Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A cent a pound or on the ground : Okanagan fruit growers and marketing, 1920-1935 Dendy, David 1981

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1981_A8 D46.pdf [ 6.85MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095074.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095074-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095074-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095074-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095074-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095074-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095074-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095074-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095074.ris

Full Text

A CENT A POUND OR ON THE GROUND: OKANAGAN FRUIT GROWERS AND MARKETING, B.A., University of V i c t o r i a , 1976 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of History) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1981 © David Dendy, 1981 1920-1935 DAVID DENDY MASTER OF ARTS In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of H i s t o r y  The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 D a t e S e p t e m b e r 2 8 , 1981 DR-fi (2/79} ABSTRACT Between 1920 and 1935 "the Okanagan f r u i t i n d u s t r y was i n almost c o n t i n u a l c r i s i s because of the problems of s e l l i n g an ever-expanding f r u i t crop on Canadian and e s p e c i a l l y P r a i r i e markets which were no l o n g e r growing as f a s t as they had been when the orchards were p l a n t e d . D i f f i c u l t i e s were i n c r e a s e d because a m i n o r i t y of growers and s h i p p e r s r e f u s e d to cooperate i n v a r i o u s schemes of market c o n t r o l devised to r e g u l a t e supply to the market and thus to s t a b i l i z e p r i c e s . Both a c o o p e r a t i v e s e l l i n g agency, A s s o c i a t e d Growers, and s e v e r a l c a r t e l s i n c l u d i n g independent s h i p p e r s f a i l e d i n t h e i r o b j e c t s because the p o r t i o n of the crop o u t s i d e t h e i r c o n t r o l prevented s u c c e s s f u l marketing s t r a t e g i e s . The p r o v i n c i a l Produce Marketing Act of 1927, passed at the growers' request, p r o v i d e d some s t a b i l i t y but was i n v a l i d a t e d by the c o u r t s i n 1931* A f t e r the 1932 s a l e s d i s a s t e r , when most growers r e c e i v e d l e s s than c o s t of p r o d u c t i o n , they took d i r e c t a c t i o n . The Growers' S t r i k e of 1933 used mass meetings, v i g i l a n t e squads, and i n t i m i d a t i o n to f o r c e a l l growers and s h i p p e r s i n the V a l l e y to cooperate i n a s t a b i l i z a t i o n scheme based on two novel p r i n c i p l e s : t h a t growers should c o n t r o l d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e i r f r u i t u n t i l i t was a c t u a l l y s o l d , and t h a t i t should not be s o l d u n l e s s a minimum p r i c e was achieved. The growers' economic r a d i c a l i s m was not a deep-seated p o l i t i c a l c o n v e r s i o n , but only t h e i r r e a c t i o n to • o--economic f r u s t r a t i o n . When the f e d e r a l government, at the behest of t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , i n 193^ passed the N a t u r a l Products Marketing Act s e t t i n g up a marketing c o n t r o l board, growers r e a d i l y abandoned d i r e c t a c t i o n and d i r e c t c o n t r o l . i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i INTRODUCTORY QUOTATION 'v Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. "THE UMBRELLA OF THE INDUSTRY": THE BACKGROUND AND FORMATION OF ASSOCIATED GROWERS 11 3. THE POLITICS OF 'STABILIZATION*: THE PRODUCE MARKETING ACT 2k k. THE DECLINE AND FALL OF STABILIZATION: THE OPERATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF DIRECTION AND AFTER 3k 5. "GROWER CONTROL—MINIMUM PRICE": THE GROWERS' STRIKE OF 1933 53 6. STABILIZATION AT LAST: THE NATURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING ACT AND FINAL CONCLUSIONS 75 NOTES ' 85 BIBLIOGRAPHY 112 APPENDIX THE GOVERNMENT AND PRODUCE MARKETING ACT APPEALS . .118 iv INTRODUCTORY QUOTATION "But p o l i t i c a l freedom i s l a r g e l y n u l l i f i e d unless we have our economic freedom. . . . Free competition i s a l l very well when the competitors have something l i k e equal economic resources. Otherwise, the big inte r e s t s have an overwhelming advantage and competition has i n e f f e c t ceased to exist. One B r i t i s h Columbia f r u i t grower summed up the sit u a t i o n when, discussing the Marketing Act under which he was forced to s e l l through one agency, he exclaimed, 'I am not worrying about the loss of my l i b e r t y . What I'J've been worrying about i s the loss of my apples!' That i s the r e a l l y e f f e c t i v e answer to the scores of pages of Hansard and the lengthy speeches i n which Mr. King d i l a t e s on the g l o r i e s of Liberalism and warns us against the dangers of what he c a l l s 'regimentation'." — f r o m a Radio Speech by J.S. Woodsworth, 1935 E l e c t i o n Campaign. v Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION The historiography of Canadian agriculture, such as i t i s , has concentrated almost e n t i r e l y on P r a i r i e grain growing. Historians apparently assume either that farm methods, movements, and problems are the same i n the rest of Canada, or that they do not merit consideration. That agriculture i n other crops and regions d i f f e r e d greatly from P r a i r i e grain growing i s e a s i l y established; one need only c i t e the fact that the Canadian Council of Agriculture was never able to draw the farmers' organiz-ations of B r i t i s h Columbia into the f o l d because of the strong stand those farmers took against the free trade policy for which the wheat int e r e s t s long campaigned. The significance of the diverse a g r i c u l t u r a l segments i s harder to establish. Although the other sections never produced a massive export staple such as wheat, they were s t i l l an important part of the Canadian economy, and played a part i n general p o l i t i c a l and economic p o l i c y . In some situations, a sector of agriculture, i f organized and c e r t a i n of what i t wanted, could influence government policy to an extent f a r beyond i t s numerical strength. As an example, developments within one a g r i c u l t u r a l industry can be shown to have influenced p r o v i n c i a l and 1 2 federal p o l i c y . The competitive i n f e r i o r i t y of the f r u i t producers of the Okanagan Valley meant the f a i l u r e of t h e i r e f f o r t s to control to t h e i r own s a t i s f a c t i o n the marketing of t h e i r f r u i t . This led to demands and pressure to achieve control by the intervention of government power, which many growers f e l t was the only way to overcome t h e i r competitive i n f e r i o r i t y — b y a r t i f i c i a l l y removing i t . Thus governmental a g r i c u l t u r a l p o l i c y may be seen developing from the point of view of the farmer rather than of the p o l i t i c i a n ; that i s , p o l i c y considered as a movement from the people to the p o l i t i c i a n s , rather than, as i t i s usually discussed, as a movement from government to the governed. The only detailed h i s t o r i c a l study of Canadian a g r i c u l t u r a l p o l i c y was written by Vernon C. Fowke, who described federal a g r i c u l t u r a l p o l i c y p r i o r to 1930 as part i of a 'National Policy'. This p o l i c y greatly encouraged a g r i c u l t u r a l development and settlement, p a r t i c u l a r l y on the P r a i r i e s where the federal government had the disposal of Crown land--'but not so much for the inherent value of settlement i t s e l f as rather to provide e f f e c t i v e occupation, p r o f i t a b l e railway t r a f f i c , markets for protected manufactures, and f i e l d s for investment of development c a p i t a l channelled through eastern Canada. "Government assistance has t y p i c a l l y been extended to agriculture because of what agriculture was expected to do for other dominant economic inte r e s t s i n return for assistance, rather than fo r what such assistance 2 might do for agriculture." This thesis has been put, perhaps more succinctly than Fowke ever stated i t , by a recent writer: The existence of a national farm p o l i c y p r i o r to 1930 was based on the importance of a g r i c u l t u r a l development to national economic p r i o r i t i e s of trade, investment, and railway construction. I t had nothing p a r t i c u l a r l y to do with the welfare of farmers and t h e i r commodities. Fowke pointed out that t h i s phase of the 'National Po l i c y ' was nearing the end of i t s usefulness by 1920, with railways and settlement of the P r a i r i e s substantially complete, at a time when the attitudes and demands of the a g r i c u l t u r a l community were changing r a d i c a l l y . Before the F i r s t World War the government was so confident of agrarian support for i t s development p o l i c i e s that i t was w i l l i n g enough to concede minor points and regularly appointed farmers to royal commissions investigating the grain trade. "The s i t u a t i o n a f t e r 1920 was i n sharp contrast. There was no longer any p o s s i b i l i t y of harmony between the views underlying agrarian protest and those of any substantial bi-section of federal leadership." The breach came as wheat growers became aware of what Fowke c a l l e d t h e i r 'competitive i n f e r i o r i t y ' i n the system of free enterprise, which he explained thus: i n a competitive system the greatest p r o f i t s go, paradoxically, to those monopolistic elements which are most able to escape competition. Competition i s most e a s i l y lessened where there are few competing interests i n a f i e l d , and, conversel i s most f i e r c e where there are many. Farmers, because of the atomistic and i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c nature of t h e i r industry, can never reduce competition s u f f i c i e n t l y to deal on equal terms with the much smaller number of buyers for t h e i r 4 produce.^ The inequality of the bargaining strength of a g r i c u l t u r a l producers as compared with that of the groups to whom the farmers s e l l and from whom they buy i s the inevitable complement of freedom of enterprise which accords equal tolerance to freedom g of combination and freedom of competition. The federal government refused to acknowledge the growing demands during the 1920s for action to of f s e t t h i s competitive i n f e r i o r i t y . The economic philosophy which underlay the national p o l i c y , at l e a s t u n t i l the end of the f i r s t major period of achievement i n 1930, r a t i o n a l i z e d govern-mental enterprise and assistance of a developmental nature, government a c t i v i t y of a regulatory nature, and state-financed research i n the f i e l d of production, but l i t t l e more. Production and marketing, i t was taken f o r granted, ought normally to be guided by the „ search for p r o f i t within the system of free enterprise. The Depression, i n a g r i c u l t u r a l p o l i c y as i n so many other things, was a turbulent time. The year 1930 saw the formal acknowledgement of the end of the a g r i c u l t u r a l phase of the 'National P o l i c y ' with the conveyance of control of Crown lands i n Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta from the federal government to the provinces;. Such lands as s t i l l remained were no longer required for the national purpose, which had moved to other f i e l d s . The 1930s also saw the beginnings of a g r i c u l t u r a l s t a b i l i z a t i o n and price support which Fowke at f i r s t saw as evidence of a changed federal attitude towards the • d i s a b i l i t i e s of the a g r i c u l t u r a l producer. He l a t e r p e s s i m i s t i c a l l y concluded, however, that governmental interference with the competitive system has either been f o r purposes other than improving the condition of farmers (such as wartime Wheat Boards to 5 prevent shortages) or else has consisted of unplanned and temporary expedients i n periods of c r i s i s . These were acceptable because agriculture had l o s t i t s place i n the 'National P o l i c y ' to other economic developments, and there-fore could safely be governed by immediate rather than long-term considerations. A g r i c u l t u r a l p o l i c y had become an unstable thing, lacking t h e o r e t i c a l or conceptual content: ". . . the reasons [for actions] have been of such d i v e r s i t y and remoteness that consistency of p o l i c y has been o impossible." 7 A g r i c u l t u r a l p o l i c i e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia have been ti e d i n to a program of development similar to, but separate from, the federal 'National Policy'. B r i t i s h Columbia, alone of the western t e r r i t o r i e s and provinces, retained control of i t s Crown lands on entering Confederation, and consequently was not part of the federal scheme of develop-,:-!';; 10 ment. Although the Dominion government, and i t s collab-orator the.Canadian P a c i f i c Railway, issued enormous quantities of p u b l i c i t y and advertising seeking s e t t l e r s for Western Canada, th e i r 'Western Canada' stopped at the Rocky Mountains where t h e i r control of lands ended. The Province of B r i t i s h Columbia was.therefore l e f t to encourage the a g r i c u l t u r a l development of i t s t e r r i t o r y and to provide transportation f a c i l i t i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y a f t e r the CPR provided a basic access to the I n t e r i o r . But the province was r e s t r i c t e d i n promoting a g r i c u l t u r a l development by i t s . c o n t i n u a l f i s c a l d e f i c i t from 1872 u n t i l 1905, when 11 for the f i r s t time i t had a genuine surplus. Therefore i t s p o l i c y was of necessity l i m i t e d to o f f e r i n g land on easy terms to genuine s e t t l e r s (160 acre pre-emptions available 12 at one d o l l a r per acre, payments deferrable ) and l i b e r a l 13 bonuses of lands to railway promoters. J Success of t h i s p o l i c y i s shown i n the 800$ increase between l 8 8 l and 1911 of employment i n agriculture, a rate much greater than i n mining or f i s h i n g and surpassed only by lumbering. A g r i -culture was i n 1911 the largest employer among primary industries, employing nearly ten thousand more people than 1^ any other. Only a f t e r 190^, with the coming of favourable world economic conditions, could the p r o v i n c i a l government of Premier Richard McBride embark on an aggressive program of development l i k e -that of the Dominion. Running short of good Crown land for subsidies, the government switched to cash grants and guarantees of bonds to subsidize a very ambitious railway expansion. Three trunk l i n e s and a host of feeders received p r o v i n c i a l support between 1903 and 1912; the federal government took t h i r t y - f i v e years to promote i t s three t r a n s c o n t i n e n t a l . B r i t i s h Columbia clamoured f o r s e t t l e r s , -Prom p a r t i c u l a r l y -fom B r i t a i n ; the government trumpeted afar the praises of i t s remaining Crown lands and of the land schemes of the various promoters and developers who controlled much of the a g r i c u l t u r a l land i n the province. By 1913 "the government had r e a l i z e d f i n a l l y that good farm land i n B r i t i s h Columbia was not inexhaustible . . . . Thus the problem confronting the government by the end of 1913 was not the increased a l i e n a t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l land, but the development of the lands already granted. 7 Yet the a t t r a c t i v e p o l i c y of promoting settlement died hard. McBride's generous hand had burdened B.C. with the P a c i f i c Great Eastern Railway which had to be taken over by the province, and the collapse of the Okanagan land boom compelled the government to give substantial loans and f i n a l l y outright g i f t s to prevent the f i n a n c i a l and functional collapse of the i r r i g a t i o n systems, which would have put out of business thousands of the farmers lured i n by the expansive promises of the McBride era. But succeeding administrations, e s p e c i a l l y that of the farmer-premier John Oliver, s t i l l clung to the idea, of land settlement as the basis of pros-p e r i t y and as a solution for problems of unemployment. Oliver "loved to sponsor every project that would increase 16 r u r a l populations and production" and h i s career as Minister of Agriculture, and then Premier, saw the e s t a b l i s h -ment of a Land Settlement Board, numerous Soldier Settlements, and projects f o r the drainage of Sumas Lake and the i r r i g a t i o n of the southern Okanagan Valley to provide more lands available for settlement. Few of these projects worked out as planned and a l l of them ended up costing more than was estimated. There could be l i t t l e doubt l e f t that land settlement schemes no longer worked, but p o l i t i c i a n s clung tenaciously to the outdated concept. As late as 1932 several farmers' and p o l i t i c a l organizations blasted Premier Tolmie's proposal to s e t t l e unemployed on the land, when even well-17 established farmers were i n d i f f i c u l t y . ' The p r o v i n c i a l government i n i t i a l l y opposed i n t e r -ference i n the competitive system just as did the federal government. John Oliver expressed the p o l i c y c l e a r l y : " ' I t i s not the business of the Government to maintain the people, he t o l d one delegation sharply. 'It i s the business of the 18 people to maintain the Government.'" Voluntary cooperative 1 9 might be tolerated or even encouraged by the government, ' as part of the freedom to combine, but any coercive action to make 'cooperation' compulsory was unacceptable to the 90 p o l i t i c i a n s . But by the l a t t e r h a l f of the 1920s the obvious f a i l u r e of land settlement as an a g r i c u l t u r a l p o l i c y , the weakness of the government, and pressing problems i n some sectors of agriculture led the government to a w i l l i n g -ness to placate a g r i c u l t u r a l i n t e r e s t s . The Provinee observed i n 1929 t h a t 2 1 With doubts and misgivings, perhaps with a sort of despair, c e r t a i n l y with an almost pathetic readiness to give the farmers pretty nearly anything they''-could agree upon among themselves, the Legislature has swelled the statute book with enactments for the r e l i e f of the farmer. The f r u i t growers of the Okanagan Valley have consistently been among the most vocal of a g r i c u l t u r i s t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia and the readiest to adopt r a d i c a l and f a r -reaching new methods to get a f a i r return for t h e i r produce. Margaret Ormsby, the only h i s t o r i a n who has dealt-generally with agriculture i n B r i t i s h Columbia, explains t h e i r w i l l -ingness to experiment with cooperative marketing as a re s u l t of t h e i r having a greater surplus production of one commodity than other farmers, and therefore a greater s e n s i t i v i t y to market variations i n the returns f o r t h e i r 22 cash crop. 9 Other factors increased the demand of Okanagan f r u i t growers fo r changes i n unsatisfactory conditions. Most growers had unusually heavy c a p i t a l investments: f r u i t land i n the Okanagan was very high priced because of the expensive i r r i g a t i o n systems needed to make i t suitable f o r anything more than c a t t l e grazing. In 1912 i r r i g a t e d bench land at Kelowna had averaged $ 2 5 0 or more per a c r e , ^ at a time when prime Saskatchewan wheat land was s e l l i n g for $ 1 7 . ^ 0 per 24 acre, and there were s t i l l free homesteads available. The high expectations of the purchasers f a i l e d to materialize, p a r t l y because the promoters had been overly o p t i m i s t i c . Moreover, the depression of 1913 and the Great War, by drying up immigration to the Canadian P r a i r i e s , had stopped the rapid expansion of the Okanagan's chief market, but production from the new orchards slowly coming into bearing expanded, thus creating an ever-increasing surplus. Orchardists, caught i n a d i f f i c u l t squeeze, were often w i l l i n g to try almost any option to prevent the loss of th e i r c a p i t a l investment. Problems common to a l l a g r i -culture also struck them with p a r t i c u l a r force. The a g r i -c u l t u r a l d i f f i c u l t y described by J.K. Gal'braith and J.D. 27 Black, 'that of ' i n e l a s t i c ' supply i n terms of p r i c e , where declining prices do not have the expected r e s u l t of reduction of production because of the farmer's fixed assets, such as land, family-labour, and so on, which must be maintained, h i t orchardists p a r t i c u l a r l y hard; i t i s impossible to leave an orchard fallow i n a bad year, f o r i f the trees are not maintained the whole investment involved i n bringing them to f r u i t i n g age w i l l be l o s t . These various p e c u l i a r i t i e s of f r u i t growing meant that, together with the milk producers of the Fraser Valley who faced similar problems, orchardists i n the Okanagan have ever been i n the forefront of moves to revise marketing procedures. Whether the plan was c a l l e d ' s t a b i l i z a t i o n ' , 'orderly marketing', or 'market control', the growers wanted to eliminate t h e i r competitive i n f e r i o r i t y and deal with purchasers on equal terms. Such economic 'radicalism' grew out of the orchardists' own indigenous problems; i t was b a s i c a l l y independent of the p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l movements of the time, both i n i n s p i r a t i o n and i n application to the other facets of t h e i r l i v e s . Chapter 2 "THE UMBRELLA OF THE INDUSTRY": THE BACKGROUND AND FORMATION OF ASSOCIATED GROWERS Commercial production of f r u i t i n the Okanagan began i n the 1890s, with growers s e l l i n g f r u i t d i r e c t l y to l o c a l customers. The f i r s t cooperative organizations were formed not to compete with established shippers and dealers, but because of the lack of them. The Kelowna Shippers' Union, formed i n 1893, cooperated i n s e l l i n g f r u i t and other farm produce to the new mining d i s t r i c t s of the Kootenays. The B r i t i s h Columbia F r u i t Exchange, intended to serve both Coast and In t e r i o r growers, was formed i n late I895, but f a i l e d a f t e r two years. As the quantity of f r u i t produced grew, however, commercial shippers came into the business, and small-scale d i r e c t sales dwindled away as shippers began to e xploit distant markets, such as the P r a i r i e s , which were only economically feasible with bulk shipments at lower f r e i g h t rates. The f i r s t f u l l carload of f r u i t was shipped to the P r a i r i e s i n 1901 by the private company of S t i r l i n g and P i t c a i r n , and i n 1903 "the same company sent a t r i a l l o t of two carloads to B r i t a i n . Gradually the marketing of Okanagan f r u i t became integrated into the complex North American system of produce d i s t r i b u t i o n . That system had the v e r t i c a l appearance of a funnel 12 wide at top and bottom but narrow i n the middle, t y p i f y i n g " the d i f f i c u l t y of the large numbers of growers i n dealing on equal terms with much smaller number of shippers, brokers, and jobbers who intervened between them and the ultimate consumers. In theory, the system as i t operated on the Canadian P r a i r i e s , the chief and most p r o f i t a b l e market f o r Okanagan f r u i t , worked thus: the f r u i t grower consigned, or less frequently sold, h i s f r u i t to the l o c a l shipper, who was also usually the packer. The shipper put t h i s f r u i t into the hands of a broker, usually i n the market area, who arranged to s e l l the f r u i t at the best possible price to the jobber or wholesaler, and then remitted the returns, l e s s his costs and p r o f i t , to the shipper, who made a si m i l a r deduction and f i n a l l y paid the grower. The jobber, mean-while, sold the f r u i t to the r e t a i l outlets who supplied the eventual consumer. The neatness of the scheme was disrupted i n r e a l i t y by factors such as the interpenetration of one l e v e l of d i s t r i b u t i o n by another. Many of the shippers owned large orchards, and as grower-shippers r e s i s t e d cooperative e f f o r t s . The major jobbers were connected with, were owned by, or owned, grocery chains.-^ Most seriously, by 1922 the major brokers were owned by or were part of jobber combines, "an attempt to join i n the one organization two opposing f a c t o r s - -the brokery whose interest should be solely that of the grower; and the jobber, whose int e r e s t i s opposed to that of the grower." Furthermore, there was increasing monopoly of the d i s t r i b u t i o n system on the P r a i r i e s at the jobber 13 l e v e l by two massive organizations, the ever-expanding American-owned Nash combine and an association of the 7 remaining independent jobbers combined for se l f - p r o t e c t i o n . The idea of cooperation among the f r u i t growers had continued to simmer since the turn of the century. The Okanagan F r u i t Union was formed i n 1908 and survived f o r several years. I t was forced into l i q u i d a t i o n by the sales disaster of 1912, the f i r s t of the periodic gluts on the market, when large crops i n B r i t i s h Columbia and i n the western United States coincided, and shippers forced prices to disastrous lows i n th e i r competition to dispose of t h e i r g supplies. The poor returns affected a l l growers and resulted i n widespread support for the idea of a cooperative able to s t a b i l i z e the market. The Okanagan United Growers, made up of nine l o c a l packing associations and a central sales o f f i c e , was formed i n May of 1913 with the blessing of the p r o v i n c i a l government, which lent eighty percent of the required Q c a p i t a l . In a campaign organized by a Vancouver broker, 10 R.R. Robertson, about 1100 growers were signed up, and for several years the cooperative functioned successfully. A T r a f f i c and Credit Association, consisting of the OUG and the other p r i n c i p a l shippers, was developed to discuss and 11 agree on prices and s e l l i n g p o l i c y . The gradual expansion in Okanagan f r u i t production was taken up by an increasing penetration of the P r a i r i e market, with B r i t i s h Columbia's share of the apple consumption there r i s i n g from 39^ i n 1915 12 to 82% i n 1923. During t h i s period the Okanagan growers remained p l a c i d , t h e i r demands on government l i m i t e d to r e i t e r a t i o n of the t r a d i t i o n a l c a l l for higher t a r i f f s on 13 imported f r u i t J and for the r e s t r i c t i o n of Oriental owner-14 ship of land. The contemporary agitations by p o l i t i c a l l y conscious P r a i r i e farmers were p o l i t e l y l i s t e n e d to, and ignored. ^ This pleasant state of a f f a i r s ended i n 1921, as the enormous number of apple trees planted i n the •'boom' years of 1910 to 1913 came into f u l l bearing, and the market proved unable to r e a d i l y absorb the sudden jump i n supply. The Okanagan apple crop of 1920 was 1,317,000 boxes; that of 1921 16 increased by over a m i l l i o n boxes to 2,769,000. Fortunately the United States crop of 1921 was very small, and so gave 17 no competition on the P r a i r i e s . ' Even so the combination of reduced public buying power from the recession of 1921 and the large crop caused the breakdown of the T r a f f i c and Credit Association as various shippers reneged on t h e i r 18 agreements and flooded the market with f r u i t i n t h e i r panic. Okanagan United Growers, holding about a t h i r d of the t o t a l crop, attempted to maintain the agreements and s t a b i l i z e the market; as a r e s u l t the cooperative was able to s e l l only 324 of i t s 1287 carloads of winter apples on the best-paying P r a i r i e market, and had to send the rest to eastern Canada, the United States, and Great B r i t a i n for considerably lower 19 returns. y In 1922 the saving grace of a small American crop was missing. Production there was almost h a l f again more than that of the previous year, and l e f t a large surplus to 20 be disposed of by export. The Okanagan crop i t s e l f was 15 also somewhat increased. The r e s u l t was a dra s t i c overload of f r u i t . With t h e i r experience of the previous season's marketing d i f f i c u l t i e s , the shippers refused to purchase f r u i t outright from the growers, and would only accept i t on consignment. With no l i m i t i n g agreements among themselves, and no f i n a n c i a l stake of th e i r own i n the f r u i t , the chief consideration of the shippers was to dispose of stocks on hand. Prices plunged on P r a i r i e markets as agents t r i e d to match each other's offers; jobbers were reluctant to make firm purchases, f o r fear that prices would drop further and leave them unable to s e l l at a p r o f i t . Both independents and cooperative ' r o l l e d ' (that i s , shipped without an order from a jobber) large quantities of apples to the P r a i r i e s , hoping to f i n d a buyer once there, and t h i s flood served only to further lower prices and demoralize the market.'' This tended to make jobbers and even r e t a i l e r s on the P r a i r i e s a f r a i d to buy and w i l l i n g to accept ship-ments only for sale on consignment. In overloaded markets much of the f r u i t was f i n a l l y disposed of only at very low prices or remained unsold and was l o s t . Aggregate returns were often i n s u f f i c i e n t to meet ? 