presidency, Jensen had been hopeful that the new premier, Ralph Klein, would follow through on a comment he made at the 1993 Unifarm convention indicating his belief that a strong general farm organization could help the government make better decisions. In spite of the good relations he had with Klein, Jensen noticed that within six months the premier was no longer talking about the benefits of a general farm organization and had retreated from any initiative to implement a universal funding system. Jensen recommended that if some agreement could not be made for representation and financial support from all producers, a plebiscite should be held on the format for a new general farm organization. In spite of Roy Jensen’s hard work and his success in keeping the organization together, he was disappointed that he had not been able to ensure some level of guaranteed funding before he stepped down as president after two years in office. Ron Leonhardt of Drumheller was proud to accept the presidency of Unifarm at the 1995 annual convention, and the organization was fortunate to be guided by his steady hand. Alan Holt of Bashaw and Barry Marshall of Edgerton were acclaimed as first vice-president and second vice-president.The 1995 Unifarm annual convention discussed plans for a new organization based on the study and the meetings in 1994, but first delegates soundly defeated a resolution from Region 10 to dissolve. Rather than giving up, loyal individual members and commodity groups vowed to be part of the process of creating a new organization to take its place. Everything was put on the table—mandate, structure, funding, name, and anything else that would continue the movement for change. John Chalifoux from Thorhild was pleased to report to the Alberta Turkey Growers Marketing Board9 that the Unifarm convention was determined to continue some form of general farm organization to deal with issues common to all agricultural producers. Unifarm’s inability to pay its $60,000 membership to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture for eighteen months resulted in Unifarm being granted reduced representation at the federal organizational level. They were given twelve months to change the situation.Too many Alberta farmers did not realize the role Unifarm played in taking Alberta agricultural issues to the national stage through the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Serious discussions to restructure Unifarm into a new general farm organization and to get it funded through a small refundable levy or 9

The Alberta Turkey Growers Marketing Board joined Unifarm in 1993.

307



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

RON LEONHARDT

R

on Leonhardt’s grandparents were descended from Germans who had moved to Russia during the eighteenth century and who, along with four sons and two daughters, emigrated to Chicago in the early twentieth century. News of land available in the Canadian northwest enticed them to the Drumheller area in 1908–09 where they and their four sons took up adjoining homesteads two miles Ron Leonhardt northeast of town. The brothers pooled their production and were able to ship the first carload of wheat out of Drumheller. Later Ron’s father Alex moved to the present location seven miles (11.2 km) northeast of town. After attending a one-room country school and then graduating from Drumheller High School, Ron went farming with his father. He was a member of the Drumheller 4-H Grain Club and in 1952 and again in 1953, he won the World Wheat Championship at the Toronto Royal Winter Fair. It was quite an occasion for a nineteen-year old western farmer to fly to Toronto in 1952 and to be interviewed on Toronto television, a medium not yet available in the west. In 1960, he and Helen Howard were married. Helen was a district home economist in Olds and cousin of Jack Howard, who was active in the Alberta Surface Rights Federation.

surcharge from all producers continued under Ron Leonhardt’s leadership. In response to the provincial government’s request to ensure the support of commodity groups before changing the structure and implementing a system of universal funding, Unifarm made a presentation to the Alberta Agricultural Forum, the organization launched by Unifarm, and waited to receive approval. The Agricultural Forum unanimously agreed with the concept, and in lieu of suggestions for a structure from the Forum, Unifarm drafted a proposal for a new name, structure, and 308



CHAPTER SIXTEEN: WHAT TO DO?




Leonhardt attended meetings of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta local in the area and accompanied some of the older farmers to his first FUA convention. He admired these men who had helped to organize the Alberta Wheat Pool, the rural telephone system, the rural electrification areas, and local co-operatives. Following in their footsteps, Ron continued his involvement with 4-H as a club leader while Helen became involved as a sewing instructor. Leonhardt was president of the Drumheller Agricultural Society, a member of the Farming for the Future Regional Review Committee, and chair of the Agricultural Development Committee in the County of Starland. He represented the producers of Alberta on three national committees: the Senior Grain Transportation Committee and the National Gross Revenue Insurance Plan Committee for five years and the National Safety Net Committee for two years. Within the Unifarm organization, he served as chair of the subdistrict, alternate regional director, and the director for Region 11. As a member of the Unifarm board, Leonhardt was chair of the grains committee and active on the crop insurance and transportation committees as well as serving for twelve years as director of the Western Grain Research Foundation. He was on the executive of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture for two years where he chaired the CFA safety net committee. He was elected second vice-president of Unifarm in 1991, first vicepresident in 1993, and president in 1995.While recognizing the importance of commodity groups, Leonhardt was a supporter of a general farm organization to deal with issues that affect all producers—safety nets, insurance programs, rural taxation, and environmental issues. He was proud to be elected chair of the steering committee of the newly formed Agricultural Forum from 1992 to 1995 and proud to be the first president of Wild Rose Agricultural Producers.

constitution for presentation to the provincial government Standing Policy Committee on Agriculture. During the meeting with provincial MLAs, Unifarm President Ron Leonhardt, First and Second Vice-Presidents Alan Holt and Barry Marshall, and new Executive Director Joe Woytowich10 heard questions 10

Long-time Executive Director Wilf Plosz retired from Unifarm after twenty-nine years on March 31, 1995, and was replaced by Joe Woytowich. In a sad turn of events,Wilf died very suddenly only nine months later.

309



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

and responses that were reminiscent of other requests for assured funding. Gary Severtson, Progressive Conservative MLA for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake stated that his constituents were opposed to an additional farm check-off, while Jon Havelock, PC MLA for Calgary Shaw wondered why anyone should be forced to belong to a club they did not support. When reminded that other commodity groups were funded through a check-off, the MLA commented that maybe they should never have been given a check-off in the first place and Unifarm should not expect it just because other groups had it.11 At the end of the hearing, Agriculture Minister Walter Paszkowski asked Unifarm to go back to the producer groups and return to the committee when it could show substantial support for the idea of a check-off and could identify specific objections so the government could assess their validity. In spite of support from many groups and producers, some were opposed to supporting a new general farm organization through a check-off.These groups privately made their opposition known to the minister and effectively prevented the establishment of a universal funding scheme. Disregarding this disheartening news, a proposal for a new organization called Wild Rose Agricultural Producers was announced in December 1995. The restructuring committee, led by Ron Leonhardt and the Unifarm executive, spent the year holding meetings around the province to listen to suggestions and concerns from loyal Unifarm members.12 The committee took everything apart, evaluated it, and put it back together into an organization based solely on direct member support. It was an incredible amount of work. If they wanted to change the name, and there was some debate about whether it should be changed, it would have to be done through the legislature since Unifarm had been established by government statute. Ron Leonhardt had worked through many controversies in Unifarm and in other organizations, but he had never experienced the emotion that was part of this issue.The decisions that had to be made caused him many sleepless nights. Were they doing the right thing? Did they have any choice? Should they retain the old familiar name or find a new one? 11

Paul McLoughlin, “Unifarm seeks assured funding from government,” Unifarm Trends, September 1995: 4. 12 Gordon Blanchard, Hermann Schwenk, and others were very helpful in pointing out important details that were being missed.

310



CHAPTER SIXTEEN: WHAT TO DO?




Leonhardt’s generation of agricultural producers had a big responsibility in deciding the fate of a long-established organization, but change was inevitable. Plans were made to dissolve Unifarm and change the legislation to facilitate the formation of a new organization. All Alberta producers were invited to attend the last Unifarm annual convention in Edmonton in January 1996 to launch a new organization to address the concerns and protect the rights of Alberta farmers.There was a great deal of apprehension as a large crowd of over two hundred delegates gathered to make the final decision on a new direction for Unifarm.To the relief of those who had contributed so much, there was overwhelming support for the fifteen motions that had to be passed to make Wild Rose Agricultural Producers a reality. The new organization, Wild Rose Agricultural Producers, held its first annual convention in January 1997. It provides a meeting place for individual agricultural producers of all types from all areas—barley growers, wheat growers, cattle and hog producers, canola growers, and pulse farmers. The new organization is leaner and more focused, but more pro-active when dealing with provincial and national farming issues. As a direct membership organization, Wild Rose Agricultural Producers returned to its own humble roots in individual farm and ranch houses across the province.

311

EPILOGUE




WILD ROSE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS

D

elegates to the Wild Rose Agricultural Producers annual convention gathered in January 2001 to celebrate five years of accomplishment. Neil Wagstaff of Elnora, who had succeeded Alan Holt of Bashaw as president the previous year, was in the chair.The organization built by Ron Leonhardt, Alan Holt, Executive Director Rod Scarlett, and its hardworking members continued to deal with issues of concern to the agricultural community. In January 2001, resolutions were passed to increase membership fees to $110 (plus GST), to ask the provincial government to reinstate the farm fertilizer rebate program and address the farm income crisis, and to encourage all interested parties involved in grain handling and transportation to quickly resolve their differences and introduce a system that encouraged competition, cost effectiveness, and improved service to maximize financial returns to producers.A resolution passed at the convention that Wild Rose Agricultural Producers lobby to have cattle sales included under the Net Income Stabilization Account (NISA) was in line with a request from the Alberta Cattle Commission. In his closing comments, President Neil Wagstaff summarized the ongoing problem faced by Wild Rose Agricultural Producers. The federal election held a few months previously in November 2000 had generated very little debate on agricultural issues, a reflection of the fact that only three or four of one hundred Canadian families is a farming family.1 This lack of attention prompted Wagstaff to remind delegates of the importance of a strong general farm organization to represent Alberta farmers facing many ongoing issues: the economic viability of many well-established and well-managed farms, conflicts with urban and industrial development over surface rights issues, international trade and environmental agreements, and the need to inform the nonfarming public about agricultural issues. In addition to these ongoing issues, unforeseen problems have a habit of surfacing. While there are 1

Statistics Canada, Canada Year Book (Ottawa: 1990), 9–1.

313



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

several commodity organizations in Alberta, many of the issues, whether ongoing or new, are not commodity-specific. In an age-old refrain, the president reminded the one hundred farmers who attended the 2001 convention that Wild Rose Agricultural Producers must “take a leadership role in getting the many farm groups in Alberta working together on issues on common concern.”2 Neil Wagstaff ’s comments reflected the comments made by Dean Lien3 about the role of a strong general farm organization at the previous annual convention. Lien came to the Wild Rose Agricultural Producers convention in January 2000 in his capacity as the farmers’ advocate, the position first established by the Farmers’ Union of Alberta as part of its member services office and originally filled by Helmut Entrup. Lien sounded the call for a strong general farm organization to represent broad agriculture issues in an era of narrow commodity interests and the reality that sixty-one percent of farm income in Alberta comes from off-farm jobs. The comments made by Lien and Wagstaff had the weight of history behind them, and all those who heard them understood what they were saying. When members of Wild Rose Agricultural Producers discuss an expanded general farm organization, they know it will not resemble the thirty-thousand-member organization that came into being thirty years earlier. Those days are gone, along with thousands of farm families and the economic clout of the agricultural sector,4 but members like to reminisce about the social experience of belonging to a local where neighbours came together to solve problems and formulate policy resolutions. Those resolutions were debated at the district and regional level and defended on the convention floor. They remember taking a week to attend annual conventions where they listened to outstanding orators who argued passionately for fairness and equity for agricultural producers. Everyone considers it a great privilege to have served with the fine people who became leaders in farm organizations. 2

314

Neil Wagstaff, “President’s Closing Comments from 2001 Convention:The Future of Wild Rose Agricultural Producers (Where Do We Go From Here)” Wild Rose News, Winter 2001: 7. 3 As a young Junior Farmers’ Union of Alberta delegate to the FUA 1958 convention, Lien was responsible for moving the resolution that led to the establishment of Goldeye Camp. 4 The national gross domestic product originating in agriculture was 17.2 percent in 1926 and three percent in 1976: F.H. Leacy, ed., Historical Statistics of Canada: Second Edition (Statistics Canada and the Social Science Federation of Canada 1983), Section M1.



EPILOGUE: WILD ROSE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS




Everyone remembers buying insurance from Co-op Fire and Casualty/CIS/The Co-operators, and no one has quite forgiven those responsible for cancelling the insurance pooling system in 1978, one of the tangible benefits of membership in farm organization. And absolutely everyone remembers selling memberships—going from farm to farm, explaining over and over the benefits of belonging to Unifarm.The organization with its fine reputation for services and in-depth research was left to depend on the willingness of a diminishing pool of volunteers to take part in membership drives that brought in the money to pay for it all. Any discussion of the story of farmers’ organizations always turns to the role of other groups and associations in the decline in membership and power of Unifarm. Many successful agricultural organizations grew up with the encouragement and co-operation of the overarching umbrella organization and then competed for the resources necessary for keeping the organizations going. Marketing boards and commissions, commodity organizations, REDA, rural electrification associations, gas co-operatives, and surface rights associations were all nurtured by many of the same people who also belonged to the umbrella group. As valuable and necessary as these organizations were, many people began to concentrate on narrow, commodity-based issues or special interests rather than on the welfare of everyone in the agricultural community. Many members of that community have their own suspicions that some commodity associations did not develop on their own, but were encouraged by individuals inside and outside government who had an interest in weakening the general agricultural community for the benefit of some individual pursuits. Some feel that there has been an erosion— or a deliberate undermining—of the will to co-operate because there is an advantage to others to not have the community working together. Whether it is deliberate or not, the pendulum has definitely swung away from the philosophy of the collective and the willingness to sacrifice individual rights for the common good.The discipline that made it possible to establish prairie wheat pools and force successive reluctant governments to pass legislation establishing a monopoly wheat marketing board has deteriorated. Many individual farmers, forgetting the past, take their chances with large foreign grain companies and kick at the traces of the monopoly Canadian Wheat Board. No conversation about farm organization is complete without a reference to the unfortunate incident when Unifarm and the Alberta Cattle Commission went their separate ways nearly two decades ago. 315



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Many remember in their own way what they were doing, what others did and said, and how they felt on that momentous day in January 1982 when rock-hard positions ruled. The tragedy was that all sides seemed to be coming together, however slowly, to work through the morass and complexities of the debate on how to pay for transporting agricultural products. Wild Rose Agricultural Producers finds itself embroiled in yet another transportation debate, representing Alberta farmers in the discussion on Justice Willard Estey’s Report on Grain Handling and Transportation Reform facilitated by Arthur Kroeger.5 Whether delegates to the Wild Rose Agricultural Producers convention in January 2000 agreed with the Kroeger Report or not, they were filled with praise for Executive Director Rod Scarlett and Wild Rose representative Gordon Smillie of Bassano who made time and financial sacrifices to be part of the process. Once again, Alberta’s general farm organization provided competent and professional participation in a national issue that must be resolved by hammering out the best compromise possible. And once again,Alberta’s general farm organization is having trouble maintaining the memberships that finance its operations. In a reprise of the old story, other sectors of the economy have managed to maintain and strengthen the associations and loyalties that determine worker and professional salaries, the cost of most of products, and even the international price of oil. Closer to home, commodity organizations are wellfinanced by government-legislated check-offs that support the specific interests of each individual commodity, sometimes to the detriment of other producers. But the torch handed from Henry Wise Wood and his contemporaries to the presidents of the FUA and Unifarm continued to be held high by the three Wild Rose Agricultural Producers presidents, Ron Leonhardt, Alan Holt, and Neil Wagstaff, who served their organization in its first five years. President Neil Wagstaff is assisted by the 2001 executive Keith Degenhardt of Hughenden and Adam Campbell of Rosalind. New regional directors have come forward in several of the regions, and the organization is taking on important issues that confront agriculture in Alberta. The loyal and hard-working members of Wild 5

316

Arthur Kroeger of Consort attended the University of Alberta, eventually settling in Ottawa where he held positions with the Treasury Board and as the deputy minister of several government departments. His latest involvement in the transportation issue was as the facilitator for the 1999 grain handling and transportation reform discussions.



EPILOGUE: WILD ROSE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS




Rose know that as long as they are there, agricultural policy will be developed independently by producers in their local communities, not by government departments at the whim of some political philosophy.