1 packing, transportation and agency costs. One r e s u l t of the crop of 1922 was an enduring bitterness towards the shippers by many growers who had received for t h e i r apples only 'red ink'--that i s , b i l l s from t h e i r shippers for losses on packing and transportation costs which returns from the f r u i t had not even covered. Another was a continuing fear among growers of shippers s e l l i n g on consignment rather than by firm sale; for many years 'consignment* was a d i r t y word i n the Okanagan. The sales disaster was evident by November, and made i t clear to most growers that a new marketing arrangement 22 was needed. A 'Growers' Committee' had been formed i n the 2 3 spring of 1922 to consider marketing problems, ^ and the impetus of f i n a n c i a l loss accelerated the push for change. Growers* meetings during the winter of 1922-23 over-whelmingly decided that some powerful form of cooperation was needed to 'save the industry'. Outside experts were c a l l e d i n to address the growers on successful organization. These included Boyd Oliver and Dr. Theodore Macklin, professor of a g r i c u l t u r a l economics at the University of Wisconsin, but the most i n f l u e n t i a l of them was the ' r e v i v a l i s t of co-operation *, ..Aaron Sapiro, a San Francisco lawyer "known throughout North America as one of the most b r i l l i a n t and successful organizers of co-operative marketing agencies for 24-farm products." Sapiro's v i s i t to B r i t i s h Columbia was arranged by OK the Vancouver farm magazine Farm and Home. J Sapiro spoke in the four major towns of the Okanagan, and aroused a wave of enthusiasm which led to the eventual organization being along the l i n e s he proposed. The newspaper report of Sapiro's speech at Vernon on January k, 1923, which was reprinted and ci r c u l a t e d to -growers, explained h i s program. "We i n C a l i f o r n i a believe that co-operative marketing i s the only hope of the man who t i l l s the s o i l or cares for the orchard . . . " Co-operative marketing, he said, was now beyond the experimental stage; i t was a proved „g success. Using the example of C a l i f o r n i a , he rebuked the Okanagan 27 growers for the f a i l u r e of t h e i r sales methods: 17 . . . c o - o p e r a t i v e m a r k e t i n g means the s u b s t i t u t i o n o f m e r c h a n d i s i n g f o r dumping. Here a p p l e growers j u s t dumped t h e i r a p p l e s on consignment. I n 1 9 2 2 f o r example they got s c a r e d because they had so many a p p l e s , r u s h e d them t o s h i p p e r s , who i n t u r n b e s i e g e d j o b b e r s w i t h o f f e r s o f Okanagan a p p l e s . . . . The Okanagan growers were themselves to blame f o r d i s a s t r o u s p r i c e s l a s t season; t h e y t h e m s e l v e s b r oke the market. S a p i r o recommended s e v e r a l s t e p s towards b e t t e r m e r c h a n d i s i n g : q u a l i t y c o n t r o l and s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n , a t t r a c t i v e and c o n v e n i e n t p a c k a g i n g , e x t e n s i o n o f markets b o t h i n time and p l a c e and by i n c r e a s e d use o f the p r o d u c t , r e g u l a t i o n of s u p p l i e s on the market to p r e v e n t e i t h e r g l u t s o r s h o r t a g e s , and a f i n a l s t e p f o l l o w i n g from t h i s , o f making the p r i c e dependent on the s u p p l y o f the p r o d u c t a t the p o i n t o f 2 8 consumption r a t h e r than a t the p o i n t o f p r o d u c t i o n . S a p i r o l e f t the promise of a r o s y f u t u r e to h i s l i s t e n e r s . "Once the f a r m e r l e a r n e d to h e l p h i m s e l f no one c o u l d s t o p h i s p r o g r e s s i n C a l i f o r n i a , and i f they l e a r n e d i t here no 2 9 one c o u l d s t o p the p r o s p e r i t y o f the Okanagan V a l l e y e i t h e r . " S a p i r o ' s v i e w s and the a d v i c e o f o t h e r e x p e r t s r e s u l t e d i n the a d o p t i o n o f the ' C a l i f o r n i a p l a n ' o f p o o l i n g , w h i c h was r e g a r d e d a t the time as ""the embodiment o f t r u e co-30 o p e r a t i o n " , r a t h e r than p r o p o s a l s f o r a B o a r d o f C o n t r o l a l o n g the l i n e s o f the wartime Wheat Board or a C e n t r a l S e l l i n g Agency i n which the s h i p p e r s would s t a y as t h e y were 31 but a l l would s e l l t h r ough one o f f i c e . The p r oposed o r g a n i z a t i o n , t o be known as 'The C o - o p e r a t i v e Growers of B r i t i s h Columbia, L i m i t e d ' , was a r r a n g e d i n a f e d e r a t i v e form, w i t h a s i n g l e s e l l i n g o f f i c e , the ' C e n t r a l ' , b u t w i t h p a c k i n g and s h i p p i n g by s e p a r a t e member cooperatives, or '"Locals', i n each f r u i t growing area Most private shippers were to be bought out and t h e i r f a c i l i t i e s taken over by the Locals. -Prominence was given to the role of a well coordinated Central i n regulating q u a l i t y • and supply, to e f f i c i e n c y , and to the necessity for a large portion of the crop to be i n the organization's hands. If a co-operative s e l l i n g concern i s started with control over an i n s u f f i c i e n t proportion of the tonnage, the balance of the tonnage outside the Co-operative, and therefore i n competition with i t , may prove too great a handicap. The Co-operative Growers of B r i t i s h Columbia, Ltd., have decided that the control of 80 per cent of the f r u i t and vegetable tonnage of the t e r r i t o r y to be covered by i t s a c t i v i t i e s i s the o ? minimum that must be secured. To secure t h i s control, a campaign, costing i n t o t a l over $30,000,-^ was mounted through January and February to persuade growers to sign up. The contract was a three party agreement, between grower, Local, and the Co-operative Growers, for the sale of f r u i t and vegetables exclusively through the Central for a period of f i v e years. I t was a conditional contract, to come into e f f e c t only i f 80 percent of the f r u i t tonnage i n the Okanagan, Kootenay, and Mainline d i s t r i c t s was signed up by March 30, 1923- At the same time, Okanagan United Growers, the e x i s t i n g cooperative s e l l i n g organization, agreed to go into l i q u i d a t i o n i f 80 percent was reached. As i t happened, the time required was considerably shorter than anticipated. By February 23 "the membership campaign had the necessary quota, and eventually about 2700 growers, representing f u l l y 85 percent of the p o t e n t i a l crop of 1923, were signed up. ^ The Co-operative Growers of B r i t i s h Columbia was then l e g a l l y i n c o r p o r a t e d on March 8, as w e l l as a h o l d i n g company, Co-operative Growers-' Packing, Houses L i m i t e d , formed to purchase the independent p a c k i n g houses and t r a n s f e r them to the L o c a l s . The name of the o r g a n i z a t i o n was found to be u n s u i t a b l e f o r t e c h n i c a l reasons; the word 1 * Co - o p e r a t i v e ' c o u l d be used on l y by o r g a n i z a t i o n s and a s s o c i a t i o n s formed under the p r o v i s i o n s of the Co-operatives Act, while the growers' a s s o c i a t i o n was i n c o r p o r a t e d under the Companies A c t . T h e r e f o r e a s p e c i a l r e s o l u t i o n was passed to change the name to A s s o c i a t e d Growers of B r i t i s h Columbia, L i m i t e d , on May 10, and t h i s change was l e g a l l y r e g i s t e r e d on"June 28. The A s s o c i a t e d , as i t was g e n e r a l l y known t h e r e a f t e r , was almost from i t s i n c e p t i o n on the d e f e n s i v e . The h i g h -powered membership and o r g a n i z a t i o n campaign had promised g r e a t r e s u l t s , and many growers signed up who were not 'n a t u r a l c o o p e r a t o r s ' , not men e n l i s t e d by the p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o n v i c t i o n t h a t c o o p e r a t i o n was the proper and i n e v i t a b l e form of o r g a n i z a t i o n — b u t were r a t h e r i n d i v i d u a l i s t s who were i n t e r e s t e d o n l y i n the promised h i g h r e t u r n s . These men looked with a c r i t i c a l eye a t the o r g a n i z a t i o n and were encouraged i n t h i s by the few remaining independent s h i p p e r s and by a l l those who, f o r reasons o f p o l i t i c a l or economic phil o s o p h y , opposed co o p e r a t i o n . Therefore i t was unfortunate f o r the A s s o c i a t e d t h a t the apple crop of 1923 was two hundred thousand boxes l a r g e r 37 than t h a t of 1922, and c o i n c i d e d wxth one of unprecedented s i z e throughout North America. A s s o c i a t e d Growers managed to avoid the dreaded recourse to consignment, but was unable to c o n t r o l supply to the market because of the competition from the p o r t i o n of the l o c a l crop outside i t s c o n t r o l and from s u p p l i e s of other producing areas, and the eventual r e s u l t s were u n s a t i s f a c t o r y . B e t t e r r e s u l t s could have been obtained had the c o n t r o l of the crop been more complete. The percentage offered„ i n competition was s u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e to threaten the s t a b i l i t y of p r i c e s and at times made i t most d i f f i c u l t to maintain our p r i n c i p l e of f.o.b. s a l e s . P r i c e competition r e s u l t e d i n many reductions w i t h consequent l o s s e s to the growers, and t h i s should ~g have been unnecessary, i I t was c o l d comfort to the growers who had r e c e i v e d l e s s than t h e i r cost of production to be t o l d that t h i n g s would have 39 been even worse without A s s o c i a t e d Growers. Some growers then decided against the cooperative experiment and l e f t through loopholes i n t h e i r c o n t r a c t s . In the next crop year, 192k, the tonnage handled d e c l i n e d ko from 85 percent to 75 percent. P r i c e s f o r the 1924 crop were b e t t e r , and the de c l i n e i n membership slowed, but was never t o t a l l y a r r e s t e d . Each year the p o r t i o n of the crop c o n t r o l l e d by Ass o c i a t e d Growers was s l i g h t l y s maller, s l i p p i n g to 70 percent i n 1928, and f a l l i n g o f f more r a p i d l y a f t e r the end of the f i v e - y e a r contract i n tha t year and the commencement of s i n g l e - y e a r c o n t r a c t s . Only 65 percent of the 1929 crop was handled by Ass o c i a t e d Growers, and by 1933 kl only kO percent. The 'escape' of tonnage from the cooperative was speeded by a d e c i s i o n of the Supreme Court of Canada i n January of 1926 against Associated Growers. A W i n f i e l d grower named Edmunds, to get out of h i s contract, transferred his property to a company of which he and h i s wife were the chief shareholders. Associated Growers took him to court, but both the o r i g i n a l decision and two appeals went against the cooperative. This set a precedent for other growers who wished to avoid honouring t h e i r contracts. J The O.K. B u l l e t i n , house organ of the cooperative, observed that The temptation to break away i s , of course, constantly^ before a l l growers, knowing well that--just as long as the great majority hold together and protect the market--just so long can some l i t t l e extra p r o f i t s be made by refusing to share i n the costs of protection--but what i f enough break away to make the load too heavy for those who remain, or i f those who remain uu refuse to 'carry the umbrella* any longer? This, i n a nutshell, put the dilemma of the Associated Growers. Associated Growers, with the avowed aim of ' s t a b i l i z i n g ' the market, found i t s e l f i n a squeeze. By-s e l l i n g heavily on the l e s s p r o f i t a b l e export market, and by holding back from P r a i r i e markets at the beginning of the s e l l i n g season, i t protected the market from being flooded and thus kept pr i c e s generally higher and more stable than i f i t had entered into competition on even terms with the independent shippers. This p o l i c y meant that the returns to a l l growers were higher than they otherwise would.have been. I t also meant, however, that Associated Growers i t s e l f got le s s than i t s proportionate share of the most lu c r a t i v e P r a i r i e markets, and more than i t s share of the export trade expenses and of the cost of storage of f r u i t for late season sales at lower price s . Therefore, while i n absolute terms the whole industry benefitted, the growers s e l l i n g through the independent shippers often appeared to be getting better returns. They were sheltered under the 'Associated umbrella' but were not putting up any part of the costs. This compar-ative advantage l e d many growers to leave the cooperative, and each defection l e f t i t i n a le s s advantageous p o s i t i o n . These circumstances engendered a b i t t e r feud between the supporters of cooperation and those of free enterprise, which disrupted attempts to improve arrangements and prevented general agreement among the growers on any subject. The actual figures to compare returns for the independent shippers and f o r Associated Growers are not available, for while the Associated published i t s pool returns, few i f any of the independents did. As the O.K.  B u l l e t i n never ceased to point out, the independent operators only publicized t h e i r figures for p a r t i c u l a r grades and v a r i e t i e s where t h e i r prices were highest, and didn't mention th e i r f a i l u r e s . I t may even have., been a f a i r state-ment for Associated Growers to say that i f i t were possible to get accurate figures showing proportions of each grade packed by each shipper, i t would be found that the Associated averaged c o n s i d e r a b l y ^ more than the average independent shipper. But, j u s t l y or not, the information seen by the growers was the highest returns of the best independents. So there was d r i f t i n g away of growers, p a r t i c u l a r l y those producing choice f r u i t and v a r i e t i e s most i n demand, again leaving the le s s desirable product to the cooperative, which f e l t obliged to try to s e l l everything offered to i t . This problem was noted by Dean F.M. Clement when he reported on the condition of Associated Growers i n 1933 = The tonnage, while good mainly, i s also i n part the dregs of a 'save the industry' campaign. I t i s not a tonnage selected to meet the demands of the market. I t i s a tonnage the growers want sold. Associated Growers r e a l i z e d that, with i t s declining portion of the crop, i t was impossible to s t a b i l i z e and control the market as envisioned when i t was organized. Orderly Marketing required concerted e f f o r t on the part of a l l shippers, something which proved very d i f f i c u l t to arrange. Attempts to get Associated Growers, Sales Service Ltd. (sales agent f o r most of the larger independents), and the other independent shippers together to set minimum prices and apportion markets f a i l e d because of the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of punishing v i o l a t i o n s of any possible 'gentleman's agreement'. Cooperation, because of i t s voluntary nature, had f a i l e d the growers. Some outside force was needed to compel orderly marketing. Chapter 3 THE POLITICS OF 'STABILIZATION': THE PRODUCE MARKETING ACT By the end of 1926 the confidence of growers that the competitive marketing system would get them an acceptable return for t h e i r f r u i t had been greatly undermined. The idea of governmental control, as a method of avoiding cut-throat competition and r e s u l t i n g low prices, seemed the only solution to marketing problems. Country L i f e i n B r i t i s h  Columbia reported that such l e g i s l a t i o n had become a common subject of discussion i n the Okanagan. That debate was quickened by the resolution of the Board of Directors of Associated Growers on November 2, 1926, that only through compulsory co-operation could s a t i s f a c t o r y and equitable d i s t r i b u t i o n of f r u i t products be effected and that every possible e f f o r t should be made towards obtaining the necessary 0 l e g i s l a t i o n . The debate had become s u f f i c i e n t l y loud to be heard i n V i c t o r i a , but Premier John Oliver avoided taking a stand by promising "that the whole si t u a t i o n would be thrashed out by the A g r i c u l t u r a l Committee of the Legislature before any def i n i t e move was made to legislate."-^ By January 11, 1927, at the annual convention of the B r i t i s h Columbia F r u i t Growers' Association, compulsory cooperation was "the chief topic of discussion throughout 2k 2 5 the f r u i t growing d i s t r i c t s . " Most of the resolutions sent i n by the various l o c a l s were on the marketing question.^ Under pressure from growers, o f f i c i a l s from Associated Growers and the larger independent--'shippers had met and devised a resolution upon which both sides could agree. After a great deal of discussion, the convention f i n a l l y passed i t i n the following form: Whereas, we r e a l i z e that unless some system of s t a b i l i z a t i o n , which w i l l ensure complete regulation of marketing i s adopted f o r the f r u i t and vegetable industry of B.C., that many growers w i l l be forced out of the industry, And whereas, we believe that such s t a b i l i z a t i o n , i n the inter e s t of a l l growers, can best be accomplished through a 'Committee of Direction* which w i l l regulate the grading, packing, shipping, and marketing of the entire crop, Therefore be i t resolved: That we, the members of the B.C.F.G.A. ask the Government, to introduce l e g i s l a t i o n at the present session of the Legislature to provide f o r the setting up of a Committee of Direction, which w i l l be brought into being i n time to have control of the movement of 100% of the 1927 tree f r u i t and vegetable crop. Further: That we ask the Government to make f u l l enquiry into a l l the circumstances surrounding the marketing of B.C. f r u i t s and vegetables with a view to recommending, at the end of the year, any method under which the suggested plan may be improved upon. The resolution was q u a l i f i e d by twenty-two supple-mentary proposals d e t a i l i n g the plan. The more important a r t i c l e s included provisions that a l l shippers should be members of a B r i t i s h Columbia Growers* and Shippers' Assoc-i a t i o n ; that the Committee of Direction should consist of three members, one to represent the Associated Growers, one for the independent shippers, and the t h i r d to be appointed by the government; that the Committee should have j u r i s d i c t i o n over d i s t r i b u t i o n of tree f r u i t s and vegetables produced i n B r i t i s h Columbia east of the Fraser Valley; that the Committee should have powers to regulate f.o.b. prices and the pro-portions of production which shippers might place on various markets i n s p e c i f i c time periods; and that the l e g i s l a t i o n should include s t i f f penalties for those shippers who infringed the Committee's r u l i n g s . Even at the convention, opposition came from small grower-shippers who had no part i n the formulation of the plan, and from growers who objected strenuously to anything which l i m i t e d t h e i r freedom of action. R.H. McDonald, vice-president of Associated Growers, l a t e r observed that Looking back on what has taken place since the Kelowna convention i t would appear that the silence of the opponents at that gathering was a very s i n i s t e r and a very ominous peace. At the time of the Convention i t appeared to some of us that the readiness with which the independents agreed with the main resolution without a dissentient voice, was r e a l l y more than was to be „ expected. Such misgivings were f u l l y j u s t i f i e d . The agreement between the various inte r e s t groups--B.C.F.G.A., Associated Growers, independent shippers, and grower-shippers—lasted long enough to present the convention resolution to the A g r i c u l t u r a l Committee of the B r i t i s h Columbia Legislature on January 24, 1927, but within two days second thoughts had become evident, and some independents voiced objections to the makeup of the proposed board of control and to the Q degree of compulsion i n the proposed l e g i s l a t i o n . The issue was clouded by a resolution of the B.C. Dairymen's Association on January 21 c a l l i n g f o r control 10 l e g i s l a t i o n for milk si m i l a r to that proposed for f r u i t . E.D. Barrow, the Minister of Agriculture, was a dairy farmer 11 from Chilliwack who strongly supported t h i s l a t t e r demand, and he proposed to the A g r i c u l t u r a l Committee that the control b i l l should be expanded to allow the i n c l u s i o n of a l l sorts 12 of produce, including dairy products. This expansion immediately caused public debate on the marketing b i l l , and the Vancouver c i t y council vowed to f i g h t by every means available any control of the milk supply. Mayor L.D. Taylor emotionally declared that I consider i t my bounden duty to protest . . . as vigorously as I can, against anything that even suggests the p o s s i b i l i t y of a combine that w i l l raise the price of dairy products to the detriment of the babies and 1 ~ poor people of the c i t y . One business journal remarked with s a t i s f a c t i o n : " I t s t r i k e s us that the broadening of the scope of the proposed marketing control B i l l i s a l l that i s necessary to prevent i t s enact-14 ment." E.D. Barrow pushed his-measure forward against the r i s i n g clamour, and the A g r i c u l t u r a l Committee submitted a draft Produce Marketing Act which was introduced to the House on February 14 by Dr. H.C. Wrinch, L i b e r a l member for Skeena. Barrow wanted i t to be a government measure, but because of opposition to the plan by Premier John Oliver, had to accept i t s presentation as a private member's b i l l . J 'Honest John' Oliver was a L i b e r a l of the nineteenth century l a i s s e z - f a i r e school. "A strong i n d i v i d u a l i s t , he had fought his own way to the top i n a world of competition, 16 and he thought what he had done others could i f they t r i e d . " 28 While he moderated from the extreme individualism of h i s e a r l i e r years, and had indeed helped to organize the Fraser 17 Valley Milk Producers* Association cooperative, he saw th i s s t i l l i n terms of self-help- and competition, and stea d i l y r e s i s t e d the idea of government enforcing cooperation or subsidizing farmers. Oliver enunciated his stand i n h i s reply to a L i b e r a l farmer from Rosedale (near Agassiz i n the 18 Fraser Valley) who c r i t i c i z e d the Premier's stand: Let me say to you i n a l l earnestness and s i n c e r i t y that the present Marketing B i l l which i s before the Legislature and which you favor, contains p r i n c i p l e s that are the very opposite of any p r i n c i p l e s of Liberalism with which I have ever become acquainted. F i r s t of a l l , there i s coercion i n the B i l l ; second, there i s power without r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; t h i r d , there i s power to i n f l i c t very large damage upon an element of the population without any provision being made for compensation therefor. I f these things are i n accord with L i b e r a l p r i n c i p l e s , then I am no longer a L i b e r a l . Despite Oliver's e f f o r t s to disassociate h i s government from the Produce Marketing B i l l by describing i t as neither a government measure nor a private member's b i l l sponsored by Barrow, but rather the creation of the A g r i c u l t -u r a l Committee of the Legislature at the behest of the 19 producers, ' the Department of Agriculture under the d i r e c t i o n of i t s Minister, Barrow, had i n fac t been preparing draft plans f o r l e g i s l a t i o n f or compulsory cooperation i n 1926, well before either the B.C.F.G.A". convention or the Legis-20 lature met. If Oliver had led a strong government, with a powerful majority, he could c e r t a i n l y have imposed his.