317




SOURCES

T

his book on the history of Unifarm was commissioned because of the paucity of popular literature on agriculture history and the lack of information on ongoing agricultural issues. It could be considered as a sequel to Norman Priestley and Edward Swindlehurst’s Furrows, Faith and Fellowship (1967), which was sponsored by the Alberta Agricultural Centennial Committee, a committee organized by the Alberta Federation of Agriculture. Furrows, Faith and Fellowship covers the development of Alberta farmers’ organizations including the United Farmers of Alberta, Alberta Farmers’ Union, Alberta Federation of Agriculture, and the Farmers’ Union of Alberta up to 1966. The history of the early farm movement in Alberta is also told by William Kirby Rolph in his 1950 study Henry Wise Wood of Alberta. Other literature on western agricultural issues includes Tides in the West:A Wheat Pool History (1962) by Leonard Nesbit and A Century of Canadian Grain: Government Policy to 1951 (1978) by Charles F.Wilson. Books that provide background information on the history of Alberta and the Canadian west include James G. MacGregor’s A History of Alberta (1972), Gerald Friesen’s The Canadian Prairies (1987), and Howard and Tamara Palmer’s Alberta: A New History (1990). A great deal of the information for this book comes from poring over the newspapers published by the Farmers’ Union of Alberta and Unifarm. The Organized Farmer was published by the Farmers’ Union as a monthly or bi-monthly newspaper until Unifarm was formed and began publishing Farm Trends. The Farmers’ Union of Alberta and Unifarm convention programmes provided another valuable source of information.The most important information on ongoing activities and events in the story of Unifarm came from the people who were involved. I interviewed about forty former members and interested observers and thoroughly enjoyed every minute I spent with them. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them all for graciously agreeing to talk to me and answer my questions. Information on the association between the Farmers’ Union of Alberta and Co-op Fire and Casualty, later known as Co-operative 319



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Insurance Services and then The Co-operators, comes from The Organized Farmer and Farm Trends as well as from letters and documents held in The Co-operators archives in Guelph, Ontario. A book by Andrew O. Hebb, Management by Majority (Guelph, Ontario: The Cooperators Group Ltd., 1993) covers the early days of co-operative insurance in Ontario. Information on the development and activities of marketing boards is available in a series of bulletins published by the Department of Rural Economy at the University of Alberta. The early history of marketing boards is covered in Leonard Poetschke and William MacKenzie, Development of Producer Marketing Boards in Canadian Agriculture (Edmonton: University of Alberta, 1957). Background for understanding the Crow’s Nest Rates Agreement—later the Statutory Rates—can be found in Charles Wilson’s A Century of Canadian Grain: Government Policy to 1951 and Allan Beattie’s The Crow’s Nest Pass Agreement: How it All Began. In the case of marketing boards and the debate over the Crow’s Nest or Statutory Rates, there is also information in farm organization publications, The Organized Farmer or Farm Trends.

320

BIBLIOGRAPHY PRIMARY SOURCES Manuscript Materials Canadian Federation of Agriculture - Its Organization and Policies. Mutual Press Limited. Ottawa. Co-op Fire and Casualty/Co-operative Insurance Services/The Co-operators. Letters and Reports.The Co-operators archives. Guelph, Ontario. Farmers’ Union and Development Association. Constitution and Annual Reports. Farmers’ Union of Alberta. Annual Convention Programmes. 1950–1969. — Constitution and By-Laws. — Press Releases and Letters. 1958–1969. Gordon, Harry. Personal Papers. Johnston, Louise. “The FWUA Citizenship Camp.” Personal Papers. Glenbow Archives. Calgary. Malm, Nelson. “Remarks to the UFA Co-op Annual Meeting.” Personal Papers, no date. Glenbow Archives. Calgary. Nagel, Eileen and Hartmann. “The Nagel Journal.” Personal Papers. Nelson, Edward. Scrapbook. Palliser Wheat Growers’ Association. Annual Convention Programmes. Glenbow Archives. Calgary. Sheppard, Rice. “Twenty-five Years in the Great North-West.” Personal Papers. 1922. Glenbow Archives. Calgary. 321



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Unifarm. Annual Convention Programmes. 1970–1996. — Press Releases and letters. 1970–1996. Newspapers and Journals Alberta Farm and Ranch. Calgary Herald. Calgary Sun. Daily Herald-Tribune, Grande Prairie. Edmonton Journal. Farm Trends, Edmonton. The Edmonton Bulletin. The Organized Farmer, Edmonton. The Western Producer, Saskatoon. Unifarm Trends, Edmonton. Wild Rose News, Edmonton. Interviews Allen, Elmer Babey, Paul Ballantyne, Bill Beattie, Allan Bell, Stan Berg, Sten Blanchard, Gordon Blanchard, Margaret Boras,Walter Brooks, Harvey Carney, Des Dyck, Shirley Gibbings, Katherine Gordon, Harry Halen, Roy Hawkins, Murray Howard, Jack Jacobs, Frank Jensen, Roy Jespersen, Ralph Johnston, Louise 322

Edmonton Ottawa Calgary Calgary Carstairs Ardrossan Bow Island Bow Island Lethbridge Edmonton Three Hills Edmonton Kelowna Hanna Calgary Edmonton Drumheller Calgary Delburne Stony Plain Calgary

 Lamble,Wayne Leonhardt, Ron Loov, Bill Macpherson, Allan Marshall, Joe Melicher, John Moulton, Gordon Nagel, Hartmann Nagel, Eileen Nahirniak,Tom Nikolaychuk, Mike Olson, Bud (Lt. Gov.) Osterman, Connie Page, Dick Parlby, Gerald Petersen, Alf Plank, Charlie Rude,Vera Schuler, Gerald Stringham, Richard Swihart, Ric Thurber,Tom Ure, Rick Webb,Willow Weleschuk, Ivan

BIBLIOGRAPHY




Edmonton Drumheller Bluffton Calgary Innisfail Edmonton Drumheller Woking Woking Round Hill Woking Edmonton Carstairs Didsbury Sherwood Park Edmonton Rimbey Sedalia Kelowna Edmonton Lethbridge Edmonton Delburne Edmonton Calgary

SECONDARY SOURCES Books Knuttila, Murray. “That Man Partridge,” E.A. Partridge, His Thoughts and Times. Regina: Canadian Plains Research Centre, University of Regina, 1994. Langford, Nanci L. Politics, Pitchforks, and Pickle Jars: 75 Years of Organized Farm Women in Alberta. Calgary: Detselig, 1997.

323



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Leacy, F.H., ed. Historical Statistics of Canada, Second Edition. Ottawa: Statistics Canada and the Social Science Federation of Canada, 1983. Macdonald, John. The History of the University of Alberta 1908–58. Toronto: University of Alberta, 1958. MacGregor, James G. A History of Alberta. Edmonton: Hurtig, 1972. Nesbitt, Leonard. Tides in the West: A Wheat Pool History. Saskatoon: Modern Press, 1962. Palmer, Howard, and Tamara Palmer. Alberta: A New History. Edmonton: Hurtig, 1990. Poetschke, Leonard, and William MacKenzie. Development of Producer Marketing Boards in Canadian Agriculture. Edmonton: University of Alberta, 1957. Priestley, Norman, and Edward Swindlehurst. Furrows, Faith and Fellowship. Edmonton: Co-op Press, 1967. Rolph,William Kirby. Henry Wise Wood of Alberta. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1950. Statistics Canada. Canada Year Book. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 1990. Wilson, Charles F. A Century of Canadian Grain: Government Policy to 1951. Saskatoon:Western Producer Prairie Books, 1978. Wood, David. The Lougheed Legacy. Toronto: Key Porter Books, 1985. Government Documents and other Official Bulletins Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. “Alberta Grain Commission: 25 Years of Service.” 1997. Alberta Transportation and Utilities, Strategic Planning Branch, Systems Planning, Railway Networks and Abandonments in Alberta. [by George Antonakis]. Edmonton, 1990. 324



BIBLIOGRAPHY




Beattie, Allan. “The Crow’s Nest Pass Agreement—How It All Began.” Alberta Wheat Pool Publication, 1978. Bercuson, David J., and Barry Cooper, “The Monopoly Buying Powers of the Canadian Wheat Board: A Brief History and Analysis.” Alberta Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. 1997. Canada, Canadian Grain Commission, Grain Deliveries at Prairie Points. Ottawa: 2000. Canada, The Commission on the costs of transporting grain by rail (microform): report, (by Carl Snavely) Ottawa: 1976. Canada, Grain Handling and Transportation Commission, Grain and rail in western Canada:The report of the grain handling and transportation commission. Chief Commissioner, Hon. Emmett M. Hall, Ottawa: Canada, Minister of Supply and Services, 1977. Hawkins, Murray H., Allan Warrack, and J.L Dawson. “Development and Operation of the Alberta Hog Producers Marketing Board.” University of Alberta, Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Bulletin 12, April 1971. Hawkins, Murray H., et al. “Development and Operation of the Alberta Hog Producers Marketing Board.” University of Alberta, Department of Rural Sociology Bulletin 12, April 1971. Rev. March 1977. Hawkins, Murray H., and N. Higginson. “Development and Operation of the Alberta Pork Producers Marketing Board.” Ed. E. J. Shapka. University of Alberta, Department of Rural Economy Bulletin 12, April 1971. Rev. Mar 1986. Statistics Canada, Agriculture Division. Historical Overview of Canadian Agriculture. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 1997.