-will on those of h is cabinet and seated members who championed control. B.ut, instead, he had been since the l a s t e l e c t i o n i n a weak 29 and vulnerable p o s i t i o n where the p o s s i b i l i t y of open d i s s e n s i o n or r e v o l t w i t h i n the cabinet and par t y must be 21 avoided at a l l c o s t s . One t h i n g was very c l e a r a f t e r the near defeat of the O l i v e r government i n 1924, and t h i s was that weakness of an a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n v i t e s a t t a c k , not merely from the immediate o p p o s i t i o n , but a d i f f e r e n t form of a t t a c k - -t h a t of demands f o r t h i s concession and tha t favor. Such requests would not be made of a strong government „ ? because there wouldn't be much chance of success. The supporters of the Produce Marketing Act backed down from the c o n t r o v e r s i a l milk clause. This does not mean that i t was a c t u a l l y the weight of genuine p u b l i c opinion which dissuaded them; although a great deal of l i g h t was emitted i n the Vancouver press by e d i t o r i a l w r i t e r s and by 23 the a t t a c k s of Mayor Taylor and the c i t y c o u n c i l , J no r e a l heat of p u b l i c response was generated--Premier O l i v e r ' s f i l e of correspondence r e c e i v e d against the b i l l contains only f i v e l e t t e r s from consumers, but over a hundred from farmers or shippers opposing i t s p r o v i s i o n s . The L i b e r a l P a r t y , however, was i n a precarious p o l i t i c a l p o s i t i o n i n Vancouver, which despite i t s s e v e r a l L i b e r a l - h e l d seats, had since 1922 24 lacked r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n the Cabinet. Mayor Taylor was a Conservative whose p o l i t i c a l motives i n the a f f a i r were under-2 S l i n e d by the Labor Statesman. J I f mil k p r i c e s d i d r i s e i n the monopoly s i t u a t i o n , o p p o s i t i o n p o l i t i c i a n s could make p o l i t i c a l hay of the a c t i o n , i g n o r i n g the 'pr i v a t e b i l l ' evasion. I t would then be as d i f f i c u l t f o r the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and the L i b e r a l P a r t y to defend i t s e l f as i f i t had passed a law ag a i n s t motherhood. To prevent t h i s , the L i b e r a l members from Vancouver are s a i d to have presented an ultimatum to 30 the Minister of Agriculture "that i f he i n s i s t e d upon the measure being introduced as a Government B i l l , these Vancouver members would vote against the B i l l and, i f necessary, defeat 26 the Government on the issue." Their continued opposition f i n a l l y forced Barrow to drop his demand for the inc l u s i o n of milk i n the B i l l , although his intention to eventually 27 bring about milk control remained. The p o l i t i c a l dangers were not nearly so great i n dealing with f r u i t . Almost two-thirds of the f r u i t crop was sold on the external market, either i n other provinces or 28 other countries, and the B r i t i s h Columbia producer was never i n the same pos i t i o n of ef f e c t i v e monopoly of the 29 domestic market as the milk producers y — i n d e e d , the compet-i t i o n of Washington apples was one of the chronic complaints 30 of the f r u i t growers. As for p o l i t i c a l considerations, most of the f r u i t d i s t r i c t s were, as developments of the 31 McBride era, s o l i d l y Conservative anyhow;^ i f the Produce Marketing Act worked well, there might be some improvement for the L i b e r a l cause--and there was nothing to lose. That does not mean that the control of f r u i t marketing went unopposed. Vociferous opposition was heard from the small grower-shippers who had not been consulted, from larger independents who had at f i r s t agreed but l a t e r had second thoughts, and from growers c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y opposed to cooperation i n any form. Much of the opposition was expressed i n incoherent outbursts of outrage; H.H. Irvine of Oyama, for example, blathered about Bolshevik attacks on B r i t i s h l i b e r t i e s , backed himself up with a quote from K i p l i n g , and ended by c a l l i n g on "the c i t i z e n s of Vancouver and V i c t o r i a to stand back of the great body of f r u i t growers and r e s i s t t h i s un-British p r i n c i p l e that a certain element i s t r y i n g to introduce i n our province";^ various i n d i v i d u a l s directed v i t r i o l i c attacks at Associated Growers, which they blamed for almost everything except the coddling moth; and a few more thoughtful growers t r i e d to explain why they f e l t the b i l l would not succeed i n i t s objects, or offered alternatives Walter Marshall, who operated about f i f t y acres of orchard at Kelowna, f e l t that The f r u i t growers of the Okanagan have the remedy i n t h e i r own hands without a l l t h i s government i n t e r -ference with t h e i r business, and that i s by stopping the f o o l i s h business of consigning t h e i r f r u i t to the packers or the association and allowing them to throw the f r u i t on the market at any price they see f i t as long as they get packing charges out of i t . This i s a practise that has been the cause of a l l the f r u i t grower's troubles and nothing w i l l help him u n t i l he holds the packers to a minimum price f.o.'b. point of production. ->-> The primary, and the organized, opposition, however, came from the independent shippers and the grower-shippers. "The principal- opposition to the b i l l i s prompted e n t i r e l y by the desire of the Independent Shippers to withdraw from 3k the bargain they made."-^  Their opposition was voiced on three main grounds: the coercive and compulsory features of the plan, the makeup of the board of control, and the question of whether the board of control or the Shippers' Federation should be supreme i n matters ..of p o l i c y . J They fought a further delaying action by c a l l i n g for a p l e b i s c i t e of growers before any Act should come into operation. The primary t a c t i c of t h i s opposition seems to have been confusion by continual insistence that the terms of the b i l l were r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t from those they had agreed to at the Kelowna convention, by n i t - p i c k i n g on minor d e t a i l s such as the makeup of the proposed board of control, by the natural disorientation created i n l e g i s l a t o r s by the m u l t i p l i c i t y of arguing organizations and names, by deliberate misrepres-entations of fact, such as the instance of t h e i r s o l i c i t o r w r iting a l e t t e r to the newspapers i n which he purported to 37 speak as an unbiased f r u i t grower, and by appeals to the prejudices of anti-Orientalism-^ and the fear of bolshevism 39 and Jews. y But t h i s opposition was not s u f f i c i e n t to stop the Produce Marketing B i l l , although i t , along with the milk clause controversy, served to make the b i l l "the most contentious piece of l e g i s l a t i o n considered by the P r o v i n c i a l 40 Legislature i n recent years." The general f e e l i n g among the MLAs appears to have been that the f r u i t growers had asked f o r the b i l l , and should be allowed to see i f the experiment would work—although some expressed doubt. Dugald McPherson, L i b e r a l member for Grand Forks-Greenwood, said "that he thought to become e f f e c t i v e , the proposed board of control would have to be composed of Mussolini, Jack Dempsey 4l and Aimee Semple McPherson." The Conservative opposition, encouraged by J.W. Jones, member for South Okanagan, supported the b i l l ; most Conservatives might not be enthusiastic about the concept of marketing control, but they were very happy to help the L i b e r a l government tear i t s e l f apart. In the debate on the second reading, February 24 and 33 2 5 , and on f i n a l passage on March 3 , "the only votes cast against the b i l l were Premier Oliver and seven other members from the government side. They argued vigorously against the measure—Oliver gave a reasoned argument against both i t s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y and i t s l i k e l y benefits, while Captain Ian Mackenzie, L i b e r a l member for Vancouver, threw out a vio l e n t tirade i n which, i n defiance of conventional p o l i t i c a l categorization, he said b o t h that i t was "the most reactionary piece of l e g i s l a t i o n presented to the House i n the seven years he had been a member" and also that " i t was purely communistic, and meant that S o v i e t s would be set up i n the Okanagan and 43 Fraser Valley." J But th e i r e f f o r t s were f r u i t l e s s — f i n a l l y on March 3 , "a t i r e d and l i s t l e s s House agreed to the customary resolution to report the b i l l to the House, p r i o r to ordinary routine of t h i r d reading and assent by the 44 Lieutenant-Governor.V Chapter k THE DECLINE AND FALL OF STABILIZATION: THE OPERATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF DIRECTION AND AFTER The p o l i t i c a l struggle for controlled marketing was won with the passage of the Produce Marketing Act i n 1927. I t remained to be seen, however, i f implementation would be successful i n the face of opposition from independent shippers and that minority of growers who had fought the plan a l l a l o n g — p a r t i c u l a r l y as the l e g i s l a t i o n did not take the ultimate step of giving the growers control of the agency, but l e f t that power i n the hands of the shippers. The Act, as f i n a l l y passed by the Legislature, was e s s e n t i a l l y the measure requested by the convention of the B.C. F r u i t Growers' Association. I t set.up immediately an 'Interior Tree F r u i t and Vegetable Committee of Direction*, with exclusive power to control and regulate the marketing of a l l tree f r u i t s and vegetables i n an area b a s i c a l l y comprising the Thompson, Okanagan, and Kootenay regions; other areas and categories of produce could be s i m i l a r l y established by a favourable vote by 75f° of t h e i r producers. The I n t e r i o r Committee of Direction consisted of three members, two of them appointed by the B r i t i s h Columbia Growers' and Shippers' Federation (one to represent Associated Growers and one the independent shippers), with the t h i r d , appointed by the 3 ^ Government, as chairman of the Committee. The Committee had l e g a l power to control marketing of In t e r i o r f r u i t within Canada (exports were not under i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n ) , and to f i x quantifies, prices, and times at which f r u i t might be marketed by the shippers. In practice, however, i t was found that the Committee could not set prices or even control shipments, but only apportion orders to shippers on a pro  rata basis. Even so, i t stopped at least some of the cut-throat competition and thus steadied prices, which remained ir-r e l a t i v e l y stable during i t s period of operation. The Chairman appointed by the Government was Francis Molison Black, a former member of the Manitoba l e g i s l a t u r e who had experience on both sides of the marketing fence, having worked as Treasurer both for P. Burns and Company i n Calgary and for the United Grain Growers. The Committee of Direction was to finance i t s operations by a nominal l i c e n s i n g fee, and by a levy, assessed on growers through th e i r packing houses, of 1 j/k cents a box on apples and pears, one cent a crate on other f r u i t , and f i f t y cents a ton on bulk f r u i t and vegetables. From the s t a r t the Committee met resistance, p a r t i c u l a r l y from Doukhobors i n the Kootenays and Chinese potato growers i n the Mainline area, over l i c e n s i n g , deductions of l e v i e s , and the conditions and prices of sale set by the Committee. These d i f f i c u l t i e s were accentuated by the reluctance of the Pr o v i n c i a l Attorney-General's Department to in s t r u c t the 7 P r o v i n c i a l Police to enforce the Act.' However, the f i r s t season of operation, that of the crop of 1 9 2 7 , was f a i r l y favourable to the Committee of Direction. In t h i s "year of experimentation under the new organization i t might be said that not since 1 9 2 0 was the f e e l i n g so optimistic and the outlook so bright for the o orchardists of the In t e r i o r . " The Committee was materially aided by the smaller crop of 1 9 2 7 , nearly a quarter less than i n 1 9 2 6 , so that the average price of a box of apples, f.o.'b. the packing house, rose thirty-two cents over the previous year's price, to $ 1 . 5 2 . ^ A major problem of the Committee was some shippers who t r i e d to get a s e l l i n g edge by rebates of brokerage to the jobbers, but abuses were li m i t e d because for the f i r s t time the coordinating agency had the l e g a l 10 power to punish offenders. Most shippers were w i l l i n g , once the furor over the passage of the Act had passed, to give the system a t r i a l , and the vast majority of growers 11 were favourable. The r e s u l t s of expanded plantings before and a f t e r the Great War were s t i l l putting new strains on the industry, however, and the crop of 1928 was the largest on record. Average returns on apples dropped by over twenty cents a 12 box. The Committee had some ef f e c t on the market, but i t ce r t a i n l y did not l i v e up to the expectations of those who had agitated f o r i t two years before; i n t e r n a l competition had not been eliminated and the Committee did not even t r y to apportion markets f a i r l y among the shippers. As usual, Associated Growers found i t s e l f saddled with s e l l i n g a d i s -proportionate share of i t s crop on les s p r o f i t a b l e export 1 3 markets to s t a b i l i z e prices. J 37 The 1929 convention of the B.C.F.G.A. showed that the honeymoon was over, with c r i t i c i s m of Committee operations and Committee members t r y i n g to exculpate themselves of blame. A resolution, eventually withdrawn, was put that a p l e b i s c i t e of growers determine i f they wanted the Committee of Direction to continue; another, on the opposite tack, suggested the Marketing Act should be 'crowned1 by i n s t i t u t i n g Central Selling, through one organization, thereby eliminating problems which had arisen i n an only p a r t i a l l y controlled 1 S s e l l i n g system. ^ Growers also expressed d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with being shut out of any d i r e c t voice i n sele c t i n g members of the Committee of Direction. Under the Act, the Government appointed the chairman of the Committee, and the B.C. Growers' and Shippers' Federation appointed the other two members. But the Growers' and Shippers' Federation, despite i t s name, did not i n any way represent the growers; indeed, under i t s bylaws 16 only shippers could be members. Many growers f e l t that the inter e s t s of the shipper had been placed above those of the grower. The 1929 B.C.F.G.A. convention therefore passed a resolution proposing that the B.C.F.G.A. executive committee should have f i f t y percent of the vote i n se l e c t i n g members 17 of the Committee of Direction. The Growers' and Shippers' Federation, however, rejected the proposal; they would only agree to two grower representatives, one f r u i t and one vegetable, acting, without voting powers, i n an advisory capacity on the Board of the Federation. The B.C.F.G.A. executive f e l t that such li m i t e d powers were no better than 38 18 those of a "Ward of the Nation" and rejected the offer. The 1930 convention of the B.C.F.G.A. again c a l l e d f o r grower 19 representation but the Federation s t i l l r e s i s t e d . ' Returns from the 1929 crop were s l i g h t l y better f o r 20 apples and much better for other f r u i t s than for 1028, but confidence i n the Committee of Direction had been broken, and while growers generally did not wish to go back to the previous state of a f f a i r s , they were again f a b r i c a t i n g and l i s t e n i n g to new proposals f o r marketing systems. At the 1930 B.C.F.G.A. convention, Committee chairman F.M. Black himself spoke i n favour of central s e l l i n g , and suggested that a committee of the B.C.F.G.A. draw up a plan to present at the next convention. In the meantime he offered as an immediate improvement, a scheme of pooling returns proposed by the B.C. Growers* and Shippers' Federation, to equalize the costs of storing and marketing surplusses not saleable on the d i r e c t 21 domestic market. Associated Growers and Sales Service Ltd,, the organizations which carried most of the surplus, supported the resolution, while the other, smaller, independent shippers opposed i t ; the Convention passed the motion and requested that the Legislature make the necessary amendments to the 22 Produce Marketing Act. The small independent shippers continued to oppose these pooling amendments to the Produce Marketing Act, and even the larger independents who had helped sponsor the move through t h e i r s e l l i n g agency, Sales Service Ltd., became l e s s 23 favourable as the time came fo r implementing the plan. ^ But t h e i r r e a l opposition was directed at a f a r greater threat to t h e i r way of doing business, F.M. Black's plan for central s e l l i n g . Presented i n the f a l l of 1930, Black's plan generated controversy and high feelings equal to, i f not i n excess of, those aroused by the 1927 Produce Marketing Act. I t was b a s i c a l l y t h i s : A central marketing board elected by the growers should have complete control of the crop, with power to set minimum prices and timing and destination of shipments. Associated Growers would be taken over to create the s e l l i n g agency, and the private concerns would become packers only. The debate on t h i s plan was much l i k e that of 1927. -Supporters claimed that the scheme would r e s u l t i n savings i n overhead and s e l l i n g costs, i n readier f i n a n c i a l support from the banks, i n better control over grades and elimination of waste, and i n a s t a b i l i z e d market by c o n t r o l l i n g the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the surplus to new and distant markets. The opposition, as i n 1927, came from private s e l l e r s of f r u i t and from those who rejected any r e s t r i c t i o n s on the i r freedom to dispose of t h e i r f r u i t . I t included the usual personal attacks on Black and the o f f i c i a l s of the B.C.F.G.A. and the cooperatives, written to the Premier i n i l l i t e r a t e scrawls by people who on the same page.said they had long been good Party men and asked for p o l i t i c a l 26 patronage; elegant expositions of the philosophy of free enterprise; and testimony from prominent c a p i t a l i s t s i n other industries to the dangerous precedent involved,in 27 central s e l l i n g . ' Since the executive of the B.C.F.G.A. supported the Black central s e l l i n g plan, and provided a forum f o r i t s ko promotion at meetings of the l o c a l s , the independent shippers resolved to promote t h e i r own growers' organization. This Independent Growers' Association was set up i n December of 28 1930, but from the s t a r t i t s p l a u s i b i l i t y as a growers' organization was compromised by the number of shippers i n 29 organizational positions; 7 newspapers and others outside the 30 industry considered i t a mouthpiece of the shippers. The Association was openly and "absolutely opposed to a l l forms of marketing by l e g i s l a t i v e enactment"; i t not only stood against central s e l l i n g but also against the Produce Marketing Act, proposing that the only governmental involvement should be a Bureau of A g r i c u l t u r a l Information to c i r c u l a t e market 31 r e p o r t s . J The Independent Growers' Association claimed attendance of over 800 at i t s f i r s t convention at Kelowna on February 5, 1931, which elected General A.R. Harman, a Kelowna t u l i p bulb grower, as President, and passed resolutions condemning the central s e l l i n g plan. But changed p o l i t i c a l conditions were making central s e l l i n g a dead issue, and by the end of the year the organization withered away, i t s members either returning to the B.C.F.G.A., where central s e l l i n g was no 32 longer a matter a discussion, or lapsing into quiescence. Meanwhile, Black's central s e l l i n g plan had been presented to growers' meetings throughout the Valley, and at the B.C.F.G.A. convention on January 22, 1931, i t was endorsed by an overwhelming majority of members. A draft l e g i s l a t i v e b i l l , known as the "Growers' Sales Act", was drawn up and introduced i n the P r o v i n c i a l Legislature i n March of 1931» but i t was k i l l e d on a t e c h n i c a l i t y . T.G. Norris, s o l i c i t o r for the B.C.F.G.A., angrily complained that The b i l l was k i l l e d — n o t because the members voted against i t , not f o t the reason that because of i t s nature i t was not acceptable to the House, but because p o l i t i c a l considerations outweighed everything else and the desire of certain i n d i v i d u a l s to avoid a vote on the question had more influence with those i n authority than a sense of public duty or any consideration as to o ~ the wishes or the welfare of the growers. ^ Central s e l l i n g had i n fac t been made p o l i t i c a l l y inexpedient for the government by two recent events: the report of a Royal Commission and the judgement i n a Supreme, Court case. Although a request f o r a government enquiry into marketing had been part of the B.C.F.G.A. resolution which led to the Produce Marketing Act i n 1927, no action was then taken by the government. At the convention of January 1929, the B.C.F.G.A., at that time divided over central s e l l i n g , had c a l l e d on^-the p r o v i n c i a l government f o r a commission of enquiry, similar to one currently investigating the milk 34 mdustry, "to examine into a l l phases of the Marketing 3^ problem of f r u i t s and vegetables." ^ But conditions had changed from those which spawned the Produce Marketing Act and the Milk Enquiry Commission. The feeble and disunited L i b e r a l s had l o s t the 1928 elec t i o n to the Conservatives, led by the veterinarian Dr. Simon Fraser Tolmie. The new premier appointed as Minister of Agriculture William Atkinson, who had defeated Barrow i n hi s home ground of Chilliwack. ' B i l l y ' Atkinson, an auctioneer by trade, lacked Barrow's sympathy for cooperation, and was d e f i n i t e l y not i n c l i n e d to support the idea of compulsion. And his cabinet colleagues were no l i k e l i e r to be f r i e n d l y - - i t was a ' m i l l i o n a i r e ' cabinet "who ruled more or le s s by the divine r i g h t of Capital','. J.W. Jones, Conservative MLA for South Okanagan, was s t i l l "very much interested i n the Produce Marketing Act, f e e l i n g that i t was very necessary f o r us to have protection of t h i s kind i n order to put the f r u i t d i s t r i c t s upon a stable basis" and he was "most anxious that every provision of the Act should be carried out without the s l i g h t e s t delay" but Jones had been l e f t out of the Cabinet, despite h i s long p o l i t i c a l c a r e e r , ^ and the attitude of those within i t may be deduced from Jones' pleadings with them to enforce the Act. Premier Tolmie himself was a well-meaning and easy-going man, but l i k e Oliver lacked the personality to dominate his Cabinet ministers. He v a c i l l a t e d on the marketing ho question, attempting to avoid the issue: This class of l e g i s l a t i o n was very strongly rooted before we came into power and we have watched i t very c a r e f u l l y with the hope of f i n d i n g something that would be better than present conditions, but the r e s u l t s have not been e n t i r e l y s a t i s f a c t o r y by any means. F i n a l l y , a f t e r considerable delay, the Premier bowed hi to the public demand and appointed a Royal Commission charged with investigating, despite the objections of the executive of the B.C.F.G.A., not only the marketing of f r u i t , but also the f i n a n c i a l problems of the i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t s . A single Commissioner was charged with t h i s extensive task; the choice of man f o r the post was governed by the philosophical stance of the government. Lewis Duncan, the combines investigator, and Dean F.M. Clement of the University of B r i t i s h Columbia were among the names suggested as experienced i n similar investigations; but as one party supporter commented, "I think Dean Clement i s a very capable man, but the impression he gave me was that he rather i n c l i n e d to compulsive measures, which i s the one thing we wish to keep 43 away from". J Instead, Tolmie went out of the province with a p o l i t i c a l appointment and gave the plum to W. Sanford Evans, a Winnipeg investment dealer and Conservative member of the Manitoba Legislature, who had served on several enquiries and government boards, and with whom Tolmie was undoubtedly f a m i l i a r from h i s years as Federal Minister of Agriculture. There was no doubt of Evans' p r i n c i p l e s : he was a staunch believer i n free enterprise and i n 'business p r i n c i p l e s ' . The f r u i t growers did not get what they had hoped for, a speedy study with r e s u l t s available to help formulate po l i c y at the next B.C.F.G.A. convention i n January 1930-Instead, Evans took until' January 15, 1931, to f i n i s h h i s Report/ although he did issue the section on the less contentious i r r i g a t i o n issue e a r l i e r . The biased attitude of the Commission while i t operated may be seen i n l e t t e r s i n which F.G. deWolf, the Administrative O f f i c e r of the Commission, and J.G. Thomson, i t s Secretary, attacked the Committee of Direction and the managers of Associated Growers as 'over-paid o f f i c i a l s ' interested only i n protecting t h e i r positions, and threw i n personal smears against F.M. Black for good measure. Sanford Evans' Report was not what the bulk of growers expected. He raised some v a l i d points, noting that the industry had not given proper attention to the export trade which consumed over a quarter of the crop,"*-'' that f r u i t production per acre was much lower than i n comparable areas 48 of Washington, that the options of s e l l i n g agencies, coop-erative or independent, were d r a s t i c a l l y reduced by the lack of cold-storage f a c i l i t i e s to allow the crop to be sold over eight months rather than over three, and that growers' options were lessened because there were no shippers i n the Valley who would buy f r u i t f or cash, rather than accepting i t on a consignment for sale b a s i s . ^ Considering the man chosen as Commissioner, i t was a r e l a t i v e l y neutral report; Evans did. not attack the cooperatives, and indeed indicated that he considered them i n t e g r a l to a system of free compet-i t i o n . But what raised the uproar was his comments on the question of l e g i s l a t e d control of marketing. Evans himself admitted that his conclusions were based-on his"general p r i n c i p l e s of economic organization and h i s political-economic convictions, rather than on any careful analysis of the actual performance of any of the c o l l e c t i v e schemes t r i e d since 51 1922. He concluded that the system under the Produce Marketing Act, of p a r t i a l control, neither f u l l y centralized nor f u l l y competitive, could not possibly work. "Control may or may not be a good thing, but p a r t i a l control i n matters that are so i n t e r - r e l a t e d that they are but phases of one problem i s perhaps the most doubtful form of control."-^ The alternatives, as he saw them, were either establishment of compulsory central s e l l i n g , where a centralized monopoly should i n e f f e c t expropriate the produce of the orchards, s e l l i t as i t saw f i t , and divide the returns among the growers; or else reversion to free competition, uninhibited by l e g i s l a t i v e controls. The f i r s t alternative he saw as absolutely unacceptable both economically and f o r reasons of political-economic p r i n c i p l e , since i t would i n e f f e c t be a form of socialism, quite i n contradiction to the intent of the constitution of the country--it would grant a monopoly to one i n t e r e s t group which could not be j u s t l y denied to any other, whether clothing, coal, or eggs. Therefore the only acceptable alternative was a return to open competition. Evans suggested encouraging dir e c t purchase of f r u i t by dealers, so as to increase the range of competitive choices open to the grower; and setting up a shippers* organization to exchange information on sales prices and terms, thus a s s i s t i n g shippers i n making decisions. He also recommended that, i f the Produce Marketing Act was to "be retained, the Committee should be reduced to a single government appointee who would no longer take any active part i n the management or sale of the crop, but only act as an a r b i t r a t o r i n disputes between shippers. The reaction to the Evans Report over-simplified and mis-interpreted h i s conclusions, concentrating on only a few Kb, pronouncements taken out of context, thereby destroying whatever n e u t r a l i t y and o b j e c t i v i t y i t had. The independents and other opponents of control l e g i s l a t i o n , many of whom used the Report as j u s t i f i c a t i o n for attacks on any sort of cooperation, were j u b i l a n t . T h e convention of the Independent Growers' Association on February 5 passed a unanimous resolution thanking Evans, and s t a t i n g that i t goes on record as endorsing h i s report and assuring him that while i t may be considered a Counsel of Despair by those whose ideas of marketing are l i m i t e d to one hundred per cent, control, i n very truth i t suggests a Council of Co-operation to maintain those p r i n c i p l e s which we as Canadian c i t i z e n s intend to protect and preserve as the most sacred heritage of our race and constitution. -? Growers who supported cooperation were stunned by Evans' attack on the marketing p r i n c i p l e s they supported, but they reacted emphatically. Evans, they said, despite the time and expense of his enquiry, f a i l e d to give any detailed analysis of the various options which had been t r i e d or proposed. No public hearing was held during a l l of t h i s time at which growers and other interested could give evidence. Besides that offers from such authorities as the Associated and the Committee to supply the Commission with a l l the information i n t h e i r possession were large l y ignored. Many s p e c i f i c statements and assumptions of Evans were refuted or challenged, p a r t i c u l a r l y where he denigrated the e f f i c i e n c y 57 of c e n t r a l i z a t i o n and sang the praises of open competition.^' Despite the wishful estimate by F.G. deWolf, Admin-i s t r a t i v e O f f i c e r of the Commission, that "The north end [of the Valley] i s f a i r l y s o l i d f o r Evans' report except for a few u l t r a B r i t i s h people--the south, Kaleden and Penticton, are strong for Black and Kelowna probably evenly s p l i t " , ^ the convention of the B.C.F.G.A. on January 22, a f t e r a stormy debate, voted by an overwhelming majority to r e j e c t 59 the Evans Report. y Hard on the heels of the Sanford Evans Report came another blow to the prospects of organized marketing, the l e g a l i n v a l i d a t i o n of the Produce Marketing Act, which Chief 47 Justice Lyman Duff of the Supreme Court of Canada on February 16, 1931 ruled to be u l t r a v i r e s of the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e . Both the Report and the court decision were i n part products of the time, a period when the deteriorating economic state fostered despairing individualism i n e f f o r t s to save the s e l f from the general ruin, and "increasingly competitive conditions made regulatory l e g i s l a t i o n intolerable to a growing number -P -1 60 of people. The history of the l i t i g a t i o n was as follows: several l e g a l challenges had been made of the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a b i l i t y of the P r o v i n c i a l Legislature to pass such measures as the Produce Marketing Act. One case suggested i t was i n v a l i d as an attempt to regulate trade and commerce, a federal prerog-ative, but the decision of* the B r i t i s h Columbia Court of Appeal on January 8, 1929 held the Act to be v a l i d because i t concerned property and c i v i l r i g h t s , a matter of p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , and kept that character whether or not part of 61 the produce was sold out of the province. The v a l i d i t y of the Act was again affirmed i n 1930 i n the case brought by A.C. Lawson, a shipper at Grand Forks. His challenge was that the l e v i e s imposed by the I n t e r i o r Tree F r u i t and Vege-table Committee were i n d i r e c t taxes, which could only be imposed by the Dominion. But on March 11, 1930, Mr. Justice Denis Murphy upheld the Act, stating that the l e v i e s were not taxes f o r public or governmental purposes, but were to defray the cost of operation and to provide services. Lawson, however, appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, adding to his case the e a r l i e r question about trade and commerce. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court decisions on both points; the decision handed down by Duff said that the Act was u l t r a v i r e s of the P r o v i n c i a l Legislature because i t s purpose, i n conferring powers upon the Committee to dictate routes of shipping, termini to which shipment may be made, quantities which may be shipped to each point, r e f e r r i n g to shipments beyond the Province, i s to assume control over trade and regulate the producers as traders and shippers. The decision also said that as the l e v i e s imposed "by-the Committee increased the price of the product sold outside the province imposing them, the l e v i e s were indeed i n d i r e c t taxes, beyond p r o v i n c i a l power to enact. Appeal to the B r i t i s h Privy Council was possible, but was not made because the Committee of Direction alone could not support the cost and the P r o v i n c i a l Government refused to support any appeal, even though i t was p r o v i n c i a l legislation-. Indeed, the government by t h i s point appears to have been a c t i v e l y h o s t i l e to any appeal. I t apparently feared that i f the case was"lost the government might be l i a b l e to repay l e v i e s and pool equalization funds deducted 64 by shippers while the case was being heard. The Committee of Direction, unsupported, could carry things no farther: i t terminated i t s operations on March 6, 1 9 3 1 • ^ F r u i t marketing returned to i t s previous unorganized state, just at a time when the t r a d i t i o n a l p r a i r i e market was rapidl y l o s i n g i t s a b i l i t y to pay. Marketing conditions were once again those which had prevailed before 1927—with the s i g n i f i c a n t difference that 49 the independent shippers had meanwhile grown greatly i n importance. Associated Growers now marketed only s l i g h t l y over half of the crop, as compared with over seventy percent i n 1927.^ Of the rest, Sales Service Ltd. had about twenty-fi v e percent, B.C. Shippers, Occidental F r u i t Company, and Kidstons Limited divided about twenty percent between them-selves, and the remaining f i v e percent was d i s t r i b u t e d among various small shippers. ^ 7 . A l l that could be organized f o r the crop of 1931 was a voluntary Shippers' Council, representing between eighty and ninety percent of the shipping tonnage, which col l e c t e d information and made reports of sales, as well as agreeing 68 on recommendations as to prices and the timing of shipments. From the st a r t the market was demoralized by shipments from 'wild* shippers outside the Council, who threw t h e i r entire 69 product d i r e c t l y onto the P r a i r i e s as soon as i t was picked. In October Associated Growers took a s i g n i f i c a n t step by withdrawing from the Shippers' Council " i n order to be i n a p o s i t i o n to meet the competition of the outlaw and wild 70 shippers on the p r a i r i e markets."' This was the f i r s t step away from the Associated's former p o l i c y of supporting, even when not d i r e c t l y p r o f i t a b l e , a l l e f f o r t s to s t a b i l i z e the supply of f r u i t to the market. Even so, the old p o l i c y of holding back f r u i t to avoid overloading the market s t i l l meant that on November 15 Associated Growers had between 30 and 35 percent of i t s crop yet to s e l l , while the independ-71 ents averaged only 20 to 25 percent. The disorganization of the 1931 crop was apparent i n the returns: apples brought an average of twenty-five cents a box less than the year before—and t h i s on a crop almost 72 twenty percent l i g h t e r . Associated Growers' hew p o l i c y was f u l l y enunciated i n i t s resolution of 1932 to cooperate with other shippers only i f a binding agreement was made under which sales and price were controlled through one o f f i c e , and markets properly apportioned according to tonnage held; and " F a i l i n g any arrangement as above described to so operate that no independ-ent s h a l l obtain a marketing advantage that w i l l enable him 7 3 to pay higher returns than those paid by the A s s o c i a t e d . ' ^ The cooperative's continuing loss of members had caused i t to decide that " i f the Associated i s to survive, comparative prices have to be obtained at any cost to hold membership another year", but one dire c t o r warned that i t would be a costly operation and a Pyrrhic v i c t o r y , only achievable by throwing Associated f r u i t into the early preferred markets i n competition with the independents, and thus depressing pr i c e s 74 for both. As Dean Clement l a t e r put i t , "the s t a b i l i z a t i o n umbrella folded up completely and the r a i n of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n 7 ^  dripped down the necks of a l l the growers.' ^ The threat of the crop of 1932, with a l i k e l y 7 6 thousand carloads more of apples to s e l l than i n 1931, resulted i n the formation of a voluntary Apple Cartel, made up of shippers c o n t r o l l i n g about,ninety percent of the crop. The Cartel agreement allowed members to s e l l f o r t y percent of t h e i r apples on the immediate domestic market, and either to export the r e s t or hold them u n t i l the domestic market had completely absorbed the f i r s t portion. The Cartel was also to recommend shipping dates and minimum pr i c e s . " ^ But once again the shippers outside the Cartel threw a l l t h e i r f r u i t on the market as soon as i t was harvested; t h i s , combined with the amount allowed for immediate release by the members, was too much for the market to absorb without demoralization. Moreover, i n meeting the competition of the 'wild' shippers, those within the Cartel ignored i t s rulings. "The c a r t e l , . . . as an informal organization, had no power to f i x • penalties for the v i o l a t i o n of rules, and there was a complete disregard of shipping dates, places, and marketing regul-"'.;"3 + • -.78 ations. The r e s u l t s were devastating. The average price per box of apples, f.o.'b. Okanagan, dropped twenty cents from the year before, from $1.05 to $ 0 . 8 5 . ^ For some v a r i e t i e s and at some times, returns were considerably lower. At one point apples were sold i n Vancouver at twenty-five cents a 8 0 box. Many growers received only 'red ink*, b i l l s from shippers for losses on f r u i t sold at less than the approx-imately f i f t y cents a box sorting and packing costs; few received enough to pay t h e i r production expenses. Since the grower.Vs cost of production varied between 33 and 70 cents a 8 2 box, any f.o.'b. price below an average of ninety-five cents meant a net loss to the grower. Yet the average price that year was, as already stated, eighty-five cents. Typical was the experience of W.E. Haskins of Penticton, who received from his shipper an average of only twenty cents a box, making a net loss of $2000 on his year's crop. J 52 In t h i s gloomy sit u a t i o n , the f r u i t growers faced the crop of 1933• The f a i l u r e of a l l organizational e f f o r t s had been brought about by the stubborn minority who refused to 84 cooperate. The O.K. B u l l e t i n summed up the s i t u a t i o n : One thing i s quite evident: that i t i s apparently impossible for 100 per cent to j o i n i n any proposition by voluntary e f f o r t and i t i s abundantly apparent that as long as there i s a minority outside any arrangement, the e f f o r t s of the majority w i l l to a great extent be n u l l i f i e d . Conditions were ripe for more r a d i c a l action--for the f i r s t time i n many years, most f r u i t growers were act u a l l y out of pocket on the crop of 1932. As several analysts of agrarian protest have noted, the best times f o r such movements are when farmers, formerly prosperous, are faced with economic f a i l u r e . "It's where the farmers had something a few years ago and have had i t suddenly taken away, that the agitators f i n d a responsive audience." ^ Chapter 5 "GROWER CONTROL--MINIMUM PRICE": THE GROWERS' STRIKE OF 1933 By the' summer of 1933, with previous e f f o r t s to s t a b i l i z e marketing either failed, or stalemated, the growers, desperate for solutions to t h e i r problems, were w i l l i n g to turn from established methods which seemed to have no more to o f f e r and to l i s t e n to new plans which, r a d i c a l as they might be, offered hope of breaking the tyranny of the minority. L i t t l e action had been taken as the 1933 apple harvest approached. This was i n part the r e s u l t of the f i n a n c i a l collapse of the B r i t i s h Columbia F r u i t Growers' Association, the only organization which claimed to represent a l l growers. The p r o v i n c i a l government, i n i t s e f f o r t s to c u r t a i l expenses, had suspended i t s annual grant to the body, and the B.C.F.G.A., which had for many years depended on t h i s grant, simply ran out of funds i n March 1933- This, came as a great shock to the growers, and the summer was spent i n reorganizing the"Association on a new foundation, under the leadership of D. Godfrey Isaacs of Vernon and W.E. Haskins, a Penticton lawyer and f r u i t grower, who became the new 1 president. Although i t was thus continued, the B.C.F.G.A. was i n no condition to take any action more decisive than c a l l i n g on the federal government to pass l e g i s l a t i o n s i m i l a r 53 54 to the recent B r i t i s h A g r i c u l t u r a l Marketing Act, which provided for state-run marketing boards for a l l a g r i c u l t u r a l produce. 2 Even the minimal control the Cartel had provided seemed l i k e l y to be absent for the 1933 crop. As late as August 24, the shippers were unable to come to any agreement 3 on a c a r t e l proposal. But certain vague ideas were already i n the a i r . The same newspaper a r t i c l e which reported the c a r t e l f a i l u r e also commented e d i t o r i a l l y that "A movement to leave the apples on the trees might make i t i n t e r e s t i n g for shippers who have made firm sales on Old Country markets." Shortly after, W.J. Coe of Winfield wrote an open l e t t e r to Okanagan f r u i t growers c a l l i n g on them to "Sink a l l differences, never mind whether you ship through the co-op, or the inde-pendents, get f r i e n d l y with your neighbours, and so get together and f i g h t t h i s thing" according to h i s plan:^ What we want to do i s to get together i n some growers' organization, I don't care what they c a l l i t . Leave the s e l l i n g end alone. Leave the f r e i g h t rates, etc. alone, but say, we w i l l not pick our produce unless we get the cost of production. But action, rather than words, was i n i t i a t e d by F.R.E. DeHart of Kelowna. Prices for even the f i r s t apples being shipped were s l i p p i n g dangerously. On about the f i r s t of September, DeHart was t o l d of a telegram received i n Kelowna which stated that f i v e carloads of apples were s i t t i n g unsold at Calgary, unable to f i n d a buyer even at 4-5 to 50 cents a box--less than the cost of packing and handling. On invest-igation t h i s report was found to be a hoax, sent by some 'interested i n d i v i d u a l ' i n order to force the depressed prices even lower. w Disturbed, and angry, DeHart arranged a meeting on September 4 of growers representing Kelowna and the sur-rounding central Okanagan f r u i t d i s t r i c t s . This meeting prepared a resolution for a general mass meeting of growers ca l l e d for the next day, September 5, i n 7 the Empress Theatre: The growers* present p o s i t i o n i s due to the con-signment of f r u i t to the packing houses: Therefore be i t resolved: That the growers organize and refuse to deliver f r u i t to the packing houses unless the shippers guarantee not to pack or ship such f r u i t unless i t brings a minimum of one cent a pound. More succinct was the f i g h t i n g slogan adopted, coined by J.H. Aberdeen of Winfield: "A Cent a Pound or On the Ground". The Okanagan f r u i t growers' s t r i k e did not spring out of empty a i r , although at f i r s t glance i t may appear to have done so. That a i r was charged with influences and previous events which pr e c i p i t a t e d at the beginning of September. The growers a l l had heard the c o n f l i c t i n g arguments about cooperation as against independent marketing. Ever since the establishment of Associated Growers i n 1923. there had been constant r e i t e r a t i o n of the need for a l l growers to unite i n order to control the market and thus protect t h e i r returns. Furthermore, some f r u i t growers had formerly been grain growers on the P r a i r i e s , "where the cooperative and Q wheat pool organizations had long been strong. A more distant though more d i r e c t l y pertinent influence was the Farmers' Holiday Movement i n the United States during 1932 and 1933 , which was centred i n the Middle Western states and which attempted, by withholding farm products from the market, both to force up prices and to 10 pressure government to support agriculture. The O.K. B u l l e t i n of September 1932 drew attention to t h i s new form of d i r e c t action as "A quite new development a r i s i n g out of the f a i l u r e of our present economic system to function" and commented e d i t o r i a l l y that "While i t may be true that these farrrr s t r i k e s are i n the main f u t i l e a f f a i r s not calculated to achieve much, they should at l e a s t arouse public opinion to the necessity of something being done i n the d i r e c t i o n of 11 s t a b i l i z i n g the prices paid for farm commodities." Closer to home, unrest i n the Fraser Valley dairy industry provided examples of the power of c o l l e c t i v e action. There, during May of 1933, groups of several hundred dairymen marched on the homes of three independent farmers, to intimidate them from undercutting milk prices set by the cooperative. Later a crowd of two to three hundred intercepted a truckload of milk being sent to an independent d i s t r i b u t o r , and forced i t to go to an organized dairy. Frequent minor acts of intim-idation, such as the emptying or destruction of independents milk cans waiting to be collected, spread throughout the 12 Fraser Valley. These various influences meant that the idea of determined mass action was not foreign to the minds of Okanagan f r u i t growers i n the autumn of 1933' A l l that was needed was for a leadership to indicate the course such acts should follow. The mass meeting at Kelowna on September 5 was long 13 and m i l i t a n t , l a s t i n g from 10 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. J I t was 57 opened by DeHart, who noted the presence as an observer of the Hon. J.W. Jones, l o c a l MLA and p r o v i n c i a l finance minister, and proposed T.G. Norris, a prominent l o c a l lawyer, as 14 secretary. The meeting decided on a two part plan involving a growers' stri k e for the cost of production and t o t a l part-i c i p a t i o n of the shippers i n a new c a r t e l . The f i r s t proposal was outlined by W.E. Haskins, who emerged as leader of the campaign, more i n h i s own person than as president of the B.C.F.G.A. He c a l l e d on the growers not to deli v e r f r u i t to shippers who would not guarantee forty cents net to the grower for each box they shipped. He r e a l i z e d t h i s might mean some f r u i t might not be sold, but said that "If apples are to be dumped, . . . l e t ' s dump them now before the shippers have any chance to add cost of packing and shipping to be deducted from the returns of those apples that are s o l d . " 1 5 The second part of the plan, which helped the s t r i k e become more than just a vent for indignation, was provided by Robert Cheyne of Glenmora. He put amendments to the o r i g i n a l resolution, arguing that the growers must force a l l the shippers into a c a r t e l to control sales. Without a controlled deal i t i s impossible to get a cent a pound, said R. Cheyne. "How are you going to control 2000 growers? I f the shippers refuse to guar-antee a price, the growers w i l l weaken and take what they are offered." There was a great deal of discussion of the resolution, and considerable opposition. Some opponents f e l t that time was too short to organize f o r the 1933 crop, some that the shippers would not agree, others opposed the proposal because of t h e i r continued resistance to any plan of central selling'. E.J. Chambers, president of Associated Growers, warned that i t was easy to create enthusiasm, but that enthusiasm would 17 not solve the growers' problems. ' As the discussion grew heated, W.J. Coe stood up and threw a wi l d l y applauded threat 1 8 at any orchardist who refused to j o i n the growers' s t r i k e : I f they do not come into the agreement, . . . we w i l l see that they have no apples to ship. I myself w i l l be w i l l i n g to go and smash hi s trees. I f they put me i n j a i l they w i l l at least keep me, and I am hardly able to do that under present conditions. . . . We need strong-arm s t u f f now, and not any more kid gloves. F i n a l l y , however, the meeting passed by a large I Q majority a considerably amended resolution: 7 Whereas there i s a grave danger of disastrous d i s -organization i n the marketing of the apple crop t h i s year, l e t i t be resolved that growers immediately organize and refuse to pick t h e i r f r u i t unless the shippers formulate a marketing plan which includes the p r i n c i p l e of pooling a l l returns on an equitable basis by v a r i e t i e s , size and grades over one desk; and that growers refuse to d e l i v e r t h e i r f r u i t to shippers who do not agree to such a plan, and the shippers forming such a plan guarantee not to s e l l any f r u i t , unless assured that i t w i l l return a minimum of one cent per pound for apples and \\ cents per pound tovthe grower for pears, and not to pack and store apples unless reasonably assured that they w i l l return a minimum of one cent per pound fo r apples and \\ cents per pound for pears to the grower. Haskins and DeHart were selected as leaders of the campaign, and committees were nominated for each r u r a l area around Kelowna. A select committee made up of Haskins, A.K. Loyd of the Belgo, Cheyne, and DeHart, was to act as i n t e r -mediary between growers and shippers. Haskins took on the further r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for organizing similar meetings at 2 Vernon and Penticton to present the 'cent a pound' campaign. After these growers' moves, the shippers met at 59 Kelowna on September 6 and the majority decided to j o i n i n a new organization, the Okanagan S t a b i l i z a t i o n Board. This Board was to be managed by Major M.V. McGuire, an independent f r u i t shipper who had also managed the previous year's Apple 21 C a r t e l . Indeed the Board was i n e f f e c t the old Cartel with the additional feature of the pooling system demanded by the growers' resolution. "The success of the entire plan, however, rests with the growers," declares Major McGuire. "They must lend t h e i r f u l l e s t co-operation to the scheme, by a s s i s t i n g those shippers who have joined the pool, and by avoiding those firms which remain outside i t . " While meetings were being scheduled f o r other points i n the Okanagan and Mainline regions, the temperature of the movement at Kelowna rose. The organized growers, well aware of how many previous marketing schemes had f a i l e d because they were unable to control the entire crop, pressed forward with a campaign - to sign up a l l growers i n the d i s t r i c t , and began e f f o r t s to stop the flow of f r u i t to shippers not i n the Okanagan S t a b i l i z a t i o n Board. Oh September 11 the s t r i k e came out into the open with pickets placed on three bridges on. the.main roads leading into town from the orchard areas. They stopped a l l trucks carrying f r u i t and demanded to see a written statement from the shipper to whom the f r u i t was being taken that he accepted the cent a pound demand. Where t h i s was not forthcoming, the trucks were turned back and unloaded. E f f o r t s were also made to get the cooperation of organized labour, by c a l l i n g on truckers to decline to haul unguaranteed apples as 'scab' f r u i t . ^ At the Penticton mass meeting on September 9 Haskins 6o suggested a further weapon of persuasion--a boycott by merchants and professional men of any s e l f i s h i n d i v i d u a l s who refused to j o i n a movement which meant so much to the community. J One p a r t i c u l a r instance of such organization occurred at Penticton-, where a l l the lawyers pledged not to appear i n any case against a f r u i t grower for actions taken ? 6 to s t a b i l i z e the market. Meanwhile, i n what proved the most important step of the campaign, an agreement was signed on September 11 between the Kelowna growers' committee and the Okanagan Stab-i l i z a t i o n Board. This agreement, contingent on one hundred percent s t a b i l i z a t i o n , provided for a committee of six, three from the S t a b i l i z a t i o n Board and three from the growers, with Major McGuire as chairman, "for the purpose of s e t t l i n g prices and dealing with a l l other matters which may arise as a r e s u l t of the valley-wide e f f o r t to s t a b i l i z e prices on the 1933 27 apple deal." Prices were to be set to return a cent a pound minimum to the growers, the shippers were to make p a r t i a l payments within a month af t e r sale, and W.E. Haskins was to s i t as growers' representative on the S t a b i l i z a t i o n Board committee. For i t s part, the growers' committee agreed to urge a l l growers to refuse to deliv e r f r u i t to any shipper not a member of the S t a b i l i z a t i o n Board. This was a sign-i f i c a n t development, for now the urgency sh i f t e d from e n l i s t i n g growers to signing shippers up for the S t a b i l i z a t i o n Board. The r e f u s a l of a few growers to join, as at Rutland, did not 28 matter, i f t h e i r shippers were themselves i n the agreement. The greatest resistance was met at Kelowna, where 61 several shippers and grower-shippers refused to sign. But on September 12 Okanagan F r u i t Shippers Ltd., the Occidental F r u i t Company, and Rowcliffe Brothers were induced to sign, and the following day the l a s t holdout, Joseph Casorso of the Belgo Co-operative Growers' Association, was also persuaded, 2^ by means of what was l a t e r termed i l l e g a l intimidation. F i n a l l y a l l fifty-two f r u i t shippers i n the Valley were part 31 of the Okanagan S t a b i l i z a t i o n Board. The j o i n t shipper-grower p r i c e - f i x i n g committee designated September 18 as the date on which a l l apple shipments came under i t s control. The committee set regulations to be followed by the Okanagan S t a b i l i z a t i o n Board, covering minimum prices for various grades and va r i e t i e s , ' p o o l i n g groups, and brokerage and wholesale arrangements. Two of the rul i n g s were to cause trouble. The f i r s t was a levy on f r u i t shipped, for the equalization of pools, that was eventually the downfall of the Board. The other was a ban on shipments of orchard-run bulk (unsorted and loose packed) Mcintosh to P r a i r i e markets.