325



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

 CARROL JAQUES 

Thompson, John Herd, “A Response to David J. Bercuson and Barry Cooper, ‘The Monopoly Buying Powers of the Canadian Wheat Board: A Brief History and Analysis.’”The University of Alberta. Submitted to Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. 1997. Transportation Agency of Saskatchewan. “Crow Rate and National Transportation Policy,” 1977. Periodicals Alberta Public Accounts. Alberta Legislature. Edmonton. Theses Embree, David. “The Rise of the United Farmers of Alberta.” M.A. dissertation, University of Alberta, 1956. Jaques, Carrol. “The UFA: A Social and Educational Movement.” M.A. dissertation, University of Calgary, 1991. Macintosh,William A. “The United Farmers of Alberta, 1909–1921.” M.A. dissertation, University of Calgary, 1971.

326

INDEX

A ACC. See Alberta Cattle Commission AFA. See Alberta Federation of Agriculture Agricore, 96, 114 Agricultural Forum, 170, 297–9, 300–1, 308–9 Agricultural Prices Support Board, 12, 185 Agricultural Products Marketing Act, 182–6, 191, 197;Western Stock Growers’ Association, 198 Agricultural Products Marketing Council, 127, 184, 186, 193–4, 196, 198, 218; marketing agricultural products, 210 Agricultural Rehabilitation Development Act (ARDA), 124–5 agricultural societies, xi, 1, 63, 114, 134, 273, 309 Agriculture, Department of (Alberta), 209; Agriculture Input Monitoring System, 75; Alberta Grain Commission, 211, 212; Farm Safety Branch, 167; farmers’ advocate, 95, 142; FU&CDA, 120; Goldeye Camp, 109; Progressive Conservative government, 209, 210, 248, 286 Agriculture Development Corporation, 279–80, 292

Agriculture Input Monitoring System, 75 Agrileader, 129–30, 267 Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame, 9, 31, 49, 50, 55, 79, 111, 142, 161, 162, 163, 165, 291, 299 Alberta Broiler Growers’ Association, 197–8, 244 Alberta Broiler Growers Marketing Board, 245, 275–76 Alberta Cattle Commission, 313, 315; Agricultural Forum, 300–1; Canadian Federation of Agriculture, 250–1; conflict with Unifarm policy, 250–8, 297; Des Carney, 257; Gilson Hearings, 258, 262; Gilson Report, 262; Harry Gordon, 202, 219; membership, 274; membership in Unifarm, 217–8, 237, 255; NFU, 274; origins, 199; REDA, 130; Roger Buxton, 257; Statutory Rates, 237–9, 253–5, 263; Unifarm, 207, 218, 273, 277; Unifarm membership discontinued, 274; Western Agricultural Conference, 250;Wild Rose Agricultural Producers, 313 Alberta Commercial Canning and Freezing Vegetable Crop Growers, 182 Alberta Co-operative Council, 10, 19 327



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

Alberta Co-operative Union, 120 Alberta Co-operative Wholesale, 83, 103, 120 Alberta Dehy Association, 278 Alberta Farm and Ranch, 276, 279, 282, 295 Alberta Farmers’ Association, 2–4, 118, 176 Alberta Farmers’ Union, 22; amalgamation with UFA, 13, 26; militancy, 14; origins, 12, 26; Rose Lynn Local, 55, 63; strike, 12–3; trip to Ottawa, 12 Alberta Federation of Agriculture, xi, 27–8, 33, 56, 185; amalgamation with FUA, 28–9, 33, 35, 41, 45–7, 49–55, 126; Cameron Nesbitt Platt Report, 33; cattle commission, 198; CFA, 42; egg marketing board, 180, 185; federal marketing boards, 200; FU&CDA, 117, 120–1; Goldeye Camp, 103, 114–5; hog marketing board, 188–91, 193; marketing boards, 180–1, 184, 207; motor vehicle insurance, 83–5; Nelson Malm, 33; opposition to FUA/NFU merger, 27; origins, 10, 19; policy resolutions, 19, 27; strike, 13; surface rights, 140; Western Agricultural Conference, 11 Alberta Federation of Gas Co-ops, 77 Alberta Grain Commission, 211–3, 215–6 Alberta Hog Producers Marketing Board, 79, 196, 202, 207, 217–8, 247; REDA, 108, 127 328

 CARROL JAQUES 

Alberta Honey Producers, 108, 207 Alberta Irrigation Projects Association, 149, 278, 301–2, 304–5 Alberta Livestock Co-operative, 28, 108, 120, 188, 192–3, 199 Alberta Pork Producers Marketing Board, 247, 273, 277; REDA, 133; Statutory Rates, 253 Alberta Rapeseed Growers’ Association, 207–9 Alberta Rural Development Studies (ARDS), 124–5, 127, 130 Alberta Rural Electrification Associations, 77 Alberta Safety Council, 88 Alberta Sugar Beet Growers Marketing Board, 108, 292, 300 Alberta Sugar Beet Growers’ Association, 119 Alberta Surface Rights Federation, 77, 149, 153–4, 156, 308 Alberta Turkey Growers Marketing Board, 198 Alberta Vegetable Marketing Board, 108, 207 Alberta Wheat Pool: AFA, 10, 28; Agricultural Forum, 301; Agrileader, 129–30; Alberta government, 211, 214; Banff School of Fine Arts leadership training, 118; continental barley market, 303; Farm Young Peoples’Week, 118; FU&CDA, 119–20; FUA conventions, 62; FUA memberships, 69; Gilson Hearings, 258, 261; Gilson Report, 261–2; Goldeye Camp, 103, 105, 108–9, 112, 114;

 motor vehicle insurance, 85, 95–6; Omar Broughton, 212; origins, 7, 9; Palliser Wheat Growers’ Association, 214; REDA, 130, 133; Statutory Rates, 224, 241, 253–4, 261, 263, 266–67; surface rights, 140; UFA, 9–10; Unifarm, 56, 207, 214, 297, 306 Alix Countrywomen’s Club, 161 Allen, Elmer, 38, 283, 285, 303; Statutory Rates, 229, 231, 239, 258, 264; tax policy, 281 Anderson, Clare, 28, 210 ARDA. See Agricultural Rehabilitation Development Act ARDS. See Alberta Rural Development Studies Armstrong, Ellen, 21, 23, 119, 162 Associated Country Women of the World, 162 Atkinson, Roy, 45–8, 53, 55

B Babey, Paul, x, 11, 30, 72; AFA, 49; Banff School of Fine Arts leadership training, 118; FUA, 30, 69; FUA president, 28, 36, 54, 70, 141; FUA vice-president, 30; FUA/AFA amalgamation, 29, 48, 50–5; Goldeye camp, 108; Hutterites, 143; marketing boards, 190, 201; Statutory Rates, 227; surface rights, 138–9; trip to China, 36–7; Unifarm president, 30, 56 Banff School of Fine Arts, 30, 100, 118–9, 131

INDEX




Barber Commission, 38 Barker, Mabel, 55, 112 Beattie, Allan, 9; Agrileader, 129; Alberta Wheat Pool, 9; Goldeye Camp, 112; Statutory Rates, 224–5, 239, 241, 261 Bell, Stan, 40, 268–9; membership campaigns, 80, 286; Statutory Rates, 263, 265, 269; surface rights, 148; UFA, 268; Unifarm president, 262, 269, 274–5, 279–80, 285–6 Bennett, R.B., 177 Bercuson, David, 178 Berg, Sten, 188–9, 194–5, 256, 258 Blanchard, Gordon, 52, 62, 274–5, 310; FUA/AFA amalgamation, 52, 55; membership drive, 278; Statutory Rates, 243, 251, 253, 258; Unifarm vice-president, 279 Blanchard, Margaret, 52–3, 168–9 Blue Cross, 41, 278 Blunden, Charles, 109 Board of Grain Commissioners, 7, 11, 37 Boltwood, Gordon, 103 Boras,Walter, 119, 292 Boutillier, Bob, 12 Boutillier, Herb, 11–2, 17 boycotts, 38–9, 46; FWUA, 163; NFU, 47; stop-buying boycott, 38, 40, 45–6;Western Hog Growers, 194–5 Boyd, James, 240 Bradley, Morley, 105 Braithwaite, Hazel, 26–7, 104, 107, 162 329



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

bricks, 21 British Columbia Broiler Growers Marketing Board, 197 Broughton, Omar, 212 Brownlee, John, 7–8 Buit, Jean, 109–10, 166–8, 272 Butz, Earl, 131 Buxton, Roger, 156, 257–8