-^ Some shippers, p a r t i c u l a r l y the smaller ones, were very much upset by t h i s r u l i n g , as i t meant they would have to make much greater cash investments i n sorting:;and .packing. The f i r s t challenge came almost immediately, on September 20, from Joe Casorso of the Belgo Co-operative. A • f l y i n g squad' of two hundred growers, led by R.F. Borrett, descended on two packing houses and found boxcars being loaded with bulk Mcintosh for him. They threatened to dump the carloads, but f i n a l l y were s a t i s f i e d with sealing them up and preventing t h e i r shipment. For the moment Casorso, who had 62 been 'out of town', toed the l i n e . The next day the cars 3 3 were unloaded and the apples graded and packed, y but Casorso did not give i n e a s i l y . A week l a t e r , on September 28, he made h i s second challenge, together with the Rowcliffe brothers of Hollywood Orchards. They started loading two cars of bulk Macs, l a t e r increased to a t o t a l of seven. When news of t h i s came to Haskins, he c a l l e d a mass r a l l y of l o c a l growers, at which he spoke of non-violence, but said that shipment of those cars must be prevented at any cost. "Gandhi-like passive resistance has been very successful i n India, Mr. Haskins 3/4. added, and urged a l l present to go down to the tracks." The belli g e r e n t crowd surrounded the packing houses, where loading was s t i l l going on, and despite the presence of f i v e 3 5 policemen, J stopped the loading by stonethrowing and cut the power l i n e s to the buildings. At about 11:30 p.m. the f r e i g h t engine came from the yards to make up the t r a i n . The crowd, of four hundred f r u i t growers and t h e i r wives and children stood between the boxcars and the locomotive. They defied the engineer to t r y to l i n k up with those cars, shouting "Only over our dead and mutilated bodies w i l l those cars move out on the tracks". The t r a i n crew, however, was quite w i l l i n g to back down, and went away to deal with other undisputed f r e i g h t . The general attitude and the ingrained d i s t r u s t of shippers was expressed that night to a reporter by one of 3 7 the growers:-^ We must have success today or we are out for good. . . . We have l o s t heavily i n the past few years. We have loans from banks and from some of the shippers. We cannot repay these loans the way things have been going. Further losses t h i s year w i l l place us i n bank-ruptcy. Wholesale foreclosures w i l l be i n order and we s h a l l be out--out of house and home and orchard, and probably forced to get out of the Valley--and the packers and the banks w i l l come into ownership of the ranches. Then you may expect to see those packers, being i n charge of large orchard areas, raise the prices to the consumer, who w i l l have to pay whatever price i s demanded. To see that the boxcars stayed put, the crowd stayed, grouped around bonfires and singing, u n t i l 2:30 i n the next morning. News then came from Vernon that t h e i r l e g a l repres-entative, T.G. Norris, had obtained an injunction, addressed to the Rowcliffes and the Casorsos, r e s t r a i n i n g them and t h e i r agents from disposing of f r u i t except as the terms of the agreement required. Further injunctions addressed to the Canadian National and Canadian P a c i f i c railway companies prohibited them moving the f r u i t i n question, pending the hearing on the injunctions. After t h i s news reached the growers' headquarters i n Kelowna, "a motor car swept down 3 C the Kelowna streets, horn blaring, to proclaim the v i c t o r y . " - " The tenor of general f e e l i n g at t h i s time, both among growers and the townspeople, may be seen i n t h e i r boycott of Casorso Bothers Limited, a firm of butchershops i n several Okanagan towns and at Kamloops. This occurred even though Joe and F e l i x Casorso had sold t h e i r interests i n the company 40 years before, and only the name had been retained. Before the hearing on the injunctions, scheduled for October 7 at Kamloops before Judge Swanson, the rebels backed down, and agreed to abide by the regulations of the S t a b i l -i z a t i o n Board. The growers considered t h i s a great v i c t o r y , but the Vernon News prophetically noted that i t l e f t unsettled 4 l the question of the l e g a l i t y of those regulations. The Casorso-Rowcliffe e f f o r t to break the deal sparked renewed support for the s t a b i l i z a t i o n campaign by the growers, among whom interes t had flagged when a l l seemed secure. The organization was formalized into a Growers' S t a b i l i z a t i o n Committee, comprised of a l l the l o c a l campaign chairmen, and Haskins was elected leader. The Committee decided to pay Haskins a salary and to keep the temporary o f f i c e at Kelowna open i n d e f i n i t e l y . These things were to be paid for by a levy on the growers, which before the l a t e s t incident had met with opposition from those who considered 42 salary and o f f i c e as unnecessary expenses. The d i f f i c u l t sales s i t u a t i o n was r e f l e c t e d i n the decision on October 19 by the Okanagan S t a b i l i z a t i o n Board and the Growers' S t a b i l i z a t i o n Committee to set up a central s e l l i n g agency, United Apple Sales. This agency was to s e l l over one desk a l l the f r u i t of those shippers who agreed to the method, thus c o n t r o l l i n g over three-quarters of the t o t a l tonnage. The major opponents of the s t a b i l i z a t i o n campaign had been dealt with, but constant" vigilance was kept up. The f i n a l open challenge came at Vernon on October 2 0 . D.W. Henry, a Coldstream grower who u n t i l then had sold h i s f r u i t through a l o c a l shipper, decided to ship i t himself. Not having been a shipper when the S t a b i l i z a t i o n Board was formed, he had not signed the contract. Through J.P. Delf of Calgary, who had just set up a brokerage house i n Vernon, Henry sold several carloads of apples at prices well below the S t a b i l -i z a t i o n Board minimum. Three cars had already l e f t the Valley, and another three were being loaded, when a ' f l y i n g squad' of 44 a hundred growers arrived. The grower was dissuaded from his course of action by pressure of 'moral obligation', but the v i g i l a n t e s were incensed at the strike-breaking e f f o r t s of the broker. "We have offered to carry a l l t h e i r baggage to the station immediately. . . .We're not going to rest u n t i l we see the end of them", declared H.P.Coombes, leader 45 of the Vernon v i g i l a n t e committee. J Three days l a t e r Delf returned to Calgary whence he had come, and peace again reigned 46 i n the Okanagan. A certain number of grower-shippers-who, l i k e Henry, had not signed the S t a b i l i z a t i o n Board contract continued to s e l l at prices below those set by the Board, but 47 there appears to have been no public action against them. ' The a c t i v i t i e s of W.E. Haskins and the Growers' S t a b i l i z a t i o n Committee continued, however, as they sought to maintain grower support for the campaign, to make plans for permanent grower control of marketing, and to extend the geographical sway of s t a b i l i z a t i o n . Representations of the need for collaboration were made to f r u i t growers' associations 48 across the country. Haskins toured the Kootenays i n December c a l l i n g on f r u i t growers there to j o i n i n organize...-;'; 49 ation, ' and then "Bearing the banner of the Big Red Apple, inscribed, with the mystic words 'Grower Control—Minimum Price', with the war slogan, 'A Cent a Pound or on the Ground', l e t t e r e d f a i n t l y i n the background,"^ 0 he led a campaign through the Okanagan and Mainline areas i n support of a 66 grower-controlled 'New Plan' of central s e l l i n g . 'Enthusiasm* was the keynote of the Okanagan cent-a-pound movement, and a l l prophets of doom or appeals to calm reason were brushed aside. Indeed, the word 'enthusiastic' i s one of those most commonly used to describe the meetings. This emotional rather than i n t e l l e c t u a l emphasis may be one of the reasons why t h i s campaign managed to organize the growers when so many past appeals to reason had f a l l e n apart through sectionalism, s e l f - i n t e r e s t , and b l i n d antipathies. The whole growers' campaign had much of the tone of a r e l i g i o u s r e v i v a l . Reeve W.R. Powell, chairing a meeting at Summerland on September 14, put i t well when he "said he would l i k e testimonies before putting the resolution to a vote, as the meeting was i n the nature of an evangelical one." 7 Even at the f i r s t mass meeting i n Kelowna, the exhortations and r e p l i e s seem reminiscent of a camp meeting. "Mr. Haskins asked every grower i n the theatre who would pledge himself not to pick h i s f r u i t unless he got one cent a pound from the shippers to stand up, and the whole audience seemed to r i s e as one man."7 And the impression i s furthered by the written pledge which growers were to 'sign on the dotted l i n e ' at the meetings to indicate t h e i r support. 7 7 The tendency towards f a i t h and emotion, and the search for absolute answers to the problems of the time, are well i l l u s t r a t e d by the enthusiastic response of the people of the Okanagan Valley to the Oxford Group movement. This C h r i s t i a n evangelical organization, new on the Canadian scene, exercised i t s thrust p a r t i c u l a r l y toward "the upper-middle class business e l i t e who suffered considerable anxiety i n the decade of economic depression." 7 Based on the Four Absolutes: Absolute Love, Absolute Purity, Absolute Honesty, and Absolute Unselfishness, i t divided a l l mankind between the 'unchanged' and the 'changed'; which l a t t e r group could l i s t e n personally to God and receive special Guidance from Him, on matters r i g h t down to minor dai l y d e c i s i o n s . 7 7 A sweep through the Okanagan by Oxford Group members from Vancouver culminated i n a 'House Party' at the Royal Anne Hotel i n Kelowna on November 18 and 19, 1933, attended by hundreds from throughout the Valley. The Penticton Herald commented:7^ Indeterminable worries have entered into the l i v e s of the Okanagan people for so long that they have begun to look on t h i s as a natural state. The whole existence of the Okanagan people depends on the f r u i t deal from year to year, and every year they have a crop worry or a marketing worry, and now, many of them being almost on t h e i r l a s t legs, they seem eager to reach out for something that w i l l restore to them the ideals for which they have worked so long but which they seldom have been able to gain. D. Godfrey-Isaacs found time, between meetings of the Growers' S t a b i l i z a t i o n Committee attempting to deal with the Crestland s i t u a t i o n , to 'surrender' and make 'witness' at one ^7 of the meetings: 7 The more I think of the four absolutes the more I r e a l i z e the f u t i l i t y of my petty philosophies. . . . I have devoted the l a s t three years of my l i f e to t r y i n g to do something for our industry, but I was looking for the c r e d i t . I want t h i s movement to bring to our industry that v i s i o n that the chairman has spoken of and to have i t united as Christ would have i t — u n i t e d without any more suspicious prejudices and without the desire for getting the better of one another. There i s no need for a l l these committees--Guidance would do i t a l l for us. 68 In such an atmosphere of fervour, W.E. Haskins was an eminently suitable leader. The Vernon News described him as "better known as a cheer leader and for h i s a b i l i t y to sway people at meetings than as an administrator. He i s a master p o l i t i c i a n and i n his thinking i s generally about three jumps ahead."-5 One reporter said that At f i r s t sight Mr. Haskins does not give the impress-ion of strength. But i f you stay with him, gradually you come to an appreciation of the tremendous staying power, tenacity and determination behind h i s quiet - q demeanor. -" Perhaps equally importantly, Haskins, and the campaign he led, were not i d e n t i f i e d i n the- growers' minds with either camp i n the cooperative-independent feud. Although he was president of the B.C.F.G.A., the cent a pound campaign arose e n t i r e l y independently of that organization, and the Growers' Stabilization.Committee voted against any takeover by the 60 B.C.F.G.A. As a spontaneous growth out of indignation meetings, the campaign was the c h i l d of neither Associated Growers nor of the independent shippers, and indeed i n i t s early stages was c r i t i c i z e d by both the president and v i c e -61 president of Associated Growers, as well as by the various r e c a l c i t r a n t independents. It seems strange at f i r s t consideration that no action was taken by the government authorities about what was c l e a r l y intimidation, violence, and threats of violence, 6? i l l e g a l under section 98 of the Criminal Code. But p o l i t i c a l circumstances ensured that nothing was done. H.H. Stevens, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, de f t l y sidestepped on behalf of the federal government: "The question of preserving order and administration of the law l o c a l l y i s e n t i r e l y i n the hands of the p r o v i n c i a l a u t h o r i t i e s . " The p r o v i n c i a l government was i n no shape to do anything, f o r the r u l i n g Conservative Party was f a l l i n g apart and an e l e c t i o n had been ca l l e d . No p o l i t i c i a n was w i l l i n g to r i s k the displeasure of so large a portion of h i s electorate, p a r t i c u l a r l y a f t e r a resolution such as that passed at Vernon that every grower . . . does hereby pledge himself, to give no support whatever, to any candidate of any party, p r o v i n c i a l or Federal, unless such candidate s h a l l have d e f i n i t e l y committed himself, to further to hi s utmost, our e f f o r t s to secure l e g i s l a t i o n , along ^ the l i n e s of the B r i t i s h marketing act. Indeed,5 J.W. Jones, the Minister of Finance, a c t i v e l y assisted the growers* committee i n the Casorso case, ^ and George Heggie, MLA, presided at the Vernon d i s t r i c t organ-6 6 i z a t i o n a l meeting. Otherwise, most candidates avoided the sunject of the s t r i k e but promised to press f o r marketing 67 l e g i s l a t i o n i f elected. .' Stephen Freeman, the CCF candidate i n North Okanagan, prophesied that compulsory l e g i s l a t i o n regulating co-operative marketing w i l l be brought into being, "no matter what government gets i n . " The C.C.F., however, w i l l see that middlemen's p r o f i t s w i l l be reduced or ^g eliminated. The CCF approved of growers taking action, but said the f r u i t growers' problems would not be solved u n t i l cooperation was 69 extended to the entire economic f a b r i c of the nation. 7 The Okanagan growers' movement, as well as having antecedents, also had offspring--that i s , i t inspired s i m i l a r moves by other B.C. farmers. In the f i r s t of these, the Okanagan onion growers met at Kelowna on September 20 to unanimously support a 'cent a pound' resolution that c a l l e d fo r onions to s e l l f o r a minimum of twenty d o l l a r s a ton rather than the twelve d o l l a r price then obtaining. ' "The meeting was attended by Orientals as well as white growers and f o r the Oriental section a boss man of each n a t i o n a l i t y , Japanese, Chinese and Hindu, signed up one hundred per cent."^ Further meetings were held at Vernon, and at Kamloops, where there was also a hundred percent response reported.^ 1 The campaign must have had some ef f e c t on the onion market, f o r 72 the price rose to sixteen d o l l a r s a ton within a week, but i t f a i l e d because cooperation from the shippers was not 73 forthcoming.' 7 The Fraser Valley dairymens' proposed s t r i k e was of considerably greater impact. There the idea of a producers' union to force a cost of production price from d i s t r i b u t o r s was proposed at the beginning of October, and the Fraser Valley Cooperative Association was formed to e n l i s t a hundred percent of the milk producers behind the e f f o r t . This move-ment, too, had i t s slogan: " F i f t y - f i v e to Keep Us A l i v e " , meaning f i f t y - f i v e cents per pound of butterfat for f l u i d 7 4 milk sold to dealers. The union movement grew rapidly and en t h u s i a s t i c a l l y f o r several months, but faded away i n January and February of 1934 when the Fraser Valley Milk Producers* Association, the largest cooperative i n the area, declined to support the s t r i k e , and the recently-elected Premier T.D. P a t t u l l o warned that a milk stri k e would not be 7 5 tolerated by the government.' 7 The Okanagan growers' campaign established complete control of the apple supply i n the Valley for the Okanagan S t a b i l i z a t i o n Board. A l l the Board had to do was to s e l l the crop, but the p o s s i b i l i t y quickly arose that i t might not be able to do so without abandoning the price guarantee. Sales were sluggish from the sta r t , and by October 14 only k2.7% of the Mcintosh crop had been sold, compared with 62.$% on the same date the year b e f o r e . ^ Sales slumped for three reasons. The f i r s t was the new price scale which, combined with the cessation of bulk shipments, had greatly increased consumer prices, as much as 77 doubling those of the previous year i n some cases.'' This combined with increased f r e i g h t rates to make an o v e r a l l r i s e i n the consumer price of Mcintosh to P r a i r i e residents of about f i f t y percent. The impoverished people there did not look favourably upon such increases. W.A.C. Bennett, a Kelowna businessman, reported on his return from a t r i p to Alberta that The P r a i r i e s are being led to believe that the growers i n the Okanagan Valley, taking them by the throat, are endeavouring under cover of the very fine t a r i f f protection given, to get prices wholly out of l i n e with those which wheat growers and a g r i c u l t u r a l rpq i n t e r e s t s generally are receiving. ' 7 The second factor slowing sales was the jobbers on the P r a i r i e s . Most of them expressed sympathy f o r the cause, 80 but a few were openly h o s t i l e and attempted to break the S t a b i l i z a t i o n Board's stand by expedients such as the encour-agement of rebel shippers and the strike-breaking jobber, and by various 'dirty t r i c k s ' such as f a l s e l y reporting ruinously low prices as prevalent and spreading rumours of large ship-ments a r r i v i n g from Nova Scotia and Ontario, i n the hope of inducing the Board to lower i t s p r i c e s . 0 1 Even sympathetic dealers hesitated to buy u n t i l i t was clear whether s t a b i l -i z a t i o n was going to l a s t . And, although some ra d i c a l s refused to believe i t and preferred to see conspiracies 8 2 against the f r u i t growers, the jobber was a businessman. "He i s interested only i n obtaining supplies from day to day which w i l l keep him competitive with h i s opposition, and i n order to accomplish t h i s , he has been doing h i s buying from other s o u r c e s . " ^ The other sources i n question were the Kootenay, Creston, and Grand Forks f r u i t growers. They had not been brought into the whirlwind crusade for s t a b i l i z a t i o n because of lack of time and the diversion of energy into b a t t l e s with shippers; the Okanagan paid for the omission. As long as the Kootenay supplies held out they commanded three-quarters of the P r a i r i e market, s e l l i n g at about f i f t e e n cents less per box than the price set by the Okanagan S t a b i l i z a t i o n Board. Not u n t i l mid-December, when the four hundred carloads of 84 Kootenay apples had been sold, could the Okanagan f r u i t s t a r t moving f r e e l y . One r e s u l t was a rather overly heavy export and low prices i n England. But eventually a l l the apples were sold, with no dumping required, and "The net r e s u l t of the growers* campaign has been to transfer a rout i n prices to more or less s t a b i l i t y . " D The o v e r a l l average f.o.b. price for packed apples from the 1933 Okanagan crop 86 was $1.00 per box, returning more than the c a l l e d - f o r minimum of fo r t y cents a box to the grower. The downfall of the Okanagan S t a b i l i z a t i o n Board came with the t r i a l of the case of McGuire vs. Crestland F r u i t Company, i n which Major McGuire, as pool agent of the S t a b i l -i z a t i o n Board, sued that company (which.had been set up the previous year by a E r a i r i e jobber to get an entry into the Okanagan) for $10,157 of equalization l e v i e s which i t refused Or? to pay. ' The crime seemed the more heinous i n that Harvey Harrison, the manager of the Crestland F r u i t Company, had pa r t i c i p a t e d i n the formation of the S t a b i l i z a t i o n Board and had himself introduced the motion to'."impose the very levy he l a t e r refused to p a y . ^ The s u i t was started i n December 1933. but i t was not heard u n t i l February 193^, i n a seven-day t r i a l before Mr. Justice Denis Murphy i n the Supreme Court of B r i t i s h Columbia. In his decision on March 15, Murphy ruled against McGuire, saying that the agreements, made under intimidation and duress, were i l l e g a l and unenforcable-as being i n r e s t r a i n t of trade and contravening the Criminal Code. The Judge was sympathetic with the growers' motives, saying I t i s only f a i r to the growers' cent-a-pound organ-i z a t i o n to say that I am convinced they acted as they did i n no s p i r i t of wanton lawlessness. ... . T h e i r actions originated i n t h e i r firm conviction that market control i s i n a f i n a n c i a l sense a matter of l i f e and death with them. 89 But he did not l e t his sympathy d u l l h i s l e g a l sense: My conclusion on a l l t h i s i s that the actions of the pool members are so tainted with i l l e g a l i t y > that the Court must refuse to deal with that contract i n any way at the s u i t of any party thereto. Thus the cloud of i l l e g a l i t y , which had hung over proceedings from the s t a r t of the campaign, f i n a l l y burst. Although Haskins and h i s Growers' S t a b i l i z a t i o n 74 Committee fought on, refusing to admit defeat,^ 0 and put forward a new plan for t o t a l grower control of marketing through the 'United F r u i t Producers' Association of B.C.', headed by Haskins, George Barrat of Kelowna, and O.W. Hembling 91 of Oyama, most growers now looked for solutions to the marketing l e g i s l a t i o n promised by the federal government. The Growers' Strike v i v i d l y demonstrated the despair of orchardists i n 1933* They abandoned the i r previously predominant p o l i c i e s of cooperation and l e g i s l a t e d c o n t r o l — and t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l organization, the B.C.F.G.A.--in favour of an extreme plan of dire c t action. Chapter 6 STABILIZATION AT LAST: THE NATURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING ACT AND FINAL CONCLUSIONS The federal Natural Products Marketing Act of 1934 was the culmination and the answer to a decade of agitat i o n i n the Okanagan for a better system of marketing f r u i t . The Act i s usually dismissed by hist o r i a n s and other analysts as being just one of the various pieces of R.B. Bennett's 'New Deal' package, a panic move by a government a f r a i d of impending elections. As such i t has received l i t t l e attention, apart from that of a g r i c u l t u r a l economists more interested i n the d i s t r i b u t i v e machinery i t set up than i n the reasons why i t was drafted and passed i n the f i r s t place. Such neglect i s unfortunate, for i t s genesis and impetus came from d i f f e r e n t sources than the Bennett New Deal, and preceded the inception of that program by many months. The atmosphere i n Canada had since 1929 become more favourable to government regulation of a g r i c u l t u r a l marketing, as even t r a d i t i o n a l opponents were unable i n Depression conditions to operate p r o f i t a b l y . Thus marketing l e g i s l a t i o n had as unl i k e l y a supporter as J.S. Roger, president of the Canadian F r u i t and Vegetable Jobbers Association, who called for l e g i s l a t i o n similar to the B r i t i s h Marketing Act (which allowed the government to set prices and production quotas 75 when a m a j o r i t y of both producers and p r o c e s s o r s agreed) when he spoke to the annual convention of the Canadian Chamber of i Commerce i n October of 1933-The changed atmosphere was r e f l e c t e d i n the changing pronouncements of p o l i t i c i a n s . A t the N a t i o n a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Conference of August 29 to September 1, 1932, Robert Weir, the f e d e r a l M i n i s t e r of A g r i c u l t u r e , suggested t h a t "we'have g i v e n too much a t t e n t i o n to some of the q u e s t i o n s o f p r o d u c t i o n , and not enough to the q u e s t i o n of marketing." D u r i n g the summer of 1933 meetings at Regina of a g r i c u l t u r a l l e a d e r s and p o l i t i c i a n s of the f o u r western p r o v i n c e s , i n c l u d i n g Premier Tolmie, d i s c u s s e d p r o p o s a l s f o r Dominion marketing l e g i s l a t i o n . 7 Prime M i n i s t e r Bennett i n d i c a t e d h i s w i l l i n g n e s s to a c t , w i t h i n the l i m i t s of f e d e r a l powers, and promised to i n v e s t -k . . . i g a t e those l i m i t s . One r e s u l t of h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was the N a t u r a l Products Marketing A c t . Although, i n i t s f i n i s h e d form, the Act allowed f o r p r o v i n c i a l marketing boards of a l l farm products except g r a i n , and f o r other n a t u r a l products such as lumber and f i s h , i t s o r i g i n a l i n t e n t i o n s were humbler. I t was a t f i r s t intended to apply o n l y to d a i r y products and f r u i t , b u t because of the d i f f i c u l t y of d e f i n i n g the exact range of products, the d r a f t e r s avoided the problem by i n c l u d i n g e v e r y t h i n g i n the b i l l and l e a v i n g the d e t a i l e d d e f i n i t i o n s to the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s of the schemes. 7 The i n i t i a t i v e f o r the A c t came from the d a i r y and e s p e c i a l l y the f r u i t farmers of B r i t i s h Columbia. T h i s pressure was expressed through the Hon. Grote S t i r l i n g , MP f o r the constituency of Yale (which included the Okanagan), who was g e n e r a l l y acknowledged as the f a t h e r of the b i l l . He described h i s p r i n c i p l e as "that the producer should have i n h i s own hand the power of conducting the marketing of h i s produce i n an o r d e r l y f a s h i o n and t h i s cannot be done u n t i l 7 there i s a m a j o r i t y r u l e of the mi n o r i t y . " ' S t i r l i n g was a veteran member of Parliament, having h e l d h i s seat f o r the Conservative Party since 1924. He was p e r s o n a l l y respected by members of a l l p a r t i e s as r e p r e s e n t i n g h i s c o n s t i t u e n t s as much as h i s p a r t y , and as a member who o spoke seldom but was l i s t e n e d to when he d i d . L a t e r i n 1934, he was c a l l e d to the Cabinet to serve as M i n i s t e r of N a t i o n a l Defence. Bennett was therefore w i l l i n g to make a concession to placate S t i r l i n g and h i s c o n s t i t u e n t s on what appeared to him a matter of only l o c a l import.