C Calgary Co-op, 109, 114 Calgary Herald, 8, 261 Calgary Power, 140, 142, 146–7 Cameron Nesbitt Platt Report, 33–5, 45, 126, 163 Cameron Royal Commission, 162 Cameron, Donald, 29 Canada Farm Debt Review Act, 290 Canada Pension Plan, 281 Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), 156 Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, 200, 248 Canadian Chamber of Agriculture, 11, 42; Canadian Wheat Board, 178. See Canadian Federation of Agriculture Canadian Citizenship Branch, 107, 120 Canadian Co-operative Implements Ltd., 69, 105, 108 Canadian Council of Agriculture, 42 Canadian Federation of Agriculture, 302; ACC, 219; Canada Pension Plan, 281; Consumers Association of Canada, 203–4; Farm Credit Corporation, 280; Food Prices Review Board, 330

 CARROL JAQUES 

202–3; FUA/AFA amalgamation, 51; Gilson Report, 262; Jim Bentley, 33; meat packing business, 269; NFU, 26–8, 35, 46, 49; origins, 11, 19, 42, 178; policy resolutions, 19, 285; Statutory Rates, 230–1, 249–51, 256, 261; structure, 27, 43; tax policy, 281; Unifarm, 56, 277, 282, 285, 292, 296, 307;Women of Unifarm, 170 Canadian Grain Commission, 228, 236, 299. See also Board of Grain Commissioners Canadian National Railways, 230 Canadian Pacific Railway, 223–5, 227, 230, 234, 242 Canadian Wheat Board, 131, 178, 315; 1919 board, 7; Alberta government, 211, 213–4, 248; Alberta Grain Commission, 212; Canada/U.K. wheat agreement, 178; check-off, 73; continental barley market, 303; Gilson Report, 262; grain sales to China, 37; origins, 176–9; rapeseed, 208; Statutory Rates, 227, 230–1, 235, 240, 251, 259, 265; Unifarm, 231, 286 canola, 207, 209, 247, 259, 311 canola producers, 258–9 capital gains, 281 Carney, Bonnie, 75 Carney, Des, 255, 257 cattle producers, 19, 257, 274, 281; federal marketing legislation, 200-1; provincial marketing legislation, 181, 197; Statutory Rates, 230-1, 235, 249

 CCF. See Co-operative Commonwealth Federation Central Alberta Dairy Pool, 105, 120, 133 CFA. See Canadian Federation of Agriculture Channon, John, 211–2 check-off, 77, 79, 273, 293, 310; Alberta Cattle Commission, 274; FUA, 73; other organizations, 299, 316; other provinces, 293; Progressive Conservative MLAs, 310; Unifarm, 55–6, 72–3, 76, 276, 294-5 China, 36–7, 78 Chrétien, Jean, 261, 267, 303 Christiansen, Louise, 167, 169 Church, George, 105, 120 CIS, 90–1, 93–6, 315. See Co-operative Insurance Services Citizenship Camp, 107, 164 Clark, Bob, 213, 240 Clark, Joe, 103, 249, 252 Clover Bar Local, 104 Coal Association of Canada, 253 Commodity Alliance, 248, 251–2 Communal Properties Act, 143 compensatory rate, 248, 250–2, 259 Consumer and Corporate Affairs, 203, 253 Co-op Fire and Casualty, xi, 24, 84–90, 315; FUA, 95 Cooper, Barry, 178 Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, 17, 23, 179 Co-operative Insurance Services, xi, 90–1, 93–4; Goldeye Camp, 109; REDA, 108, 127

INDEX




Co-operative Life Insurance Company, 89 county teams, 122–3 CPR. See Canadian Pacific Railway Crow’s Nest Pass Agreement, 226; concessions, 235; Crow Benefit buy-out package, 267–8; FUA, 225; Gilson Report, 262; Grain Transportation Agency, 265; How it all Began, 224, 241; origins, 224–5; Palliser Wheat Growers’ Association, 251; pay the producers vs. pay the railways, 254, 256; REDA, 229; Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture, 293; Unifarm, 223, 234, 266

D Diefenbaker, John, 25, 103, 178 Doscher, Lillian, 123 Dowhaniuk, Kay. See Gibbings, Kay Dowhaniuk Dufour, Gerard, 56, 96 Dyck, Shirley, 171, 301

E Eastern Agricultural Conference, 42 Economic Council of Canada, 203–4 Edmonton Bulletin, 1, 4–5 Egg Marketing Board, 175, 180, 185-87; Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, 202-3, 278 elevators, xi, 11, 36, 106, 236; grain handling and transportation costs, 228–30, 236, 254; UFA, 5, 176; wheat pooling, 8 Entrup, Helmut, 95, 139, 142, 284; farmers’ advocate, 142, 149–50, 331



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

153; member services director, 139, 141, 314 Environment Conservation Authority, 31, 148 Estey,Willard: Report on Grain Handling and Transportation Reform, 316 Expropriation Act, 138, 141

F Falkenberg, Howard, 244–5; AFA executive, 49; Alberta Broiler Growers’ Association, 198; Alberta Cattle Commission, 255; Canadian Wheat Board, 214; end of insurance pooling, 94; Gilson Hearings, 258, 260; Goldeye Foundation, 114; marketing boards, 204, 244–5; Red Deer River dam study, 148; REDA, 133; Statutory Rates, 239, 250–1, 253, 255; Unifarm president, 262, 274; Western Feed Grain Council, 219 Farm Credit Corporation, 31, 279–80, 290 Farm Machinery Act, 40 Farm Trends, 75, 262, 273; Alberta Rapeseed Growers’ Association, 208; membership drives, 76; surface rights, 150–1, 153 Farm Women’s Union of Alberta, 49, 61, 164; FU&CDA, 120, 122; FUA/AFA amalgamation, 51, 159, 163; Goldeye Camp, 100, 103, 106–8, 114; Interprovincial Farm Union Council, 23; NFU, 26, 54; 332

 CARROL JAQUES 

UFA/AFU amalgamation, 162; Women of Unifarm, 160 Farm Young Peoples’ Week, 99, 118, 126 farmers’ advocate, 95, 142, 150–1, 153, 314 Farmers’ Day, 102 farmers’ parliament, 35, 62, 207, 216, 286 Farmers’ Union and Co-operative Development Association, 120–4; Alberta Federation of Agriculture, 121; Alberta Rural Development Studies, 124–5; county teams, 122–3; Doscher study, 123–4; Farm Young Peoples’ Week, 126; FUA, 105, 122; FUA/AFA amalgamation, 126; Goldeye Camp, 105, 126; origins, 24, 100, 117, 122; program delivery, 121–2; REDA, 108, 117, 126; surface rights, 139 Farmers’ Union of Alberta, x, xi 17, 28, 199, 314; amalgamation with AFA, 45, 47, 49, 52, 55; Blue Cross, 41; Crow’s Nest Pass Agreement, 225; Farm Young Peoples’ Week, 118; FU&CDA, 117, 120; Goldeye Camp, 99, 114; insurance pooling, 24; march on Ottawa, 45; marketing boards, 180, 184, 193, 199–200, 207; motor vehicle insurance, 83, 162; NFU, 27, 49–52, 54–5, 93; origins, 13–4; policy resolutions, 19, 27; structure, 61; trips to Ottawa, 19, 23, 25

 Federated Co-operatives Ltd.: FU&CDA, 120; FUA, 69; Goldeye Camp, 105, 109; REDA, 108, 127, 133; Statutory Rates, 263; The Co-operators, 96 Feed Freight Assistance Program, 236 financial problems (Unifarm), 274, 286, 297; CFA, 277, 282, 285, 292, 307; deficit, 275, 279; Gilson Hearings, 262; membership cancellations, 256, 274, 306; membership drives, 272, 278, 293; salary cuts, 306; structural changes, 276; Unifarm building, 273 five-part proposal, 239–43, 252 Flax Growers of Western Canada, 215 Food Prices Review Board, 202 Fraser, Allan, 154 Friesen, George, 18 FUA. See Farmers’ Union of Alberta FWUA. See Farm Women’s Union of Alberta

G Gardiner, James, 12, 177–8 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 267, 293, 301 general farm organization, 33, 35, 289, 307; check-off, 55, 76, 276–7, 293, 306, 310; commodity groups, 247; Dean Lien, 314; marketing boards, 189; Ontario, 293; UFA, 5–6; Unifarm, 209, 217, 261, 272, 281–2; value of, 207, 215, 275,