^ The N a t u r a l Products Marketing Act had a slow passage through the Commons, s t r o n g l y opposed by L i b e r a l s who claimed t h a t i t was not r e a l l y a government b i l l at a l l , but an e l e c t i o n e e r i n g t r i c k , a c h i l d "born of the farmers and producers, of western Canada p a r t i c u l a r l y , and e s p e c i a l l y of 10 the P a c i f i c coast." The leader of the o p p o s i t i o n , W.L. Mackenzie King, s t r o n g l y denounced the p r i n c i p l e "of c r e a t i n g monopolies of producers i n p a r t i c u l a r occupations, s p e c i a l groups c o n t r o l l i n g production and sale of d i f f e r e n t c l a s s e s 11 of products and commodities." But the b i l l was f i n a l l y passed i n t o law on J u l y 3, 1934; the B r i t i s h Columbia L e g i s -l a t u r e had already passed enabling l e g i s l a t i o n so t h a t i t 12 could come immediately i n t o operation. The urgency of the 78 Okanagan f r u i t growers may be seen i n the f a c t that th e i r s was the f i r s t commodity scheme to be approved, coming into e f f e c t on August 28, 193*1-. The Local Board i s empowered to regulate the time and place at which the tree f r u i t s grown i n the I n t e r i o r of the province may be marketed; to determine the quantity and q u a l i t y of the f r u i t marketed; to assess and c o l l e c t t o l l s to defray expenses; to pool the proceeds from the sales among the shippers. 7 The growers showed that t h e i r confidence i n t h e i r leaders during the s t a b i l i z a t i o n campaign s t i l l held, even though that campaign had f a i l e d i n the courts, by e l e c t i n g for three years i n succession a Local F r u i t Board consisting of Haskins, Barrat, and Hembling, formerly the three executives 14 of the United F r u i t Producers' Association. The federal Natural Products Marketing Act was disallowed by the courts i n 1936, but the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s -lature had already passed amendments to i t s own Act which permitted i t to remain i n operation for "regulation and control i n any respect or i n a l l respects of the marketing of natural products within the Province, including the pro-1 5 h i b i t i n g of such marketing i n whole or i n part." 7 The Board, whose main power was i n maintaining p r i c e s by regulating the rate of release of f r u i t by the shippers, continued i n operation; but the growers s t i l l pushed for a return to centralized s e l l i n g . An experiment with one-desk s e l l i n g i n the l a t t e r part of 1938 was successful enough that the , B.C.F.G.A. convention of January 1939 voted for a scheme to cover a l l shipments i n 1939- Under t h i s plan, B.C. Tree F r u i t s Limited was established as the sole s e l l i n g agency 79 fo r I n t e r i o r f r u i t . The heritageOof the growers' campaigns governed i t s form as a one-desk s e l l i n g agency with pooled returns which was e n t i r e l y controlled by the B.C.F.G.A.; the shippers, independent or cooperative, had no hand i n i t s governance and became purely packing and handling concerns without any part i n merchandising the f r u i t . Prices did not r i s e to the l e v e l s of the 1920s u n t i l the midyears of the Second World War, but they held steady and well above the 1 7 rock-bottom of 1932. At l a s t the marketing of f r u i t had been s t a b i l i z e d . The Growers' Strike of 1933 was a p i v o t a l point i n the history of Okanagan f r u i t marketing. The slogan, 'Grower Control—Minimum Price', highlighted what might be termed r a d i c a l about the growers' plan. Demands fo r one hundred percent s t a b i l i z a t i o n among shippers were not new; neither were c a l l s for l e g i s l a t i o n too'crea'te,.marketing boards. But for the f i r s t time producers demanded 'Grower Control'--a say i n how t h e i r f r u i t was distributed, so long as they had an undischarged monetary inter e s t i n i t . In past they had been w i l l i n g to hand t h e i r fruit., to a shipper and accept whatever i t brought. The second phrase, too, was a departure--'Minimum Pri c e ' . Before, the shippers were begged to get the best price possible on the market. Now they were directed to get a minimum price, based on the cost of production . . . or not to s e l l at a l l . The growers thus rejected the entire pattern of d i s t r i b u t i o n as i t stood, with the i n d i v i d u a l producer, whatever the marketing system, taking a l l the r i s k of loss i n d i s t r i b u t i o n but receiving only what return remained aft e r 80 a l l the other factors had taken t h e i r cut. Instead, an 'interest group' should control d i s t r i b u t i o n of f r u i t up to the point where i t was actually exchanged for cash, and ensure returns based on production value rather than on market pri c e s . The 'competitive i n f e r i o r i t y ' of the producer would thus be eliminated. But the growers' strike was not r e a l l y radicalism,", not r e a l l y a movement convinced that the e x i s t i n g economic order was obsolete and must be replaced. Bather i t was i n f a c t no more than an expedient of people frightened by economic conditions which seemed to jeopardize t h e i r l i v e l i h o o d . The struggle might be one between free enterprise and monopoly or even s o c i a l i s t control, but i t was a struggle wholly within the context of the marketing of f r u i t ; so f a r as the growers were concerned i t bore l i t t l e or no r e l a t i o n to t h e i r attitudes towards the rest of the world. The lack of connection between the 'radicalism' of the strike and general p o l i t i c a l and economic p r i n c i p l e s i s demonstrated by the lack of support for r a d i c a l p o l i t i c a l movements i n the Okanagan i n the period, by the absence of p o l i t i c a l r hetoric from the growers' leaders, and by the readiness of the growers to revert to t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l concerns when the government was persuaded to step i n . The growers' stri k e took the methods and style of r a d i c a l action without absorbing the p o l i t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s 18 associated with i t . A low degree of 'theory' was v i s i b l e throughout the debates about marketing; few of the part i c i p a n t s understood how the system worked, and arguments tended to be on emotional 81 rather than i n t e l l e c t u a l grounds. As W.E. Haskins i s reported to have complained, when he spoke about marketing systems and economics no one paid much attention, but when he attacked the shippers with t h e i r big houses on Water Street the growers I Q would stand up and cheer. 7 This lack of understanding of how the d i s t r i b u t i o n system functioned had def i n i t e r e s u l t s for growers' organ-i z a t i o n . The producers concentrated^their attention on the shipper, the only l i n k of the d i s t r i b u t i v e chain with which they had contact. Growers attributed much greater powers to the shippers than they actually had, and believed that, i f only a l l of the shippers and one hundred percent of t h e i r tonnage was controlled, every problem would be solved, as i f there was no outside competition. The growers and t h e i r leaders were l i t t l e concerned about the brokers and jobbers, even though two combines investigations showed that the concentration of ownership i n a few conglomerates led to practices d i s t i n c t l y harmful to the interests of the producer. These companies were too f a r away from home--it' was the shipper, the man who made the payments which determined the grower's wealth or poverty f o r the next year, who seemed to the grower most powerful. The lack of understanding of economic and p o l i t i c a l theory was part of a de f i n i t e a n t i - i n t e l l e c t u a l current among the growers. This was especially marked among independents, as i s shown by the opposition of the Independent Growers' Association to university experts and by the large proportion of the l e t t e r s to the Premier attacking central s e l l i n g and 82 control plans as nothing more than schemes by 'experts' to draw f a t s a l a r i e s . In part the lack of respect for government and uni v e r s i t y experts was l i k e l y due to the f a i l u r e of those experts to come to grips with the problem of marketing. Then, as i s s t i l l to a large degree true today, government a g r i c u l t -u r i s t s concerned themselves almost exclusively with matters of technical e f f i c i e n c y and the economics of production. The f r u i t growers' organizers and leaders, on the other hand, tended to r e s i s t consideration of the e f f i c i e n c y of production and handling as part of the i r problems, and instead r e l i e d almost e n t i r e l y on manipulation of sales organization to f i n d solutions. There was no common meeting ground. Therefore discussions of marketing i n the Okanagan tended to come down to a few d r a s t i c a l l y s i m p l i f i e d arguments--b a s i c a l l y an emotional and personal decision between the freedom of the i n d i v i d u a l to use and dispose of h i s property as he saw f i t , and the r i g h t of the majority to prevent the minority from behaving i n a fashion detrimental to majority i n t e r e s t . E.D. Barrow t o l d the B.C.F.G.A. convention i n 1928 I t sounds very fine for those who have the education and command of the King's English to write l e t t e r s on abstract p r i n c i p l e s as they might apply to l e g i s l a t i o n , but that does not se t t l e our d i f f i c u l t i e s that we are faced with i n the carrying on of our ownlbusiness. (Applause) We cannot afford to be controlled by abstract p r i n c i p l e s when we have to deal with concrete f a c t s . . . . the i n t e r e s t of the State at large i s of greater importance than that of the i n d i v i d u a l , and what we are try i n g to carry out i n connection with the marketing of our food i s a system that w i l l be to the advantage of the people as a whole, and we deny the r i g h t of any one in d i v i d u a l or any i n s i g n i f i c a n t minority to conduct t h e i r a f f a i r s so that they w i l l - n u l l i f y the e f f o r t s that are being put forth by the majority for the benefit of the 2 Q people as a whole. 83 The Okanagan f r u i t industry existed i n an almost continual c r i s i s of d i s t r i b u t i o n , brought about by a c o n t i n ^ . u a l l y expanding crop which required the s e l l i n g of ever-larger quantities of f r u i t i n a r e l a t i v e l y s t a t i c market. New expedients to deal successfully with one season's crop were invariably swamped by the following season's record-breaking production. In t h i s s i t u a t i o n , a f a i t h grew, based on the r e a l i z a t i o n that uncontrolled open competition was sure disaster, that the only possible answer was complete centralized control of the Okanagan c r o p — c a l l i t one hundred percent s t a b i l i z a t i o n , compulsory cooperation, or central s e l l i n g , or whatever you wi s h — t o allow orderly marketing without p r i c e - c u t t i n g . I t i s not certain that t h i s idea was e n t i r e l y r i g h t ; even had every apple produced i n the province gone through the c o n t r o l l i n g agency, that agency could not have dominated the market, for much of the supply, e s p e c i a l l y to the P r a i r i e s , came from eastern Canada and the United States. As long as those regions were i n competition, even one hundred percent control of the B r i t i s h Columbia crop could not guarantee s t a b i l i z a t i o n . The s i g n i f i c a n t thing i s that the vast majority of growers came to favour a system of ' c o l l e c t i v e bargaining' to overcome t h e i r 'competitive i n f e r i o r i t y * i n the d i s t r i b u t i v e system, and that they were able, by the weight of th e i r determination and mass opinion, to prod government into giving l e g i s l a t i v e authority to the i r e f f o r t s to force the minority to submit to the w i l l of the majority, thus spurring the formation of our current State-sponsored marketing 8 4 monopolies for a g r i c u l t u r a l marketing. The Growers' Strike of 1933 brought an end to one era i n the hi s t o r y of the development of marketing organization i n the Okanagan f r u i t industry. When f i n a l l y the growers became desperate enough to take matters into t h e i r own hands, they sparked government action which took the matter once more out of th e i r hands. Ever since then government has more or l e s s accepted a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for bringing into being and enforcing centralized marketing. And i n recent years, p a r t i c u l a r l y , there has even been a t a c i t government guarantee of a minimum price through such expedients as 'Agricultural S t a b i l i z a t i o n ' and 'Farm Income Assurance'. Growers have often major or even c o n t r o l l i n g voices i n the various marketing boards and agencies, but they have the comforting reassurance that, i f d i f f i c u l t i e s arise, not only w i l l they be able to c a l l on government, but that some action w i l l be forthcoming. Thus, although i n fashion other than o r i g i n a l l y envisaged, the movement fo r 'Grower Control—Minimum P r i c e ' succeeded— but by government f i a t rather than by the radicalism of the producers. NOTES Chapter 1 i See, i n p a r t i c u l a r , Vernon C. Fowke, Canadian A g r i -c u l t u r a l Policy: The H i s t o r i c a l Pattern (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1946), and Vernon C. Fowke, The National  P o l i c y and the Wheat Economy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1957). For an analysis of Fowke's ideas, see Paul P h i l l i p s , "The Hinterland Perspective: The P o l i t i c a l Economy of Vernon C. Fowke", Canadian Journal of P o l i t i c a l and So c i a l Theory, 11:2 (Spring-Summer, 1978), pp. 73-96. 2 Fowke, Canadian A g r i c u l t u r a l Policy, p. 272. 3Don Mitchell.The P o l i t i c s of Food (Toronto: James Lorimer and Co., 1975)» p. 147• 4 Fowke, National P o l i c y and the Wheat Economy, p. 191. 7 T h i s condition of buyer concentration i s known i n economic jargon as 'oligopsony', and i s common i n some areas of a g r i c u l t u r a l production. McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Modern  Economics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), pp. 358-359. Fowke, National P o l i c y and the Wheat Economy, p. 290. 7 I b i d . , p. 289. 8 P h i l l i p s , "The Hinterland Perspective", p. 89. ^Fowke, National P o l i c y and the Wheat Economy, p. 296. 10 The federal government did receive, i n tr u s t for railway purposes, a band f o r t y miles wide across the province. But i t proved i n no hurry to dispose of these lands, which indeed appeared a po s i t i v e hindrance to the settlement of B r i t i s h Columbia. Robert E. C a i l , Land, Man, and the Law: The Disposal of Crown Lands i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 1871-1913 (Vancouver: University of B r i t i s h Columbia Press, 1974), p. 146. 11 F.W. Howay, "The Settlement and Progress of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1871-1914", H i s t o r i c a l . Essays on B r i t i s h Columbia, J. Friesen and H.K. Ralston, ed. (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1976), pp. 34-35, 38. 12 C a i l , Land, Man, and the Law, p. 56. l v B y 1913 8,233,410 acres had been granted for prov-i n c i a l l y chartered railways, and 14,526,000 acres more conveyed to the Dominion for railway purposes. These grants t o t a l l e d considerably more than h a l f as much as the entire grants by 85 86 the Dominion i t s e l f for railways. Ibid., pp. 1 6 2 , 1 6 7 . 1 4 t R.E. Caves and R.H. Holton, "An Outline of the Economic History of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1881 - 1 9 5 1 " , H i s t o r i c a l  Essays, pp. 1 5 3 - 1 5 5 . 1 5 C a i l , Land, Man, and the Law, p. 5 8 . l 6 Russell R. Walker, P o l i t i c i a n s of a Pioneering  Province (Vancouver: M i t c h e l l Press, 1 9 6 9 ) , p. 5 1 ' 17 'Folder No. 7-21, "Correspondence-Provincial-Lands-Land Settlements", Simon Fraser Tolmie Papers ( i n Special Collections, University of B r i t i s h Columbia) includes l e t t e r s from the Langley Farmers' I n s t i t u t e , the Matsqui A g r i c u l t u r a l and H o r t i c u l t u r a l Association and Farmers' I n s t i t u t e , the Maple Grove Conservative Association, and several school boards. 18 James Morton, Honest John Oli v e r : The L i f e Story  of the Honourable John Oliver, Premier of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1918-1927 (London, Toronto, and Vancouver: J.M. Dent and Sons. 1 9 3 3 ) , p. 1^3. 19 7Premier McBride, for example, spoke i n favour of cooperation, and h i s government lent money to cooperative organizations. Twenty-Fifth Annual Report of the B r i t i s h  Columbia Fruit-Growers' Association for the Year Ending  December 31st, 1914 ( V i c t o r i a : King's Pri n t e r , 1915). PP. 20, 4 4 . N . b . : a l l further references to the annual reports of the B r i t i s h Columbia F r u i t Growers' Association w i l l be i n the following form: B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1914. I t should also be noted that the annual conventions whose proceedings are detailed i n the reports, were generally held i n the January of the year following the date of the report. Thus, the above reference i s to speeches at the convention at V i c t o r i a , January 26 and 27, 1915« on B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1924, p. 42. 21 Vancouver Province, Aug. 31, 1929, p. 6 . "Roughly 60% of the production of a g r i c u l t u r a l commodities today [1939] i n B r i t i s h Columbia i s from; mixed farms mainly i n the Duncan and Courtenay d i s t r i c t s of Vancouver Island and the Lower Fraser Valley, the Shuswap and Okanagan d i s t r i c t s of the mainland. These farms produce l i v e stock, hay, grain, fodder and vegetables. The men who own them f i n d that t h e i r income i s l e s s affected by economic depressions and that even i n 'bad' years, they have a cash balance. To them, the marketing problem i s l e s s serious than to the farmer who depends e n t i r e l y on f r u i t or on vegetables or on dairying for his income. This group, then, i s l i t t l e interested i n co-operative marketing arrangements. To the farmer who l i v e s on part of the 15% of the land devoted to f r u i t - r a i s i n g , and to the farmer who depends on part of the 15% of the land used 87 f o r dairying, i t i s a d i f f e r e n t question." Margaret A. Orms'by, "The History of Agriculture i n B r i t i s h Columbia", S c i e n t i f i c  Agriculture, XX:1 (Sept. 1939), p. 70. ^Canada: An I l l u s t r a t e d Weekly Journal, June 8, 1912 , P . 3 7 3 . 24 The c a p i t a l -required to establish a man on a ten acre orchard was estimated i n 1909 at a minimum of L 500, with L 1000 desirea'ble. J.S. Redmayne, F r u i t Farming on the "Dry  Belt" of B r i t i s h Columbia: The Why and Wherefore (London: Times Book Club, [1909] ), pp. 48-50, 8.0. In 1904 only $1000 (t 250) was estimated as necessary to establish a s e t t l e r on 160 acres on the P r a i r i e s and maintainhhim u n t i l the farm was producing. {Canadian P a c i f i c Railway/ , Western Canada: Manitoba, Alberta, Assiniboia, Saskatchewan and New Ontario: How to Reach I t , How to Obtain Lands, How to Make a Home ( [CPRJ , 1904), pp. 87-88. OK ^For a discussion of Okanagan development and the orchard industry, see my a r t i c l e "The Development of the Orchard Industry i n the Okanagan Valley, 1 8 9 0 - 1 9 1 4 " , T h i r t y -Eighth Annual Report of the Okanagan H i s t o r i c a l Society 1974 pp. 6 8 - 7 3 , and my "One Huge Orchard: Okanagan Land and Devel-opment Companies Before the Great War" (unpublished BA graduating essay, University of V i c t o r i a , 1 9 7 6 ) . ?6 Security was a long time coming; land values did not return to t h e i r 1913 l e v e l s u n t i l the mid -1940s . See Margaret A. Orms'by, B r i t i s h Columbia: A History (Vancouver: Macmillan Company of Canada, 1 9 5 8 ) , p. 482 , and B r i t i s h Columbia, Royal Commission on the Tree-Fruit Industry, Report  of the Royal Commission on the Tree-Fruit Industry of B r i t i s h  Columbia, October 1958 [Dean E.D. MacPhee, commissioner] , ( V i c t o r i a : Queen ' s Printer, 1 9 5 8 ) , p. 8 8 . Further references are as MacPhee, Report. 27 '"The Maintenance of A g r i c u l t u r a l Production During Depression: the Explanations Reviewed", Journal of P o l i t i c a l  Economy (June 1 9 3 8 ) , c i t e d i n Leo Jocelyn Fredericks, "Competition i n Agriculture: A Case Study of a Marketing Board" (unpublished MSA ( A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics) thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 6 5 ) , p. 27-NOTES Chapter 2 i Dendy, "Development of the Orchard Industry", p. 70. o " B r i t i s h Columbia F r u i t Growers' Association", Twenty-Eighth Annual Report of the Okanagan H i s t o r i c a l Society  1964, pp. 157-158. 7Dendy, "Development of the Orchard Industry", p. 70. 4 Direct cash buying by shippers or jobbers tended to decline, and ceased e n t i r e l y a f t e r 1922. Canada, Dept. of Labour, Combines Investigation Act, Investigation into an  Alleged Combine of Wholesalers and Shippers of F r u i t s and  Vegetables i n Western Canada: Report of Commissioner, October  31, 1939 'fF.A. McGregor, commissioner] (Ottawa: King's Printer, 1939), p. 9. Further references are as McGregor, Alleged Combine 1939. 7 I b i d . , p. 28. Canada, Dept. of Labour, Combines Investigation Act, Investigation Into Alleged Combine i n the D i s t r i b u t i o n of  F r u i t and Vegetables: Interim Report of the Commissioner, February 18, 1925 [Lewis Duncan, commissioner!; (Ottawa: King' s Printer, 1925), p. 120. Further references are as Duncan, Alleged Combine 1925. 7I_bid. , p, 13. Q Dendy, "Development of the Orchard Industry", p. 72. o 7Margaret-A. Ormsby, " F r u i t Marketing i n the Okanagan Valley of B r i t i s h Columbia", A g r i c u l t u r a l History, IX:2 ( A p r i l 1935), P. 85. 10 " B r i t i s h Columbia F r u i t Growers* Association", p. l62. 1:LB.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1922, p. 48; and B r i t i s h Columbia, Royal Commission Investigating the F r u i t Industry, Report of the Royal"'Commission Investigating the F r u i t Industry  . . .: Part II '[W.Sanford Evans, commissioner] ( V i c t o r i a : King's Pri n t e r , 1931), P» 7- Further references are as Evans, Report. 1 20rmsby, " F r u i t Marketing", p. 85. 13B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1914, p. 51; B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1915, p. 9; and B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1922, pT 6~. 88 89 B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1918, p. 11. 15i 'In 1917 Roderick Mackenzie of the Canadian Council of Agriculture addressed the f r u i t growers' convention, c a l l i n g on them to elec t farmer-representatives to Parliament and to promote class l e g i s l a t i o n . "In the United States a nigger can never hold a public position; i n Canada i t i s a farmer." B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 19l6. p. 30. 1 6 McGregor, Alleged Combine 1939. p. 6. 17 'Evans, Report, p. 12. l8B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1921, p. 64; and B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1922, p. 48. 1 90rmsby, " F r u i t Marketing", p. 86. ?0 Evans, Report, p. W12. 2 1 I b i d . , p. W 8 . The mental and f i n a n c i a l condition of the Okanagan f r u i t growers at t h i s time i s i l l u s t r a t e d by an extract of a l e t t e r from B. McDonald of the B r i t i s h Columbia Growers Ltd. to a broker i n Winnipeg, dated January 29, 1923= "Reorganiz-ation s t i l l goes on i n the Valley. Growers by the dozen are camping on a l l the shippers' doorsteps looking for money. I t has become so strenuous that our Credit Manager has been p r a c t i c a l l y obliged to take a week's leave of absence i n an endeavour to recuperate. Nearly every grower i n the v a l l e y i s broke, even appealing to the personnel of the company for small temporary loans of $5 and $10. This i s c e r t a i n l y a nice state of a f f a i r s . You people on the outside may think from the tone of our l e t t e r s that we are a r b i t r a r y and cantan-kerous, but we r e a l l y believe we have reason to be; i f you were here i n the v a l l e y and had to deal with these matters for a couple of weeks, the novelty would soon wear o f f and i t would become a genuine task." Duncan, Alleged Combine  1925, p. 8. 23-24 3B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1922, p. 13. Co-operation: A Report of Mr. Aaron Sapiro's Address  at Vernon, B.C., on Thurs., Jan. 4th., 1923, (Vernon: B.C. Growers' Organization Committee, 1923), p. 3. 27B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1922, p. 64. 26 Co-operation, p. 4. 2 7 I b i d . , p. 5. 2 8 I b i d . , pp. 4-5. 90 30 "Around 1 9 2 0 there was a tremendous expansion of organized a g r i c u l t u r a l cooperation i n the United States. . . . The American pool movement i n i t s organizational stages preceded the Canadian movement by the very few years which were s u f f i c i e n t to impress Canadian farm leaders with the long-run p o s s i b i l i t i e s of the pooling system, but not s u f f i c i e n t to demonstrate i t s more serious l i m i t a t i o n s . . . . The American associations were large-scale, centralized, and farmer-owned organizations, s p e c i a l i z i n g i n single commodities; they were organized on a non-stock, non-profit system of finance and ownership; they r e l i e d for patronage on r i g i d delivery contracts, v o l u n t a r i l y entered into by the grower but binding for a period of years, commonly fi v e or seven; and . . . they marketed farm produce on a pooling basis with t o t a l payments made up of i n i t i a l , interim, and f i n a l disbursements for the entire pool period." Fowke, National P o l i c y and Wheat Economy, pp. 213-214. 31 •• y Evans, Report, p. W7. -^The Co-operative Growers of B r i t i s h Columbia: An  Outline of i t s Constitution and Aims (n.p., n.d.), p. T~. 3 3"Contracts", O.K. B u l l e t i n , IV:2 (Feb. 1928), p. 1. 34 ^ Membership Agreement and Marketing Agreement between Mrs. I.G. Pooley, Kelowna Growers Exchange, and Co-operative Growers of B r i t i s h Columbia, dated February 19, 1 9 2 3 --^F.M. Clement, Report on the Enquiry Conducted on  Behalf of the Six Locals of the Associated Growers of B r i t i s h  Columbia Limited (Penticton: Southern Okanagan Co-operative Associations, 1 9 3 3 ) , P» 2; and Orms'by, " F r u i t Marketing", p. 8 7 . -^Vernon News, Mar. 29, 1923, p. 1; and Associated Growers of B r i t i s h Columbia Limited, Directors' report, balance sheet, revenue & expenditure account, auditors' report, for year ending March 31, 1924. -^McGregor, Alleged Combine 1939, p. 6. -^Associated Growers, Directors' report . . . for year  ending March 31, 19.24. 39B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1923, p. 7-40 Clement, Enquiry, p. 2. k l I b i d . ^ 2"The Edmunds Decision", O.K. B u l l e t i n , 11:1 (Jan. 1 9 2 6 ) , pp. 4 - 5 . 43 ^Associated Growers, Directors' report . . . for year  ending March 3 1 , 1926. 91 ^"The Edmunds Decision", O.K. B u l l e t i n , 11:1 (Jan. 1926), pp. 4-5. ^ . . P o o l Analysis", OJC. B u l l e t i n , II:?.(Aug. 1926), p.?. ^Clement, Enquiry, p. 11. NOTES Chapter 3 1XIV:11 (Nov. 1926), p. 4. 