INDEX




307, 313; Wild Rose Agricultural Producers, 314, 316 Gibbings, Kay Dowhaniuk, 105, 108, 119, 122–5 Gibeau, Laura, 100, 104 Giebelhaus, Dan, 196 Gilson Hearings, 258–61 Gilson Report, 260–2 Gilson, Clay, 258, 261, 264 Gleave, Alf, 26, 45 Goerzen, Henry, 141 Goldeye Camp, xii, 103, 109, 112–4; FU&CDA, 126; fundraising, 101–2, 105; loan, 104; NFU, 47–8; REDA, 108; staff, 105, 108–10, 112; UFA Co-operative, 118 Goldeye Foundation, 111–2, 114, 130 Goldeye Lake, 24, 99, 102, 104; Farmers’ Day, 102; location, 100; provincial government, 100 Goodale, Ralph, 267, 304 Gordon, Harry, 61, 63, 214–5, 218; ACC, 199, 202, 219, 274; AFU local, 55, 63; Banff School of Fine Arts leadership training, 119; Unifarm, 58 Grain Handling and Transportation Study, 228–9 Grain Transportation Agency, 265, 267 Graumanns, Rita and Ken, 289 Greene, Joe, 45 GRIP. See Gross Revenue Insurance Plan Gross Revenue Insurance Plan, 296, 299, 301, 303, 309 Growing Together, 292–3, 295–6 333



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

H Halen, Roy, 84–5 Hall Commission, 223, 232–3, 236–7, 241, 247 Hall, Emmett, 223, 232, 262, 265 Hall, Gordon, 265 Hamilton, Frank, 37, 212 Harper, Bill, 21 Harrold, Gordon, 50 Harvie, Neil, 240 Hawkins, Murray, 127, 195, 210; Agricultural Products Marketing Council, 127; Alberta Rural Development Studies, 125; Goldeye Camp, 110; REDA, 131, 133 Hay, Mr. and Mrs. Herb, 112 Heidecker, Brian, 129–30, 255 Henderson, Lawrence, 139, 189 Hibbard, Howard, 137 hog producers, 188–90, 200, 207, 215, 311; marketing board, 189, 191–2, 196; marketing board plebiscite, 193–4; Statutory Rates, 237, 254; UFA, 5 Holt, Alan, 302, 307, 309, 313, 316 Hooke, Alf, 68, 102 Hoppins,Wilfred, 105–6 Horner, Hugh: Alberta Grain Commission, 211–2; Canadian Wheat Board, 211; check-off, 73; farmers’ advocate, 142; Grain Transportation Agency, 265; hog board, 218; minister of agriculture, 209, 248; minister of economic development, 248; minister of transportation, 232; surface rights, 141 Howard, Jack, 153, 156, 308 334

 CARROL JAQUES 

Hutterites, 143, 145 Huxley, 106

I insurance: agents, 85, 87; compulsory coverage, 92–3; cost, 83, 89–90, 92–3; dividend, 89, 92–3; end of insurance pooling, 94–5, 315; FUA membership, 24, 84, 87; government insurance, 83–4; hail, 5, 282; health, 40–1, 95; life, 89; losses, 92–3; motor vehicle, 24, 80, 83, 315; other companies, 87, 93–4; Roy Halen, 84, 87; safety education, 87; Unifarm membership, 95; wildlife, 63–4 insurance pooling, 24, 84, 94, 315 Interprovincial Farm Union Council, 19, 23, 26, 49

J Jacobsen, Norman, 240 Jasman, Paulina, 49, 54, 162–3 Jensen, Leda, 62, 165–7 Jespersen, Ralph, 66, 290–1, 295; Agriculture Development Corporation, 292; check-off, 295; Farm Debt Review Board, 290; MLA for Stony Plain, 66; Special Canadian Grains Program, 292; Statutory Rates, 255; Unifarm president, 289, 292, 294–5; Unifarm vice-president, 274, 279 Jevne, Jacquie, 111 Johnston, Louise, 37, 99, 107, 162–3 Junior FUA, 109; Alex McCalla, 25; Banff School of Fine Arts leadership training, 119; Dean Lien, 25;

 FUA, 160; fundraising, 101, 111; Goldeye Camp, 99–100, 104, 106, 114–5; Goldeye camp construction, 102, 104

K Kett,Verna, 170 King,William Lyon Mackenzie, 12 Klein, Ralph, 307 Klymchuk, Barbara, 168 Kotscherofski, Herb, 28 Kyeremanteng, Solomon, 167, 170

L Lamble,Wayne, 125, 129, 132, 134 Land Use Forum, 128–9, 131, 143–5, 155, 166 Landmen Licensing Act, 139 Lang, Otto, 227, 229, 231 Lea, Dobson, 78–9; AFA executive, 49; Alberta Grain Commission, 211–2; FUA, 50; FUA vicepresident, 49; Goldeye Foundation, 111, 114; grain marketing, 213; Hog Producers Marketing Board, 196; land use, 145, 147; marketing boards, 200–1, 203–4; motor vehicle insurance pool, 93; Oldman River Dam, 150; REDA, 133; Unifarm membership, 76; Unifarm president, 49, 72, 77–8, 128, 274; Unifarm vicepresident, 56 Legislative Select Caucus Committee on Surface Rights, 154 Leonhardt, Ron, 308; Agricultural Forum, 300–1; National Grain

INDEX




and Oilseeds Committee, 296; National Safety Nets Consultation Committee, 303; Review Committee on Transportation (1990), 295; Unifarm president, 307–8; Unifarm restructuring, 309–10; Unifarm vice-president, 296, 302;Wild Rose Agricultural Producers, 313, 316 Lethbridge: feed grain prices, 268; FUA office, 91; symposium, 302 Lethbridge Northern Irrigation District, 149, 304 Lien, Dean, 25–6, 99–100, 314; Banff School of Fine Arts leadership training, 119; Goldeye Camp, 109 Livingstone, Douglas, 129–30 locals, xi, 3, 314; AFA, 2; Allingham Local, 63; ARDS study group, 127; Blindman Local, 168; Blue Cross, 41; Clover Bar Local, 104; education and training, 118; FU&CDA, 24, 121; FUA, 13, 35, 50, 122, 309; Goldeye Camp, 100–1; history, 63; membership drives, 76; MSI, 40–1; Pine Hill Local, 103; policy development, 62–3, 281; Pollockville Women of Unifarm Local, 166; population decline, 71, 73, 170, 271; Rose Lynn Local, 63; structure, 61, 63; UFA, 11; UFC–Alberta Section, 11; Unifarm, 61; UFWA, 55 Loov, Bill, 96 Loree, George, 100, 112 Lougheed, Peter, 73, 143–4, 154, 209, 214, 253 335



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

Loveseth, Einar, 240 Lunty, Glenn, 18

M MacEwan, Grant, 108 MacPherson Commission, 162, 226 Macpherson, Allan, 56, 72, 254, 261, 263 Malm, Nelson, 33–4, 49–50, 56 Manderson, Dan, 87, 95, 256 Manderson, Olga, 166 Manitoba: Canadian Council of Agriculture, 42; marketing boards, 188–9, 191; NFU, 47; Palliser Wheat Growers’ Association, 214; Statutory Rates, 248, 262, 293;Western Agricultural Conference, 10 Manitoba Farm Bureau, 249, 262; Statutory Rates, 263;Western Agricultural Conference, 219 Manitoba Pool Elevators, 262; Gilson Hearings, 258; Gilson Report, 262 Manning, Ernest, 66; FUA memberships, 68; marketing boards, 184, 186, 191 Maricle, Frank, 18, 22–3, 30, 36 Marler, Roy, 180–1 Marr, Inga, 161, 165 Marshall, Barry, 265, 307, 309 Marshall, Joe, 138, 140–2, 154–6, 285 Mayer, Charlie, 265–7, 269, 302 Mazankowski, Don, 249, 252, 292, 295–6 McCalla, Alex, 25, 99–100, 102–3, 109, 112, 129 McFall, Jim, 50, 85, 120, 138, 284 McFarland, John I., 177 336

 CARROL JAQUES 

McGhan, Phyllis, 166 McIntosh, Ken, 38, 70 McKnight, Bill, 301 McNamara,William (Bill), 37 meat packing companies, 187 Medical Services (Alberta) Incorporated, 40–1, 95 Melicher, John, 105, 110, 112, 130, 132, 275 membership fees, 76, 274, 295, 313 membership numbers: FUA, 19, 64, 70; NFU, 47; Unifarm, 76, 167, 272, 276, 278;Women of Unifarm, 167 Molen, Pansy, 19, 64, 85, 185, 275, 283 Montana Farmers’ Union, 302 Moore, Marvin, 127, 147, 211, 213, 240 Moulton, Gordon, 153, 156 Mowat, Neil, 137 MSI. See Medical Services (Alberta) Incorporated Murray, James R., 177 Muza, Jack, 49–50, 109–10, 112–3 Myrnam, x, 11, 30, 176

N Nagel, Eileen, 242, 289 Nagel, Hartmann, 296, 298–9; Agricultural Forum, 297, 299–301; Agriculture Development Corporation, 292; FUA/AFA amalgamation, 52–3, 55; membership, 278, 289, 297; NFU, 54; NISA, 296; Statutory Rates, 240, 265; Unifarm president, 295, 301; Unifarm rules of procedure,

 297; Unifarm transportation committee, 242–3; Unifarm vice-president, 279, 289 Nahirniak,Tom, 149, 156 National Energy Board Act, 151 National Farm Products Marketing Act, 200–1 National Farm Products Marketing Council, 31, 201 National Farmers’ Union, xi, 28, 45–7, 57–8; ACC, 274; amalgamation with FUA (proposed), 27, 33, 48–9, 51–2, 55; CFA, 35; FUA, 46; FUA/AFA amalgamation, 54; Goldeye Camp, 47; insurance pooling, 93; marketing boards, 188, 218; membership, 58; new structure, 26–7, 49–50; origins, 26; Roy Atkinson, 47; Statutory Rates, 234, 258, 262–3; Unifarm, 61 National Policy, 3 National Products Marketing Act (1934), 179–80 National Transportation Act, 267 Nelson, Ed: FU&CDA, 117, 121–2; FUA president, 24, 26, 28, 66; FUA/AFA amalgamation, 55; Goldeye Camp, 104; hog marketing board, 189–90; insurance pooling, 84–5, 89; NFU, 27; trip to Ottawa, 25 Nelson,Walter, 215 Nesbitt, Leonard, 7, 29, 177–8 Net Income Stabilization Account, 296, 299, 301, 303, 313 New Democratic Party (NDP), 17, 24, 170, 286 NFU. See National Farmers’ Union

INDEX




Nichols,Tony, 153 Nikolaychuk, Mike, 58, 65, 139, 207 NISA. See Net Income Stabilization Account Nisbet,Tom, 99–100, 112 Nordegg, 100, 102 Northern Alberta Dairy Pool, 28, 105, 133

O Oldman River, 149–50, 304 Olsen, Elizabeth, 170–1 Olson, H.A. (Bud): marketing boards, 199, 200–1; surface rights, 151; Unifarm, 57 Ontario Farmers’ Union, 46 Ontario Federation of Agriculture, 46–7 Organized Farmer. See The Organized Farmer Osterman, Connie, 140–1, 154, 156, 253; MLA for Three Hills, 140, 253 Ottawa, 3; march on, 26, 45, 175; trips to, 23, 25

P Page, Dick, 191, 202; Allingham Local, 63; FUA executive, 49; Hog Producers Marketing Board, 195–6, 202, 218; marketing boards, 191; surface rights, 139, 141; Unifarm executive, 72 Palliser Wheat Growers’ Association: Alberta government, 215; and general farm organizations, 215, 247; Commodity Alliance, 248; Gilson Hearings, 258; origins, 212, 214; Statutory Rates, 248, 337



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

251, 259, 261;Western Barley Growers’ Association, 215. See also Western Canadian Wheat Growers’ Association Parker, Allan, 257 Parlby, Irene, 118, 161 Paszkowski,Walter, 303–4, 310 Patching, Harry, 240 Patrons of Industry, 1 Pedersen, Elizabeth (Betty), 113; Banff School of Fine Arts leadership training, 119; FWUA president, 162–3; FWUA vicepresident, 49; Unifarm, 56, 62; Women of Unifarm president, 160–1, 165 Pembina Co-op, 108, 297; Unifarm, 207 Pépin, Jean-Luc, 252–3, 258, 262, 264, 269 Petersen, Alf, 126, 132; Agrileader, 129; ARDS, 125; Unifarm task force (1976), 77; Unifarm task force (1983), 275 Physically Challenged Farmers of Alberta, 167 Pimm,William, 196 Plank, Charlie, 83, 87, 96 Platt, Arnold, 22, 24; Cameron Nesbitt Platt Report, 29, 33; FU&CDA, 24, 117, 119, 124; FUA president, 22–4, 28; FUA/AFA amalgamation, 55; Goldeye Camp, 99–100, 112; insurance pooling, 84, 88; land use forum, 128; Oldman River dam, 149; Special Advisory Committee on Communal Properties, 143; trip to Ottawa, 338

 CARROL JAQUES 

23; Unifarm task force, 77 Plosz,Wilf, 37, 283, 303, 309; Agricultural Forum, 299; NFU, 53; REDA, 133; Statutory Rates, 229; Unifarm, 275, 285 Plumptre, Beryl, 202–3 population, 3, 70; ageing, 278; Doscher report, 123; rural, 17, 20, 35, 73, 132, 271–2 Prentice, John, 240 Progressive Conservative government, 209, 213, 248, 286, 305 Provincial Alberta Protective Association (PAPA), 149 Public Utilities Board, 139 Pulse Growers’ Association, 277, 301

R radio: Alberta Wheat Pool, 85; ARDS, 127; FU&CDA, 120–1; FUA, 20–1; marketing boards, 182;Voice of Agriculture, 70–1 Ranger, Meta, vii, 112 rapeseed, 207–9, 225; Statutory Rates, 230, 237, 240, 248, 254, 259. See canola REDA. See Rural Education and Development Association Redman, Mildred, 137 Reed, Jean, 161 Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, 187, 191 right-of-way agreement, 150 Ross, John, 51, 62–64 Round Hill-Dodds, 146–7 Royal Commission on the Status of Women, 164, 166 Rude,Vera, 166–7, 275 Runciman, Mac, 241, 252

 Rural Education and Development Association, xii, 128, 131, 133–5; Agrileader, 129; ARDS, 127; Gerald Schuler, 132; Goldeye Camp, 108, 110–1, 113; Hog Producers Marketing Board, 127–8; John Melicher, 112, 132; land use forum, 128–9, 143; leadership development, 127, 133–4; Murray Hawkins, 131; origins, 108; Richard Stringham, 132; Royal Commission on the Status of Women, 164; Rural Development Forum, 131; seminars, 130–1; social action process, 132; Statutory Rates, 131, 229, 265; structure, 126; UFA Co-operative Ltd., 118; Unifarm, 132–3, 275-6; waste management plant location, 131;Women of Unifarm, 169; Worth Commission, 165 Russell, Dave, 148–9 Ruste, Henry, 73, 200 Sapiro, Aaron, 8

S Saskatchewan, 262; ACC, 250; Canadian Council of Agriculture, 42; government testing laboratory, 40; marketing boards, 188–91; NFU, 47, 49; Palliser Wheat Growers’ Association, 214; Statutory Rates, 248;Territorial Grain Growers Association, 2; UFC, 11;Western Agricultural Conference, 10

INDEX




Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture: ACC, 249; dissolution, 262, 293; Statutory Rates, 263;Western Agricultural Conference, 219 Saskatchewan Wheat Pool: continental barley market, 303; Gilson Hearings, 258; Gilson Report, 262; marketing boards, 188; Statutory Rates, 263; Western Agricultural Conference, 249 Sawatsky, Henry, 141 Sawiak, John, 36, 50 Scarlett, Rod, 313, 316 Schools of Agriculture, 24, 298–9; Goldeye, 103 Schuler, Gerald: Agrileader, 129–30; ARDS, 125; Banff School of Fine Arts leadership training, 119; FU&CDA, 105, 108, 120, 122–3; FUA/AFA amalgamation, 33, 126; Goldeye Camp, 101–5, 108–9, 112; REDA, 112, 132 Schwenk, Herman, 274 Sheppard, Rice, 2–3 Smillie, Gordon, 316 Smith, Allan, 240 Snavely Commission, 233, 235 social action process, 132 Social Credit government, 73, 180, 209, 245 Social Credit Member of Parliament, 23, 179 Society of Equity, xi, 1–2, 4, 104, 118, 176 Soft Spring Wheat Growers, 277, 297 339