2O.K, B u l l e t i n . 11:11 (Dec. 1926), p. 2. -^Statement of December 28, 1926. Canadian Annual  Review of Public A f f a i r s , .1926-27 (Toronto: Canadian Review Co., 1927), p. 487. ^O.K. B u l l e t i n , 11:12 (Jan. 1927), p. 1. 7B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1926, p. 17. 6 I b i d . , pp. 43-44. ^Province. Feb. 23, 1927, p. 4. Ibid., Jan. 24, 1927, p. 1, and Jan. 26, 1927, p. 1. 9 I b i d . , Jan. 26, 1927, p. 4. 1 0 I b i d . , Jan. 22, 1927, p. 16. 1 : LMorag Elizabeth Maclachlan, "The Fraser Valley Milk Producers* Association: Successful Cooperative" (unpublished MA thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972), p. 262. 1 2 Province, Jan. 26, 1927, p. 1. 1 3 I b i d . , Feb. 8, 1927, pp. 1, 3. 14 B r i t i s h Columbia F i n a n c i a l Times, IV:4 (Feb. 19, 1927), p. 7. ^P r o v i n c e , Feb. 14, 1927, p. 1. 1^Morton, Honest John Oliver, p. 238. 17 'Maclachlan, "Fraser Valley Milk Producers* Assoc^-/; i a t i o n " , pp. 229-230. 1 8 1 Letter from John Olive r to A.H. Mercer, Mar. 1, 1927, Premier's Correspondence Inward 1927 ( i n P r o v i n c i a l Archives of B r i t i s h Columbia), Box 270, F i l e 'Legislation II-2; Produce Marketing B i l l ; correspondence i n favor'. 19 7 L e t t e r from Oliver to Joseph Casorso, Feb. 9, 1927, Premier's Correspondence Inward 1927, Box 270, f i l e 'Legislation I I - l ; Produce Marketing B i l l ; Correspondence Against'. 92 93 20 "Western Canada F r u i t and Produce Exchange—Memo-randum re L e g i s l a t i o n " , Premier's Correspondence Inward 1927, Box 270, F i l e 'Legislation Section I I - l ; Produce Marketing B i l l ; Correspondence Against'; and Canadian Annual Review, 1926-27, p. 487. Barrow was by 1927 convinced that "Voluntary co-operation would never be a permanent success either i n the Okanagan or Fraser Valley, so some measure of control was absolutely necessary." Province, Jan. 22, 1927, p. 16. See Barrow's biography i n Maclachlan, "Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association", pp. 262-267. 21 The standings af t e r the 1924 e l e c t i o n were, i n a House of 48: L i b e r a l s , 24 counting speaker; Conservatives, 17; P r o v i n c i a l Party, 3; Labour, 3. Martin Robin, The Rush for  Spoils: The Company Province, 1871-1933 (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1972), p. 209. In fact, as the Nelson Daily  News complained, the government even used the private member's b i l l as a convenient out, refusing any r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for b i l l s of far-reaching significance as ascribable only to the private members who sponsored them. • 'X- Province, Jan. 26, 1927, p. 6. . P p Walker, P o l i t i c i a n s of a Pioneering Province, p. 164. 23 ^Some of whom, at l e a s t , were interested p a r t i e s . Alderman H.E. Almond was the owner of an independent, City Dairy. Maclachlan, "Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association", p. 72. 24 Robin, Company Province, p. 226. 2 5Feb. 18, 1927, p. 4. 2 6 S.F. Tolmie Papers, Box 20, f i l e 26 "Agriculture Speech Material", item "Memorandum re 'Dairy Products Sales Adjustment act'" (stamped received Premier's O f f i c e , Nov. 17, 1932). 2 7 P r o v i n c e , Mar. 4, 1927, p. 1. .•'•62% of the B.C. apple crop of 1926 was exported from the province. Calculated from figures i n : B.C. Dept. of Agriculture, S t a t i s t i c s Branch, A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s t i c s 1927 ( B u l l e t i n no. 104) ( V i c t o r i a : King's Printer, 1928), pp. 10, 38. 2 9 I n 1927, only .05% of the fresh milk supply of B.C. was imported from outside the province. Calculated from figures i n Ibid., pp. 10, 33--^Imports made up only 3% of the t o t a l B.C. consumption of apples i n 1926 (calculated from figures i n : Ibid., pp. 10, 33, 38), but they were more highly v i s i b l e than the percentage would indicate, since they were generally concentrated on the Vancouver market. 94 7 Martin Robin has noted the tendency of In t e r i o r d i s t r i c t s to continue support of the party which had been i n power during the period of t h e i r development. See Company  Province, p. 230-3 2 L e t t e r to editor of H.H. Irvine, dated Feb. 11, Province, Feb. 15, 1927, p. 10. 33 ^ L e t t e r to editor of Walter Marshall, dated Feb. 11, Ibid. 34 J Letter to editor of C E . Edgett (a director of Associated Growers), Ibid. 3 5 I b i d . , Jan. 26, 1927, p. 4; Feb. 16, 1927, p. 21; and Feb. 17, 1927, p. 1. ?6 7 The newspapers, and quite l i k e l y the l e g i s l a t o r s , constantly got the names of the organizations crossed up. For example, i n what was obviously a reference to the Shippers' Federation i t was c a l l e d the Federation of B.C. F r u i t Growers, and mangled references were made to the Associated F r u i t Growers (Associated Growers) and the Sales Surplus Ltd. (Sales Service Ltd.). Province, Feb. l6, 1927, p. 21; and Jan. 26, 1927, p. 4. 3 7 L e t t e r to editor of C E . Edgett, Province, Feb. 15, 1927, pp. 7, 10. "A l o t of influence was brought to bear i n V i c t o r i a by means of l e t t e r s and telegrams signed by people posing as growers, that had considerable influence on members of the House. These members representing the urban c o n s t i t -uencies could not c l a s s i f y the senders of these wires or the l e t t e r s , and i t took considerable discussion to t ry to convince these men that those objectors were passing, so to speak, under fal s e colours. In a good many instances, these indi v -iduals were possibly f i v e percent growers and ninety-five percent interested i n the handling of the growers' product. Their communications were written with a view to not coming under t h i s system of control." E.D. Barrow, "Marketing Le g i s l a t i o n " , B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1927. p. 36. -^The widespread anti-Oriental f e e l i n g , s t i l l strong i n B r i t i s h Columbia i n the 1920s, was used by both sides i n try i n g to forward t h e i r causes. The rationale used by MLAs Fred L i s t e r and C F . Davie to oppose a proposed amendment excluding the Ashcroft and Lytton d i s t r i c t s from the b i l l was that " i t would r e s u l t b e n e f i c i a l l y to the Oriental farmers of those d i s t r i c t s - - - a n outcome they f e l t was to be opposed at any cost. Province, Mar. 4, 1927, p. 1. On the other hand, some anonymous supporter of the marketing b i l l used t h i s prejudice i n a 'dir t y t r i c k s ' l e t t e r v C F . Davie, the Con-servative MLA for Cowichan-Newcastle (who introduced an Oriental exclusion b i l l i n the 1927 session of the Legislature: Ibid., Mar. 3, 1927, p. 7), received the following telegram, i n suitably broken English, from Nishamura Togo i n Kelowna: 95 "M.P.P. Davie, Parliamentary Diet, V i c t o r i a : Honorable s i r , I am told you are kindly help Japanese i n our great country,"B'..C. Please help poor Japanese i n t r y i n g to stop Honorable Barrow's bad market chapter 43. Honorable s i r , t h i s chapter going to stop a l l Japanese s e l l f r u i t more cheaper than honorable Englishman. Please k i l l Honorable Barrow's chapter." Davie, the staunch a n t i - O r i e n t a l i s t , said "I need no further reason for my decision to support t h i s b i l l . " Ibid., Feb. 26, 1927, p. 20. Unfortunately the telegram was a fake, as various people hastened to point out. There was no such person as Nishamura Togo--the name was two t y p i c a l Japanese surnames put together, which had been used as the pseudonym of an American writer named Irwin for a short story c a l l e d 'Letters of a Japanese School Boy'. According to those opposed to the b i l l , "This shows methods being adopted by those t r y i n g to force l e g i s l a t i o n through contrary to wishes of majority of growers without a vote being taken", while K. Iwashita indignantly protested that "Local Japanese are strong cooperators and s o l i d l y behind the b i l l and therefore resent such underhand action obviously aiming to make c a p i t a l out of a n t i - o r i e n t a l attitude of cert a i n members of the house . . . No r a c i a l question should enter into the deliberation of the b i l l which i s economics question pure and simple." Telegrams to John Oliver from, respectively, F.R.E. DeHart, Kelowna, and K. Iwashita, Kelowna, both dated Feb. 28, 1927, i n Premier's Correspondence Inward 1927, Box 270, F i l e " L e g i s l a t i o n Section I I - l ; Produce Marketing B i l l ; Correspondence Against". 3 9 7 7 B o t h John Oliver and the Hon. R. Bruce, Lieutenant Governor of B r i t i s h Columbia, received copies of a telegram signed 'Fruit Raisers' sent from Kelowna March 1: " I t i s apparent i n many minds that the McNeery Haughen Farm B i l l which appeared before Congress simultaneously with the two marketing b i l l s before your House now were a l l hatched i n New York City by the wealthy Jews i n t h e i r plans to control the products of North America or the whole Earth. The countries were cautioned some time ago to watch t h i s movement. You are being trusted to k i l l those b i l l s as did President Coolidge i n h i s great foresight wisdom." Oliver commented with the understatement "that t h i s probably from some person s l i g h t l y deranged." Premier's Correspondence Inward 1927, Box 270, F i l e " L e g i s l a t i o n Section I I - l ; Produce Marketing B i l l ; Corr-espondence Against". But such sentiments arose from others than the obviously deranged--a successful independent shipper from Kelowna wrote to Oliver suggesting that the Convention resolution was part of a p l o t by jobbers to get t o t a l control of f r u i t . " I t may be fresh i n your mind what Henry Ford related- not very long ago, and that was, that i n his opinion the Jews were tr y i n g to get control of , the Products of the Earth, and i n our opinion i n following up t h i s matter we conclude that there i s enough i n i t to make i t well worth watching." Letter from George Rowcliffe, Kelowna, Jan. 19, 192'7, to John Oliver, _in Ibid. This b e l i e f was based on a r t i c l e s i n Henry Ford's Dearborn Independent i n 1924, i n which the assertion was made, based l a r g e l y on the bogus 96 'Protocols of Zion', that Aaron Sapiro was the p r i n c i p a l i n a Jewish p l o t to control agriculture. Sapiro sued for a m i l l i o n d o l l a r s damages, and i n July 1927 Ford backed down, s e t t l i n g out of court and making a public apology. W i l l i s Thornton, Fable, Fact and History (New York: Greenberg Publishers, 1957)> pp. 4-3-44. 40 V i c t o r i a Times, Feb. 25, 1927, quoted i n Canadian  Annual Review, 1926-27, p. 477. Province, Jan. 25, 1927, p. 16. 4? Ibid., Feb. 26, 1927, p. 20; see also Premier's Correspondence Inward 1927, Box 272, F i l e "general memoranda--miscellaneous", where i s a memorandum on a point of order Oliver raised asserting that the b i l l was u l t r a v i r e s of the P r o v i n c i a l Legislature. ^ P r o v i n c e , Feb. 25, 1927, p. 3-^ I b i d . , Mar. 4, 1927, p. 1. NOTES Chapter 4 1Text of Act, i n O.K. B u l l e t i n , 111:3 (Mar. 1927), p. 2. 2 A.E. Richards, "Marketing of F r u i t i n the Okanagan Valley of B r i t i s h Columbia Under the In t e r i o r Committee of Direct i o n " (part 2), The Economic Annalist, 1:3 (Mar. 1931), p. 1. -^MacPhee, Report, p. 32. 4 McGregor, Alleged Combine 1939, p. 9. ^Donald M. Black, "F.M. Black and the Committee of Direction", T h i r t y - f i r s t Annual Report of the Okanagan H i s t -o r i c a l Society 1967, p. 10~T. F.M. Black (1870-1941) was a United Farmers of Manitoba member of the Manitoba l e g i s l a t u r e from 1922 to 1926, P r o v i n c i a l Treasurer from 1922 to 1924. He also served on the War Time Food Control Committee i n Ottawa. Considering his l a t e r attitudes, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g that he had had some connection with the ideas of 'group i n t e r e s t s ' of the Alberta farmers* movement, since i n 1916 he served with H.W. Wood of the United Farmers of Alberta on a mediation committee between the farmers and the C.P.R. William Kirby Rolph, Henry Wise Wood of Alberta (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1950), p. T6~! — 6 Richards, "Interior Committee of Direction", pp. 1-2. 'See, for example, a memorandum of Sept. 29, 1928, from O.C. Bass, Departmental S o l i c i t o r , to the Attorney-General, and other copies of correspondence i n S.F. Tolmie Papers, Box 11, F i l e 58, "Correspondence-General-Legislature-Produce Marketing Act". g Richards, "Interior Committee of Direction", p. 2. ^McGregor, Alleged Combine 1939. p. 9. 10 J.A. Grant, " P r a c t i c a l Application of the Marketing Act", B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1927, p. 29 11 E.D. Barrow, "Marketing L e g i s l a t i o n " , Ibid., p. 38. 12 Richards, "Interior Committee of Direction", p. 2; and McGregor, Alleged Combine 1939, p. 9. 13B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1928, pp. 72-73; and Richards, " I n t e r i o r Committee of Direction", p. 2. 97 98 ^B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1928, p. 57. 1 5 I b i d . , pp. 68-69. l 6 I b i d . , p. 65. 17 'Ibid., p. 62; see also l e t t e r of J.W. Jones, MLA, to Premier Tolmie, July 3, 1929, i n which he says that "In many quarters I am finding h o s t i l i t y to the Board of Control which the growers claim has become the agent for the Shippers . . . " S.F. Tolmie Papers, Box 3, F i l e 23, "South Okanagan" Correspondence. 1 R B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1929, pp. 9, 15-l6. 19 7 I b i d . , pp. 73-74. The continued resentment against the Federation i s shown by resolutions passed by the Creston Farmers' Institute and the Boswell F r u i t Growers' Association which c a l l e d on the government to replace the B.C. Growers' and Shippers' Federation with a growers' federation of which a l l farmers whose produce was controlled by the Produce Marketing Act should be members. The covering l e t t e r put th i s statement i n quite r a d i c a l form; "We agree that the Produce Marketing Act, as a measure of s o c i a l i z e d control, can be of great benefit to the industry, and that t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n could progress to a point at which a l l our problems would be adequ-ately dealt with: but we do not consider our inte r e s t s w i l l be properly taken care of u n t i l the Farmers have control of the d i s t r i b u t i o n and a l l that i s involved therein." Resolutions of the Boswell F r u i t Growers, Mar. 12, 1930, and of the Creston Farmers' I n s t i t u t e , Jan. 22, 193°, i n S.F. Tolmie Papers, Box 11, F i l e 18, "Correspondence-General-Legislation-Produce Marketing Act". (Boswell i s near Nelson) McGregor, Alleged Combine 1939, p. 9. 2 1F.M. Black, "The Work of the Committee of Direction During 1929", B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1929, p. 46. 22B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1929, pp. 66-73. 23 -"Tascha S. Kabalkin, "The Trend of Co-operative Thought i n B r i t i s h Columbia F r u i t Marketing" (unpublished BSc i n A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics graduating essay, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1932), pp. 49-51. ?4 * See Country L i f e i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Nov. 1930, p. 5, and Kabalkin, "Trend of Co-operative Thought", p. 52. 2^Richards, "Interior Committee of Direction", p. 4. ?6 A fine example being a l e t t e r of Feb. 16, 1931 from J.F. Stevenson of Creston, which commenced (please take s i c for granted) "Honerabel Dr Tolmie" and says " a l l Mr Black does i s to p u l l the leg of the growers and get the b i g money have known Mr Black for over 40 years and easy pickings i s his game, and always plays on the Government to accomplish 99 h i s ends . . . Cooperation cant be done s a t i s f a c t e r l y and i s a fake and we w i l l rebel i f you allow such onwanted l e g i s l a t i o n to pass . . . " and fin i s h e s with the note "PS now I have served the Conservitive party f a i t h f u l l y for 49 years and am unable to get a b i t of work through t h i s man Davies to help p u l l through and i f we cant get r i d of t h i s booze a r t i s t we w i l l kick Colonel L out so i t i s one or the other and the sooner the better." Premier's Correspondence 1930-1933 ( i n P r o v i n c i a l Archives of B r i t i s h Columbia), Box 294, f i l e A-5a-D. Other similar specimens are re a d i l y available i n Premier Tolmie's f i l e s . 27 'Premier Tolmie received l e t t e r s against the new marketing b i l l from, among others, Pat Burns of Calgary, and J.J. Warren, the president of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Co. of Canada. Premier's Correspondence 1930-1933, Box 294, f i l e A-5-D. Letter from H.M. Walker to Tolmie, Feb. 6, 1931, S.F. Tolmie Papers, Box 2, F i l e 39, "North Okanagan" Corres-pondence . 29 7L.W. Makovski of the Western Canada F r u i t & Produce Exchange wrote on the letterhead of the Independent Growers' Association to Premier Tolmie, S.F. Tolmie Papers, Box 6, F i l e 5, "Correspondence-Provincial-Agriculture-Fruit Industry Inquiry"; A.T. Howe, a Vernon independent shipper, was on i t s Pr o v i s i o n a l Board,, and a l l of i t s proposals were made i n conjunction with the Independent Shippers' Association. 30 J See complaints on t h i s treatment i n l e t t e r s from F.E.R. Wollaston of the Coldstream Ranch, Jan. 28, 1931, and from L.W. Makovski, Feb. 1, 1931- S.F. Tolmie Papers, Box 6, F i l e 6, "Correspondence-Provincial-Agriculture-Fruit Industry Inquiry"; and Box 6, F i l e 5, "Correspondence-Provincial-A g r i c u l t u r e - F r u i t Industry Inquiry". -^"Outline of the Independent Growers' Marketing Plan . . . " and the 'Private and Confidential' comments with i t by L.W. Makovski, S.F. Tolmie Papers, Box 6, F i l e 5» "Correspondence-Provincial-Agriculture-Fruit Industry Inquiry". The a n t i - i n t e l l e c t u a l bent of the organization may be seen i n the demand "That the appointee jjL.e. to head the Bureau of A g r i c u l t u r a l Information} s h a l l not be a univers i t y pro-fessor of ho r t i c u l t u r e , agriculture or economics . . . " 32 -^Letter from G. Heggie, MLA for Vernon, to Premier Tolmie, Feb. 1, 1932, reporting on the recent B.C.F.G.A. convention, S.F. Tolmie Papers, Box 2, F i l e 39, "North Okanagan" Correspondence. The Association was evidently s t i l l i n existence i n 1934, since i t i s mentioned i n "Minutes of the Meeting of Directors of the Crown F r u i t Co. Ltd.", Jan. 29, 1934 ( i n Kelowna Centennial Museum). -^0n the Convention: Richards, "Interior Committee 100 of Direction", p. 3- A copy of the draft B i l l i s i n the J.W. Jones Papers ( i n P r o v i n c i a l Archives of B r i t i s h Columbia), v o l . 5, folder 8. T.G. Norris' comment i s quoted i n Kabalkin, "Trend of Co-operative Thought", pp. 67-68. 34 J Commissioner F.M. Clement.- I t was appointed i n 1928 and reported to the Legislature on Jan. 22, 1929- I t was favourable to cooperation and recommended that f l u i d milk be treated as a public u t i l i t y . B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report  1928, pp. 76-78; Maclachlan, "Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association", p. 79; and Frederick Moore Clement, My Thoughts  Were On the Land: Autobiography of Fred Clement (White Rock; B.C.: n. pub., 1969), p. 33. ^B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1928, p. 79. 36 He f a i l e d to gain the respect of either shippers or growers, and at one Shippers' Council meeting i t was suggested that he should "be kept on leash". Letter from George Heggie, MLA for North Okanagan, to Premier Tolmie, Oct. 9, 1931, S.F. Tolmie Papers, Box 2, F i l e 39, "North Okanagan" Correspondence. 37 -"Walker, P o l i t i c i a n s of a Pioneering Province, p. 203. -^Letter from J.W. Jones to R.H. Pooley, Attorney-General, dated Kelowna, Aug. 25, 1928, Attorney-General's Department Correspondence (Letters Inward, 1918-1937) (Prov4 i n c i a l Archives of B r i t i s h Columbia microfilm r o l l 278), f i l e no. P-302-1 (1928), Produce Marketing Act cases. -^Walker, P o l i t i c i a n s of a Pioneering Province, p. 204. ^ L e t t e r from Tolmie to Mat Hassen (a Conservative party worker) of Armstrong, Dec. 30, 1930, S.F. Tolmie Papers, Box 2, F i l e 39, "North Okanagan" Correspondence. 41 J.W. Jones reported i n July that "I have been going to and fr o : over my Riding since returning from the Coast and fi n d on every hand a desire to have a thorough look i n on the whole industry." Letter from Jones to Tolmie, July 3, 1929, S.F. Tolmie Papers, Box 3, F i l e 23, "South Okanagan" Corres-pondence. 4 2 B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1929, p. 10. 43 -^Letter from W.M. Dryden (secretary of the Summerland Co-operative F r u i t Assn) to J.W. Jones, June 25, 1929, enclosed with l e t t e r from Jones to Tolmie, July 3, 1929, S.F. Tolmie Papers, Box 3» F i l e 23, "South Okanagan".Correspondence. During W:vW. I, Evans had served as Chairman of the 1916 P a c i f i c Coast Fishery Commission, and l a t e r as Secretary of the M i l l e r s ' Committee of the Food Board. "From the m i l l e r s ' point of view, they appreciated h i s services as they retained him i n an advisory capacity for some years a f t e r the war." 101 L e t t e r from Henry B. Thomson (on paper of Ladysmith Tidewater Smelters Ltd.) to Tolmie, J u l y 8, 1929, S.F. Tolmie Papers, Box 6, F i l e 6, " C o r r e s p o n d e n c e - P r o v i n c i a l - A g r i c u l t u r e - F r u i t Industry I n q u i r y " ; see b i o g r a p h i c a l data i n W. Stewart Wallace, ed., The Macmillan D i c t i o n a r y of Canadian Biography (4th ed., r e v i s e d e t c . by W.A. McKay) (Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1978), p. 247. ^B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1928, pp. 79-80.-4 6 Memo from J.G. Thomson, dated 'received Premier's o f f i c e , Jan. 29, 1931', e n t i t l e d "The Reverse A t t i t u d e of F.M. Black", S.F. Tolmie Papers, Box 5, F i l e 25, "Correspondence-P r o v i n c i a l - D e p u t y M i n i s t e r of A g r i c u l t u r e " ; and copy of l e t t e r from F.G. deWolf to J.G. Thomson, Feb. 9, 1931, J.W. Jones Papers, V o l . 1, F o l d e r 3. pp. 33-34. 47 'Evans, Royal Commision 1931, p. W12. 48 I b i d . , p. W13- The average y i e l d of apples i n B.C. was estimated at between 240 and 250 boxes per acre, while t h a t of the Wenatchee-Okanogan d i s t r i c t i n Washington was over 400 boxes per acre. ^ I b i d . , pp. W14-W15. By comparison, as e a r l y as 1922 the Wehatchee d i s t r i c t i n Washington had cold-storage f a c i l i t i e s to hold h a l f i t s crop. 5°rbid., p. W6. ^ 1 I b i d . , p. W17-5 2 I b i d . , p. W21. ^ I b i d . > passim. 4^ As, f o r example, a broadsheet e n t i t l e d "Sanford Evans Speaking!", e v i d e n t l y issued by the Independent Growers' A s s o c i a t i o n , i n Premier's Correspondence 1930-1933, Box 294, f i l e A-5a-D. -^Joseph Casorso wrote on the l e t t e r h e a d of h i s tame Belgo Co-operative Growers' A s s o c i a t i o n to congratulate Evans and Thomson. "You can r e s t assured t h a t 99% of the people i n the Okanagan that we c a l l p r a c t i c a l farmers f e e l s a t i s f i e d t hat you & Mr Evans has been a great Messiah to the b e a u t i f u l Okanagan. . . . You can r e s t assured that i t i s a great r e l i e f to f e e l t h a t we can car r y on business again on or d i n a r y business l i n e s which w i l l immediately r e s t o r e c r e d i t amongst p r a c t i c a l farmers." Casorso to J.G. Thomson, Jan. 26, 1931, Premier's Correspondence 1930-1933, Box 294, f i l e A-5-D. ^Copy of l e t t e r from F.R.E. DeHart (Secretary of Independent Growers' A s s o c i a t i o n ) to Stanford Evans, Feb. 8, 1931, S.F. Tolmie Papers, Box 6, F i l e 6, "Correspondence-P r o v i n c i a l - A g r i c u l t u r e - F r u i t Industry I n q u i r y " ; and broadsheet headed "Compulsory Pools Are I l l e g a l ! " which i n c l u d e s t e x t of r e s o l u t i o n , Premier's Correspondence 1930-1933, Box 294, f i l e A-5-D. 102 ^ K a b a l k i n , "Trend of Co-operative Thought", pp. 64-67. 5 8Copy of l e t t e r from F.G. deWolf to J.G. Thomson, Feb. 9, 1931, i n J.W. Jones Papers, v o l . 1, folder 3, PP- 33-34. 7 7 " B r i t i s h Columbia F r u i t Growers' Association", p. 170; and Richards, "Interior Committee of Direction", p. 3« ^Maclachlan, "Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Assoc-i a t i o n " , p. 91. 6 l " I b i d . " , pp. 79-80. 6 2"Ibid.';, p. 84. ^Dominion Law Reports, 1931, v o l . 2, p. 193; quoted i n Maclachlan, "Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association", p. 90. 64 Memorandum from J.G. Thomson, e n t i t l e d "The Produce Marketing Act: ( u l t r a v i r e s of the P r o v i n c i a l Legislature) and the possible r e s u l t s of the Government becoming involved i n an appeal to the Privy Council" (stamped 'received-Premier's Office-Feb. 27, 1931'), i n S.F. Tolmie Papers, f i l e 11-18 "Correspondence-General-Legislation-Produce Marketing Act". See Appendix for further d e t a i l s . 6^Black, "F.M. Black and the Committee of Direction", 66 Clement, Enquiry, p. 2. 6 7 " F i n i s 1930 Crop", O.K. B u l l e t i n , VII:5 (May 1931), p. 1. 6ft Ormsby, " F r u i t Marketing", p. 91. 6 9"Markets", O.K. B u l l e t i n , VII:9 (Sept. 1931), p. 2. 7 0 ' S.W. Dafoe, "Looking Through the Co-operative Window"', O.K. B u l l e t i n , VII:10 (Oct. 1931), p. 3-7 1"Markets", O.K. B u l l e t i n , VII:11 (Nov. 1931), p. 1. 7 2McGregor, Alleged Combine 1939, pp. 6, 9. 7 3"Markets", O.K. B u l l e t i n , VIII:4 (Apr. 1932), p. 1. ^"Report by P.V. LeGuen . . .", O.K. B u l l e t i n , VIII:4 (Apr. 1932), p. 10. 7 5 ^Clement, Enquiry, p. 3« 7 6 ' Associated Growers, Directors' report . . . for year ending March 31, 1932. 77J. Coke, "The 1932 Apple Cartel i n B r i t i s h Columbia", 105. 103 The Economic Annalist, 111:6 (June 1933), p. 64. "^MacPhee, Report, p. 33. 79 McGregor, Alleged Combine 1939, p.9. ] 81. MacPhee, Report, p. 33. p. 3. "Province, Sept. 11, 1933, p. 1. 8 2McGregor, Alleged Combine 1939, p. 9-8^Province, Sept. 11, 1933, p. 3« ^"Apple Cartel " , O.K. B u l l e t i n , VIII:12 (Dec. 1932), 8-'Bruce Bliven, "Milo Reno and His Farmers", New  Republic, LXXVII (Nov. 29, 1933), p. 64, quoted i n John L. Shover, Cornbelt Rebellion: The Farmers' Holiday Association (Urbana and London: University of I l l i n o i s Press, 1965), p. 7-See also S.M. Lipset, Agrarian Socialism: The Cooperative  Commonwealth Federation i n Saskatchewan (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1950), pp. 175-177. \ NOTES Chapter 5 1 " B r i t i s h Columbia F r u i t Growers' A s s o c i a t i o n " , pp. 174-175• Haskins was a long-time r e s i d e n t of the V a l l e y . He attended Summerland College before going to the Coast to study law. A f t e r being admitted to the bar he opened a p r a c t i c e at P e n t i c t o n i n 1916. In 1920 he bought a f o r t y acre orchard a t P e n t i c t o n , but i n 1922 he l e f t t h i s i n the care of a foreman and went to take up a l e g a l p r a c t i c e i n Vancouver. He returned to a c t i v e orcharding at P e n t i c t o n i n 1930. Country L i f e i n B r i t i s h Columbia, XVII:6 ( J u l y 1933), p. 5-2See "Minutes of Executive Meetings of the B.C.F.G.A.", e s p e c i a l l y Nov. 6, 1933 and Dec. 6, 1933 ( f i l e d i n B.C.F.G.A. head o f f i c e , Kelowna, B.C.). ^Vernon News, Aug. 24, 1933, P- 1. The Crown F r u i t Company of Kelowna, f o r example, was'.willing to p a r t i c i p a t e • i n a one-desk deal of a l l shippers, but not i n a c a r t e l l i k e t h a t of 1932 because "there was not enough tonnage favourable to the pool to have the d e s i r e d s t a b i l i z i n g i n f l u e n c e " . "Minutes of a Meeting of D i r e c t o r s of the Crown F r u i t Co. L t d . " , Aug. 30", 1933. 