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

Southern Alberta Sheep Breeders’ Association, 300 Special Advisory Committee on Communal Properties, 143 Special Canadian Grains Program, 292 Statutory Rates, xiii, 225; ACC, 237–8, 255–6; Alberta government, 248; CFA, 231; CPR, 234; Crow Benefit buy-out package, 268; feed grains, 235; five-part proposal, 240; Gilson Hearings, 258; Gilson Report, 264; Grain Handling and Transportation Study, 229; grain producers, 236, 238–40; Hall Commission (1977), 236–7; hog producers, 247; MacPherson Commission, 226; Otto Lang, 231; Palliser Wheat Growers’ Association, 248, 259; pay the producer vs. pay the railways, 254; Quebec, 261, 263; railways, 226–7, 230, 240, 242, 260; Roger Buxton, 258; Snavely Commission, 235; UGG, 276; Unifarm, 153, 233–4, 237, 252, 262; Unifarm rules of procedure, 255 Stimpfle, Carl, 12, 17, 21–2 strike, 11–3, 175–6 Stringham, Richard, 112, 132–3 Strom, Harry, 58, 184, 196 sugar beets, 291–2. See Alberta Sugar Beet Growers Marketing Board Surface Rights Act, 141, 154, 156 Surface Rights Association, xii, 149, 152–3 340

 CARROL JAQUES 

Surface Rights Board, 141, 145–6, 155 Swainson, Jack, 114, 129–30, 289, 296, 300 Swainson, Mr. and Mrs. Alfred, 103

T Taylor, Ivy, 21, 24, 84, 87, 89, 162 Territorial Grain Growers Association, 2, 176 The Co-operators, xi, 90, 96; Bill Loov, 96; contributions, 96; end of insurance pooling, 94; Goldeye, 114; REDA, 133; Unifarm, 95–6, 315; Unifarm memberships, 80, 95 The Organized Farmer, 20–1, 37, 65, 75; automobile safety, 88; farm safety, 68; FUA, 39, 70–1, 91; FUA/AFA amalgamation, 51–2; Goldeye Camp, 102; hog marketing, 195; insurance pooling, 85, 89–90; membership, 64–5, 69; surface rights, 137; Unifarm, 56;Women of Unifarm, 163 Tides in the West, 7–8, 177–8 Trans-Com, 232 Trautman, Florence, 170 Trudeau, Pierre, 200, 263, 269 Trynchy, Peter, 112 Turner, Edward (Ted) 261, 263 Tyrchniewicz, Ed, 266

U UFA. See United Farmers of Alberta UFA Co-op. See United Farmers of Alberta Co-operative UFC. See United Farmers of Canada

 UFWA. See United Farm Women of Alberta Unifarm staff, 209, 272, 285, 292 Unifarm Trends, 273, 282, 295 Union des Producteurs Agricoles, 261, 293 United Farm Women of Alberta, 9, 55, 118, 161 United Farmers of Alberta, xi, 5, 9–11, 282; Alberta government, 6–7; Alberta Wheat Pool, 7–8; amalgamation with AFU, 13, 26; amalgamation with UFC–Alberta Section, 12; Farm Young Peoples’Week, 118; Goldeye, 109; local, 13, 104, 118; marketing boards, 176; origins, 4 United Farmers of Alberta Cooperative, 10, 13; AFA, 28; Agrileader, 129; Banff School of Fine Arts leadership training, 118; FU&CDA, 120; FUA, 69; Goldeye Camp, 103, 105, 108–9, 113–4; motor vehicle insurance, 95; Nelson Malm, 33–4; REDA, 133; surface rights, 140;The Co-operators, 96; Unifarm, 207, 285, 297 United Farmers of Canada, 11–3 United Farmers of Canada–Alberta Section, 11–2, 26 United Grain Growers, 10; AFA, 10, 28; Agrileader, 129; Alberta government, 211; Alberta Wheat Pool, 7–8; Banff School of Fine Arts leadership training, 118; CFA, 42; Farm Young Peoples’Week, 118; FU&CDA,

INDEX




120; FUA, 69; Gilson Hearings, 258, 262; Goldeye Camp, 103, 105, 108–9; REDA, 133; Statutory Rates, 240, 252–3, 263; surface rights, 140; UFA, 9–10; Unifarm, 207, 276; Western Agricultural Conference, 219 University of Alberta: Agrileader, 129; ARDS, 125; Farm Young Peoples’Week, 99, 118–9, 161; Farm Young Peoples’Week (end), 126; rural leadership courses, 118 Ure, Rick, 209, 284

W Wagstaff, Neil, 313–4, 316 Webb,Willow, 17, 75, 185, 275, 283, 285 Weleschuk, Ivan, 150, 154, 283 Western Agricultural Conference, 262; ACC, 219; Canada Pension Plan, 281; Canadian Wheat Board, 178; origins, 10, 42; policy resolutions, 19, 285; Statutory Rates, 249–52, 255, 257 Western Barley Growers’ Association, 215–6, 247; Alberta government, 273; Special Canadian Grains Program, 292 Western Canadian Wheat Growers’ Association, 215, 247, 300; Alberta government, 273; Gilson Hearings, 258; Special Canadian Grains Program, 292 Western Feed Grain Council, 219 Western Grain Stabilization Plan, 239 341



UNIFARM: A STORY OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

Western Grain Transportation Act, 265, 267, 282, 303 Western Hog Growers’ Association, Gilson Hearings, 258; marketing board, 189–90, 192–4, 197; origins, 188; Unifarm, 207, 218, 278 Western Stock Growers’ Association: 108, 199; ACC, 198–9; marketing boards, 181, 197, 200; surface rights, 140; Unifarm, 207 Westlock: FUA dues, 68 wheat board, 176 Wheat Board. See Canadian Wheat Board wheat pooling, 7–8, 315 Whelan, Eugene, 79, 203, 213 Whitney, Dan, 137 Wild Rose Agricultural Producers, 311; Dean Lien, 26, 314; general farm organization, 313–4; January 2001 convention, 313–4; origins, 310–1; presidents, 316;The Co-operators, 96; transportation debate, 269, 316;Women of Unifarm, 171 Wilkinson, Jack, 302 Willingdon, 11 Wilson, Michael, 281 Winther, Allan, 106 Wise, John, 303 Women of Unifarm: Canada Pension Plan, 281; check-off, 73; conventions, 164; cookbook, 164; farm safety, 167, 170; financial status, 169; fundraising, 278; Goldeye Camp, 109, 115; land use forum, 144, 166; locals, 114, 342

 CARROL JAQUES 

168; membership, 166–8; name, 56; NFU, 58; policy resolutions, 167; REDA, 276; resolutions to dissolve, 170–1; Royal Commission on the Status of Women, 164; structure, 159–60, 165, 168, 217, 219; Unifarm, 57, 170, 207, 275; women’s issues, 166;Worth Commission, 165 Women’s Institutes, 167 Wood, Henry Wise, ix 6, 8–9, 42, 118, 268, 316 Worth Commission, 164

Y Young, Henry, 17, 21–2, 91; FUA president, 17–8, 22, 28; FUA vice-president, 22, 28; FUA/AFA amalgamation, 55; Interprovincial Farm Union Council, 18; motor vehicle insurance, 83–4; Paul Babey, 28



A

lberta farmers and ranchers know that, in the frustrating business of agriculture, years of bounty inexplicably turn into years of despair. Looking back over the past half century, Jaques recounts the tumultuous history of the Alberta farm organization, Unifarm. This book documents Alberta farmers’ quest to increase control over the forces that have had such an impact on their lives and describes how it led them to form organizations which have afforded them measures of stability and security throughout the past century. Unifarm, one of the most enduring of these organizations, is chronicled from its development in the 1970s to its reorganization as Wild Rose Agricultural Producers in 1995. In discussing the relationship of Unifarm to the business of agriculture, Jaques addresses issues of co-operative philosophy, marketing boards, surface rights, commodity groups, and the importance of education and training for members of the rural community. Unifarm is an important book that sheds new light on the many facets of Alberta’s rich agricultural history.

Carrol Jaques earned her M.A. in the history of education from the University of Calgary after several years of teaching. Her enduring interest in the social and political history of Alberta was the driving force behind both her master’s thesis on the United Farmers of Alberta and this book on Unifarm. She lives in Calgary, Alberta.

“Unifarm will add significantly to the body of information about the ‘men of soil’ and their determination to improve the rural economy in Alberta. Few people … know the story, the struggles, the disappointments, the triumphs of many self-sacrificing rural individuals. It is simply a story that needs to be told.” – Bruno Friesen, Retired, Alberta Wheat Pool “This book is historically accurate and brilliantly written. It is complete in every detail.” – Murray H. Hawkins, Professor Emeritus, Rural Economy, University of Alberta

The Legacies Shared Series is published by the University of Calgary to preserve the many personal histories and experiences of pioneer life.

Printed in Canada

“This book will serve as a legacy of the important people, events, conditions, and this particularly important organization … during a significant period in the history of Alberta. It will be valued by students and scholars of social movements, agricultural/farm and rural organizations, organizational development and change, and leadership development.” – Wayne Lamble, Professor, University of Alberta, Institute for Professional Development