4 Vernon News,. Aug, 24, 1933, p. 1. 5 I b i d . , Aug. 31, 1933, P- 2. Province, Sept. 23, 1933, Sunday magazine, p. 1. ^Vernon News, Sept. 7, 1933, P-4. 8 I b i d . , Sept. 14, 1933, p. 2. Q 7As e a r l y as 1902, the So c i e t y of E q u i t y , an o f f s h o o t i n A l b e r t a of an American o r g a n i z a t i o n , c a l l e d f o r farmers to c o n t r o l t h e i r market by r e f u s i n g to s e l l below an agreed ' f a i r ' p r i c e . A farmers' non-delivery s t r i k e to p r o t e s t f e d e r a l customs d u t i e s on farm machinery was proposed at the 1919 convention of the United Farmers of A l b e r t a , but the f i r s t a c t u a l s t r i k e on the P r a i r i e s d i d not occur u n t i l the winter of 1933-34. Norman F. P r i e s t l e y and Edward B. Swindlehurst, Furrows, F a i t h and F e l l o w s h i p (Edmonton: A l b e r t a A g r i c u l t u r a l Centennial Committee, 1967), pp. 17, 21, 62, and 158. 10 See Shover, Cornbelt R e b e l l i o n , and Theodore Saloutos and John D. Hicks, A g r i c u l t u r a l Discontent i n the Middle West, 1900-1939 (Madison: U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin Press, 195D. 104 105 l l S.W. Dafoe, "Looking Through the Co-operative Window", O.K.. B u l l e t i n , VIII : 9 (Sept. 1 9 3 2 ) , p. 4 . 12 Maclachlan, "Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Assoc-i a t i o n " , pp. 9 8 - 9 9 -1 3 P r o v i n c e , Sept. 6, 1933, p. 1. 14 Vernon News, Sept. 7 , 1933 , pp. 1, 4 . 1 5 P r o v i n c e , Sept. 6, 1933, p. 14 . 1 6 1 Vernon News, Sept. 7 , 1933,.p. 4 . 1 7 I b i d . 1"Province, Sept. 5 , 1933, p. 1. 1 9 I b i d . , Sept. 6, 1933, P- 14 . Of) Vernon News, Sept. 7 , 1933, pp. 1, 4 . 21 McGuire had been involved i n the f r u i t packing and shipping business since 1920, o r i g i n a l l y working for h i s father-in-law, J.K. Hidston. J.R. Kidston, "Michael Vincent McGuire", Thirty-ninth Report of the Okanagan H i s t o r i c a l  Society 1975 , P. l4~i He had been opposed to the Produce Marketing Act, introducing a motion i n 1929 that i t should be reconsidered by a p l e b i s c i t e of growers. B.C.F.G.A. Annual  Report 1928 , p. 5 7 . As President of the Independent Shippers' Association he led the opposition to pooling i n 1930. = -B.C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1929 . p. 68 . 22 Vernon News, Sept. 7 , 1933, p . l . 2 3 P r o v i n c e , Sept. 12 , 1933, p. 3 . 24 c Ibid. , Sept. 1 1 , 1933, p. I.1  25Vernon':News, Sept. 14 , 1933, p. 9 . 2 6 I b i d . , Sept. 2 1 , 1933, p. 1 1 . 2 ? I b i d . , Sept. 14 , 1933 , p. 1. A copy of the agree-ment i s bound with the Ci r c u l a r s of the Okanagan S t a b i l i z a t i o n Board, 1933 Crop Year ( i n possession of Okanagan Federated Shippers Ltd., Kelowna). * Vernon News, Sept. 2 1 , 1933, p. 5-2 9 I b i d . , Sept. 14 , 1933, p. 1. 3°Ibid., March 22 , 1934, p. 1. 3 1 0 r m s b y , " F r u i t Marketing", p. 9 2 . 3 2Vernon News, Sept. 2 1 , 1933 , pp. 1, 1 1 . p. 7. 106 3 3Vernon News, Sept. 21, 1933, p. 1. 3 4 I b i d . , Oct. 5, 1933, pp. 1-2. ^Pr o v i n c e , Sept. 29, 1933, p. 1. 3 6 I b i d . 3 7 I b i d . , pp. 1-2. 3 8Vernon News, Oct. 5, 1933, p. 2. 3 9 I b i d . ^°Ibid., p. 6. ^ I b i d . , Oct. 12, 1933, pp. 1, 6. 4? Ibid., Oct. 5, 1933, p. 9. ^Country L i f e i n B r i t i s h Columbia, XVII»9 (Oct. 1933), 44 Vernon News, Oct. 26, 1933, pp. 1, 5. ^P r o v i n c e , Oct. 21, 1933, p. 1 8 . 46 Ibid., Oct. 24, 1933, p. 4. 47 'Okanagan S t a b i l i z a t i o n Board, "Interim Report of the Pool Sub-Committee . . . to December 31st, 1933" (bound with Okanagan S t a b i l i z a t i o n Board C i r c u l a r s ) . 48 Vernon News, Oct. 5, 1933, P- 7-^The Commonwealth, Jan. 3, 1934, p. 3. 5°Country L i f e i n B r i t i s h Columbia, XVIII:1 (Mar. 1934), ^Vernon News, Sept. 21, 1933, p. 3. 5 2Province, Sept. 6, 1933, p. 14 . 53 - ^ f b i d . , Sept. 23, 1933, Sunday magazine, p. 6. 54 Robert G. Stewart, "Radiant Smiles i n the Dirty T h i r t i e s : History and Ideology of the Oxford Group Movement i n Canada, 1932-1936" (unpublished Master of D i v i n i t y thesis, Vancouver School of Theology, 1974), p. 43. ^ " I b i d . " , pp. 47 -48 . 56T p. 7. Penticton Herald, Nov. 23, 1933, p. 1. 5 7 I b i d . , p. 9. 5 8Vernon News. Mar. 22, 1934, p. 6. 107 ^ P r o v i n c e , Sept. 2 3 , 1933, Sunday magazine, p. 1. 6°Vernon News,' Oct. 5 , 1933, p. 9 . The B.C.F.G.A. , while w i l l i n g to amalgamate, lacked the a b i l i t y to press for such action. Indeed, while i t expressed i t s readiness to cooperate with the S t a b i l i z a t i o n Committee, i t also revealed i t s impotence when i t asked that organization for a loan to tide over u n t i l year-end. "Minutes of Executive Meetings of B.C.F.G.A.", Oct. 5 , 1933; Dec. 6, 1933; and A p r i l 4 , 1 9 3 4 . 61 Vernon News, Sept. 7 , 1933, P« 4 ; and Sept. 14, 1 9 3 3 , p. 6. 6 ? ^The Commonwealth, Oct. 18, 1 9 3 3 , p. 2 . 63 T 'Province, Sept. 2 9 , 1 9 3 3 , P- 1. \ 65, 6 \ e r n o n News, Sept. 14, 1933 , p. 4. 'Ibid., Oct. 5 , 1 9 3 3 , p. 1. 67 T Ibid., Sept. 14, 1933, p. 1. Premier Tolmie, campaigning on with h i s new 'Unionist* party a f t e r h i s desertion by h i s Conservative colleagues, promised to press for federal l e g i s l a t i o n similar to the B r i t i s h Marketing Act. "Unionist Party of B r i t i s h Columbia Speakers' Handbook, P r o v i n c i a l E l e c t i o n 1933" i n J.W. Jones Papers, Vol. 4 , folder 8 , p. 107 . Jones, running as an inde-pendent, promised "an e n t i r e l y new system of marketing a g r i -c u l t u r a l products on an orderly basis, so that-a majority of producers i n any industry, such as f r u i t or milk production, may not have the i r e f f o r t s n u l l i f i e d and th e i r markets d i s -rupted by-a s e l f i s h minority." Ibid., Vol. 6, folder 1, p. 138 . Vernon News, Oct. 1 2 , 1933, p. 1. 9The Commonwealth, Oct. 18, 1 9 3 3 , p. 1. 7°Vernon News, Sept. 2 1 , 1933, p. 1. 7 1 P r o v i n c e , Sept. 2 6 , 1933, p. 1 8 . ? 2Vernon News, Sept. 2 8 , 1933, p. 1. 73 '•^"Minutes of Meeting of Directors of the Crown F r u i t Co. Ltd.", Jan. 3 , 1934. "^Country L i f e i n B r i t i s h Columbia, XVII:9 (Oct. 1 9 3 3 ) , p. 14. '-^Maclachlan, "Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Assoc-i a t i o n " , pp. 9 9 - 1 0 1 . 108 P- 5. 76 Okanagan S t a b i l i z a t i o n Board C i r c u l a r No. 22/33 (Oct. 16, 1933). The Board Ci r c u l a r s for the 1933 Crop Year give weekly reports of sales. 7 7Country L i f e i n B r i t i s h Columbia. XVII-.9 (Oct. 1933), 7 8Vernon News, Sept. 28, 1933, p. 5. 7 9 I b i d . , Oct. 12, 1933, p. 1 . 8 0 I b i d . Province, Sept. 23, 1933, Sunday magazine, p. 1; and The Commonwealth, Jan. 3, 1934, p. 3. 82 p. 5. p. 4. -'Province, Oct. 19, 1933, p . 1. 8 4 Country L i f e i n B r i t i s h Columbia, XVII:9 (Oct. 1 9 3 3 ) , 8 3 , Country L i f e i n B r i t i s h Columbia, XVII:11 (Dec. 1 9 3 3 ) , Q £ •^British Columbia Department of Agriculture, Twenty-eighth Annual Report, 1 9 3 3 ( V i c t o r i a : King's Pri n t e r , 1 9 3 4 ) , pp. 1 8 - 1 9 . McGregor, Alleged Combine 1 9 3 9 , p. 9-8 7Country L i f e i n B r i t i s h Columbia, XVIII s i (Mar. 1 9 3 4 ) , p. 7. "The co-operative movement and the p r e v a i l i n g grower opposition to d i r e c t jobber representation i n the Valley had discouraged the purchasing of f r u i t f or cash d i r e c t l y from the producer, and after 1 9 2 3 there was l i t t l e cash buying. Consolidated F r u i t Company Limited sent a cash buyer to the Valley to purchase on i t s behalf i n the 1 9 3 2 - 3 3 season, but growers generally f e l t so strongly about the venture that the buyer was compelled to leave the Okanagan. At the same time Consolidated F r u i t had financed the establishment of a shipping house i n Vernon, Crestland F r u i t Company, Limited, and was supervising i t through a former Consolidated F r u i t employee, Harvey Harrison." McGregor, Alleged Combine 1 9 3 9 , p. 4 4 . Crestland had been engaged i n other forms of sniping at stab-i l i z a t i o n before the levy question came up. See, for example, Vernon News, Oct. 1 9 , 1 9 3 3 , p. 9 , for an account of Harrison's undercutting by dealing i n Kootenay f r u i t at lower than Stab-i l i z a t i o n Board p r i c e s . QO Vernon News, Mar. 2 2 , 1 9 3 4 , p. 6. 8 9 I b i d . , p. 1 . 9°Country L i f e i n B r i t i s h Columbia, XVIII : 1 (Mar. 1 9 3 4 ) , p. 7 . 109 9 1Vernon News, Mar. 22, 193^, p. 1. The preamble to the "Outline of Objects and Poli c y of the United F r u i t Producers of B.C." c l e a r l y states i t s intention to rearrange the s e l l i n g system: "This Association . . . recognizes the grower as the p r i n c i p a l i n a l l transactions taking place ' • t between the delivery of f r u i t s to the packing house and the return of the proceeds to the grower. A l l other factors i n these transactions are considered as being agents who should be under the control of the p r i n c i p a l . I t being impossible for the i n d i v i d u a l grower to exercise e f f e c t i v e control over shipping organizations handling the crops of many producers, the grower here joins with his fellow growers i n an Association, through which benefits to the whole body w i l l be obtained." (bound with Okanagan S t a b i l i z a t i o n Board Circulars) NOTES Chapter 6 """Alvin F i n k e l , Business and So c i a l Reform i n the  T h i r t i e s (Toronto: James Lorimer, 1979), p. 46. 2 National A g r i c u l t u r a l Conference: Called by the Honourable Robert Weir, Minister of Agriculture, Ottawa: Held  at Royal York Hotel, Toronto, August 29 to September 1, 1932 (Ottawa: Department of Agriculture, 1932), p. 19. 3Paul W. Clement, "The Operation of the Natural Products Marketing Act i n the Okanagan Valley" (unpublished BSA [Horticulture] graduating essay, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1936), p. 11; and "Unionist Party of B r i t i s h Columbia Speakers* Handbook", p. 107. See also l e t t e r from Tolmie to R.H. McDonald (president of the B.C.F.G.A.), Aug. 7, 1933, i n which the Premier promises "to render every possible assistance i n bringing about Federal l e g i s l a t i o n which w i l l adequately cover our requirements and prevent disaster to t h i s important industry." S.F. Tolmie Papers, Box 20, f i l e 26, "Speech Material-Agriculture". Vernon News, Oct. 19, 1933, p. 4. •^Canada, House of Commons, Debates, June 4, 1934, p. 3664, ci t e d i n H. B l a i r Neatby, William Lyon Mackenzie  King: 1932-1939: The Prism of Unity (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976) , p.. 58. .. J.R.H. Wilbur, "R.B. Bennett as a Reformer", Canadian  H i s t o r i c a l Association H i s t o r i c a l Papers 1969, p. 107; and "S t e r l i n g S t i r l i n g " , Province, Nov. 30, 1934, Sunday magazine, p. 2. ^Canada, House of Commons, Debates 1934, Vol. II, pp. 2254-2256, ci t e d i n J.R.H. Wilbur (ed.), The Bennett New Deal: Fraud or Portent? (Toronto: Copp Clark Pub. Co., 1968), p. 41. 8E.C. Weddell, "The Honourable Grote S t i r l i n g , P.C.", Seventeenth Report of the Okanagan H i s t o r i c a l Society 1953, pp. 10-11. ^Neatby, Mackenzie King, p. 58. 1 0 Hon. W.R. Motherwell, i n Canada, House of Commons, Debates 1934, Vol. I l l , p. 2903; Vol. IV, p. 3666. 11 Quoted i n Finkel, Business and Soc i a l Reform i n the T h i r t i e s , pp. 51-52. I t i s in t e r e s t i n g that King l a t e r changed his attitude and hoped that the l e g a l v a l i d i t y of the Act 110 I l l would be upheld by the courts. Ibid., p. 56. 1 2 0rms'by, " F r u i t Marketing", pp. 95-96. 13W.C. Hopper, "The Natural Products Marketing Act, 1 9 3 4--II: Notes on the Administration of the Act", Canadian  Journal of Economics and P o l i t i c a l Science, 1: 3 (Aug"! 1 9 3 5 ) , p. 4 7 6 . 1 4 F,M. Clement, "How the Natural Products Marketing Act Operates i n B r i t i s h Columbia", Proceedings of the Fourth  International Conference of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economists (London: Oxford University Press, 1 9 3 7 ) , p. 3 4 8 . l 5Quoted i n Ibid. , p. 3*4-2. 16 MacPhee, Report, p. 3 5 ; and see A.K. Loyd, "Marketing F r u i t i n B r i t i s h Columbia", Twelfth Report of the Okanagan  H i s t o r i c a l Society 1 9 4 8 , pp. 180-185 for a description of the operation of B.C. Tree F r u i t s Ltd. 1 7MacPhee, Report, p. 1 0 4 . 18 S.M. Lipset wrote i n r e l a t i o n to the CCF a g r i c u l t u r a l p o l i c y i n Saskatchewan: "Most CCF leaders assume that i f farmers are given economic security and increased s o c i a l services they w i l l continue to support the movement i n i t s e f f o r t s to s o c i a l i z e the r e s t of the economy. . . . In f a c t , the contrary seems to be true--farmers tend to become conserv-ative when they achieve t h e i r economic goals. The farmer i s r a d i c a l v i s - a - v i s the larger society when hi s economic security and land tenure are threatened. . . . However, once the farmer achieves these immediate goals and becomes a members of the secure property holders of society, he resents government controls and labor or tax l e g i s l a t i o n that i n t e r f e r e with the expansion of h i s business." Agrarian Socialism, p. 276. 19 ^Statement by W.R. " B i l l " Carruthers, r e t i r e d r e a l t o r , i n a personal interview, Kelowna, August 2 , 1 9 7 8 . * E.D. Barrow, "Marketing L e g i s l a t i o n " , B .C.F.G.A. Annual Report 1 9 2 7 , p. 3 7 . BIBLIOGRAPHY I. MANUSCRIPT, SOURCES A. Archival Materials B r i t i s h Columbia. Attorney-General's Department. Correspon-dence (Letters Inward, 1918-192?). Microfilm r o l l 278. Pr o v i n c i a l Archives of B r i t i s h Columbia. B r i t i s h Columbia F r u i t Growers' Association. Minutes of Executive Meetings. 1933, 193^. Held at B.C.F.G.A. head o f f i c e , Kelowna, B.C. Crown F r u i t Company Limited. Minute Book, 1928-I936. Held at Kelowna Centennial Museum, Kelowna, B.C. Jones, J.W. Papers. P r o v i n c i a l Archives of B r i t i s h Columbia. Membership Agreement and Marketing Agreement between Mrs. I.G. Pooley, Kelowna Growers Exchange, and Co-operative Growers of B r i t i s h Columbia, dated February 19, 1923- In author's possession. Okanagan S t a b i l i z a t i o n Board. Cir c u l a r s , 1933 Crop Year. Held at o f f i c e of Okanagan Federated Shippers Ltd., Kelowna, B.C. Premier's Correspondence Inward 1927. P r o v i n c i a l Archives of B r i t i s h Columbia. Premier's Correspondence 1930-1933- P r o v i n c i a l Archives of B r i t i s h Columbia. Tolmie, Simon Fraser. Papers. Special Collections, University of B r i t i s h Columbia. B. Theses and Academic Papers Clement, Paul W. "The Operation of the Natural Products Marketing Act i n the Okanagan Valley." Unpublished BSA (Horticulture) graduating essay, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1936. 112 113 Dendy, David. "One Huge Orchard: Okanagan Land and Development Companies Before the Great War." Unpublished BA grad-uating essay, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976. Kabalkin, Yascha S. "The Trend of Co-operative Thought i n B r i t i s h Columbia F r u i t Marketing." Unpublished BSc (A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics) graduating essay, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1932. Maclachlan, Morag Elizabeth. "The Fraser Valley Milk Producers* Association: Successful Cooperative." Unpublished MA thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972. Stewart, Robert G. "Radiant Smiles i n the D i r t y T h i r t i e s : History and Ideology of the Oxford Group Movement i n Canada, 1932-1936." Unpublished Master of D i v i n i t y thesis, Vancouver School of Theology, 1974. II . PRINTED SOURCES A. Government Publications B r i t i s h Columbia. Department of Agriculture. Twenty-eighth  Annual Report, 1933. V i c t o r i a : King's Printer, 1934. • , S t a t i s t i c s Branch. A g r i c u l t u r a l Stat-i s t i c s 1927. B u l l e t i n no. 104. V i c t o r i a : King's Pr i n t e r , 1928. . Royal Commission Investigating the F r u i t Industry. Report of the Royal Commission Investigating the F r u i t  Industry . . .: Part I I . W. Sanford Evans, commissioner. V i c t o r i a : King's Printer, 1931. . Royal Commission on the Tree-Fruit Industry. Report of the Royal Commision on the Tree-Fruit Industry  of B r i t i s h Columbia, October 1958. Dean E.D. MacPhee, commissioner. V i c t o r i a : -Queen's Printer.,: 1958.-. Canada. Department of Agriculture. National A g r i c u l t u r a l Conference: Called by the Honourable Robert Weir, Minister  of Agriculture, Ottawa: Held at Royal York Hotel, Toronto, August 29 to September 1, 1932. Ottawa: Department of Agriculture, 1932. . Department of Labour. Combines Investigation Act. Investigation Into Alleged Combine i n the D i s t r i b u t i o n  of F r u i t and Vegetables: Interim Report of the Commissioner, February 18, 1925- Lewis Duncan, commissioner. Ottawa: King's Printer, 1925. . . . Investigation into an Alleged Combine of Wholesalers and Shippers of F r u i t s and Vege-tables i n Western Canada: Report of Commissioner, October 114 31, 1939. F.A. McGregor, commissioner. Ottawa: King's Printer, 1939. . House of Commons. Debates. 1934. B. Publications of Growers' Organizations Associated Growers of B r i t i s h Columbia Limited. Directors' report, balance sheet, revenue & expenditure account, auditors' report, for the year ending March 31, 1924; . . . 1926; . . . 1932. Annual Reports of the B r i t i s h Columbia F r u i t Growers1' Assoc-i a t i o n . . . V i c t o r i a : King's Pr i n t e r . (for the-years ending December 31st, 1914', 1915, 1916, 1918, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1926, 1927, 1928, and 1929.) Clement, Frederick Moore. Report on the Enquiry Conducted on -'Behalf of the Six Locals of the Associated Growers of  B r i t i s h Columbia Limited. Penticton: Southern Okanagan Co-operative Associations, 1933. Co-operation: A Report of Mr. Aaron Sapiro's Address at Vernon, B.C., on Thurs., Jan. 4th., 1923. Vernon: B.C. Growers' Organization Committee, 1923-The Co-operative Growers of B r i t i s h Columbia: An Outline of  i t s Constitution and Aims. n.p., n.d. C. Books and Pamphlets C a i l , Robert E. Land, Man, and the Law: The Disposal of Crown Lands i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 1871-1913• Vancouver: University of B r i t i s h Columbia Press, 1974. Canadian Annual Review of Public A f f a i r s , 1926-27. Toronto: Canadian Review Co., 1927. [Canadian P a c i f i c Railway}. Western Canada: Manitoba, Alberta, Assiniboia, Saskatchewan and New Ontario: How to Reach I t , How to Obtain Lands, How to Make a Home. [pPR]; 1904. Clement, Frederick Moore. My Thoughts Were On the Land: Autobiography of Fred Clement. White Rock, B.C.: n. pub., 1969: F i n k e l , A l v i n . Business and So c i a l Reform i n the T h i r t i e s . Toronto: James Lorimer, 1979-Fowke, Vernon C. Canadian A g r i c u l t u r a l P o l i c y : The H i s t o r i c a l Pattern. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1946. • The National Po l i c y and the Wheat Economy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1957-115 Lipset, S.M. Agrarian Socialism: The Cooperative Commonwealth  Federation i n Saskatchewan. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1950. The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Modern Economics: A Handbook of  Terms and Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965. M i t c h e l l , Don. The P o l i t i c s of Food. Toronto: James Lorimer, 1975. Morton, James. Honest John Oliver: The L i f e Story of the  Honourable John Oliver, Premier of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1918-1927. London, Toronto, and Vancouver: J.M. Dent and Sons, 1933. Neatby, H. B l a i r . William Lyon Mackenzie King: 1932-1939? The Prism of Unity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976. Orms'by, Margaret A. B r i t i s h Columbia: A History. Vancouver: Macmillan of Canada* 1958. P r i e s t l e y , Norman F., and Edward B. Swindlehurst. Furrows, Fa i t h and Fellowship. Edmonton: Alberta A g r i c u l t u r a l Centennial Committee, 19^7. Redmayne, J.S. F r u i t Farming on the "Dry Belt" of B r i t i s h  Columbia: The Why and Wherefore. London: Times Book Club, £1909]. Robin, Martin. The Rush For Spoils: The Company Province, 1871-1933. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1972. Rolph, William Kirby. Henry Wise Wood of Alberta. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1950. Saloutos, Theodore, and John,D..Hicks. A g r i c u l t u r a l Dis-content i n the Middle West, 1900-1939. Madison: Universi of Wisconsin Press, 1951. Shover, John L. Cornbelt Rebellion: The Farmers' Holiday Association. Urbana and London: University of I l l i n o i s Press, 1965. Thornton, W i l l i s . Fable, Fact and History. New York: Greenberg Publisher, 1957. Walker, Russell R. P o l i t i c i a n s of a Pioneering Province. Vancouver: M i t c h e l l Press, 1969• Wallace, W. Stewart. The Macmillan Dictionary of Canadian Biography. 4th ed., revised etc. by W.A. McKay. Toronto Macmillan of Canada, 1978. 116 Wilbur, J.R.H., ed. The Bennett New Deal; Fraud or Portent? Toronto: Copp Clark, 1968. D. A r t i c l e s Black, Donald M. "F.M. Black and the Committee of Direction", T h i r t y - f i r s t Annual Report of the Okanagan H i s t o r i c a l Society 1967, 100-106. : Caves, R.E., and R.H. Holton. "An Outline of the Economic History of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1881-1951", H i s t o r i c a l Essays  on B r i t i s h Columbia, ed. J. Friesen and H.K. Ralston. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1976, 152-166. Clement, F.M. "How the Natural Products Marketing Act Operates in B r i t i s h Columbia", Proceedings of the Fourth Inter-National Conference of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economists. London: Oxford University Press, 1937, 342-355.. Coke, J. "The 1932 Apple Cartel i n B r i t i s h Columbia", The  Economic Annalist, ;_III -. 6 (June 1933), 63-64. Dendy, David. "The Development of the Orchard Industry i n the Okanagan Valley, 1890-1914", Thirty-eighth Annual  Report of the Okanagan H i s t o r i c a l Society 1974, 68-73. Hopper, W.C. "The Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934—II: Notes on the Administration of the Act", Canadian Journal of Economics and P o l i t i c a l Science, 1:3 (Aug. 1935), 475-4~8~n Howay, F.W. "The Settlement and Progress of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1871-1914", H i s t o r i c a l Essays on B r i t i s h Columbia, ed. J. Friesen and H.K. Ralston. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1976, 23-43. Kidston, J.R. "Michael Vincent McGuire", Thirty-ninth Annual  Report of the Okanagan H i s t o r i c a l Society 1975, 13-15-Loyd, A.K. "Marketing F r u i t i n B r i t i s h Columbia", Twelfth Report of the Okanagan H i s t o r i c a l Society 1948, 180-185. Ormsby, Margaret A. " F r u i t Marketing i n the Okanagan Valley of B r i t i s h Columbia", A g r i c u l t u r a l History, IX:2 (Apr. 1935), 80-97. . "The History of Agriculture i n B r i t i s h Columbia", S c i e n t i f i c Agriculture, XX:1 (Sept. 1939), 6l-72. P h i l l i p s , Paul. "The Hinterland Perspective: The P o l i t i c a l Economy of Vernon C. Fowke", Canadian Journal of P o l i t i c a l and So c i a l Theory, 11:2 (Spring-Summer 1978), 73-96. 117 ^Ramsey, Bruce^J. " B r i t i s h Columbia F r u i t Growers' Association", Twenty-eighth Annual Report of the Okanagan H i s t o r i c a l  Society 1964, 149-191. Richards, A.E. "Marketing of F r u i t i n the Okanagan Valley of B r i t i s h Columbia Under the Inte r i o r Committee of Direction" part 2, The Economic Annalist, 1:3 (Mar. 1931), 1-4. Skogstad, Grace. "Farmers and Farm Unions i n the Society and P o l i t i c s of Alberta", Society and P o l i t i c s i n Alberta, ed. Carlo Caldarola. Toronto: Methuen, 1979, 223-255. Weddell, E.C. "The Honourable Grote S t i r l i n g , P.C.", Seventeenth Report of the Okanagan H i s t o r i c a l Society  1953, 9-12. Wilbur, J.R.H. "R.B. Bennett as a Reformer", Canadian Hist- o r i c a l Association H i s t o r i c a l Papers 1969, 103-111. E. P e r i o d i c a l s B r i t i s h Columbia F i n a n c i a l Times. 1927. Canada: An I l l u s t r a t e d Weekly Journal. 1912. The Commonwealth. 1933, 1934. Country L i f e i n B r i t i s h Columbia. 1926, 1930, 1933, 1934. Labor Statesman. 1927. O.K. B u l l e t i n . 1926, 1927, 1928, 1931, 1932. Penticton Herald. 1933. Vancouver Province. 1927, 1929, 1933, 1934. Vernon News. 1923, 1933, 1934. I I I . ORAL SOURCES Borrett, Roger F. Personal interview. East Kelowna, B.C. February 23, 1980. Carruthers, W.R. " B i l l " . Personal interview. Kelowna, B.C. August 2, 1978. Woodsworth, J.S. Radio speech. August-October, 1935- Record i n Sound D i v i s i o n , Public Archives of Canada, Ottawa. APPENDIX The Government and Produce Marketing Act Appeals O r i g i n a l l y the Tolmie government, while not enthus-i a s t i c , had been i n a v a c i l l a t i n g way w i l l i n g to support the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of the Produce Marketing Act, but as more cases arose the Attorney-General's Department developed a case of cold feet for fear of the costs, and by July of 1929 the Deputy Attorney-General, O.C. Bass, was taking the stand that the Committee of Direction should bear a l l costs i n cases r e l a t i n g to the Act. He asserted that the Act was unconsti-tu t i o n a l and repudiated any r e s p o n s i b i l i t y or connection of the Department with counsel i n an appeal then being heard, even though the lawyer had been engaged by R.H. Pooley, the Attorney-General. Thus the matter stood even while Premier Tolmie p u b l i c a l l y stated that "The Produce Marketing Act i s the law of the land and we are determined that everyone must obey the law" and that "the Government i s s o l i d l y behind the 2 Committee of Direction". Before the year was out the volte face was complete. The Attorney-General's Department p u b l i c a l l y announced "that the onus of further l i t i g a t i o n must f a l l e n t i r e l y on the Inter i o r Committee of Direction"-^ and refused to be even nominally connected with any defence of the Act. The j u s t ^ 1 1 8 i c a t i o n was the old claim that "the Act was e s p e c i a l l y drawn at the i n s t i g a t i o n of, and by" Counsel for, the persons who were materially affected" and that therefore the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for enforcing i t lay with the representative of those people, the Committee of Direction; once again refusing to acknowledge that the measure had been produced by the A g r i c u l t u r a l Committee of the House at the primary impetus of the Minister of Agriculture o f the time. 1 Copy of l e t t e r from-T.G. N o r r i s to H.B. Robertson, July 9, 1929, i n S.F. Tolmie Papers, f i l e 11-18 "Correspondence-General-Legislation-Produce Marketing Act". 2 Vancouver Province, Oct. 24, 1929. 3 I b i d . , Nov. 27, 1929. Copy of l e t t e r from R.H. Pooley, Attorney-General of B r i t i s h Columbia, to T.G. Norris, Jan. 16, 1930, i n S.F. Tolmie Papers, f i l e 11-18 "Correspondence-General-Legislation-Produce Marketing Act". This f i l e contains correspondence showing the government's reversal of i t s stand between 1928 and 1930, copies of which T.G. Norris sent to the Premier. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095074/manifest

Comment

Related Items