CANADA’S CONTROL

Hokitika Guardian, 19 April 1926, Page 3

CANADA’S CONTROL

WOULD AYHEAT MARKET. AUSTRALIAN POOL WEAK. While the New Zealand wheat grower and the miller are struggling under economic difficulties—whether genuine or affected is beside the point at the moment—the Australian, Canadian, and United States growers go their way, and are making great strides towards a wholehearted co-operative movement to have a stabilised and properly regulated wheat market. .Mr J. M. McDonald, chairman of the Australian Co-operative Wheat Pool, considers that there is no reason why New Zealand should not receive the benefit of this concerted move, and it is likely that steps will be taken to suggest something of the sort when a delegation which is being sent troiu Canada, passes through New Zealand this year on route to Australia. AUSTRALIAN POOL WEAK.

Mr McDonald, who spent part of yesterday in Wellington, left by the Tahiti in the afternoon for Australia on his return from a wheat conference at St. Paul, Canada, which was called at the instigation of the Canadian wheat interests, and at which he was one of two Australian delegates. The wheat pool in Australia was losing ground Mr McDonald stated when reviewing the whole position with a reporter prior to his departure on the boat. Canada got its wheat on the mar ket two months before Australia, and of a total exportable crop of about 3-30 million bushels, about 200 million bushels were controlled by a wonderfully efficient system. With this control instead of the price .going down when the Australian crop came on to the market, it went up. and the farmers did not pool. So the success of the Canadian pool meant the weakness ot the Australian pool. NO CONTRACT. In Canada there was a definite binding agreement for a period of five yeais during which time Hie_grower_agreed

to pool his whole crop, ami be elected Ills owit nien ofi the board of control, the whole State being divided into dis; tricts. In this wav tlie.v met the market and regulated the supply, whereas under the old system the growers depressed the market against themselves, by all selling at the same time. In Australian pools there was no contract system. Everything was voluntary, and a man agreed to give a certain proportion of his crop to the pool —accepting the market as it stood. There was no desire upon tlie part of the Canadians to corner the wheat market, and members of the pool received an initial advance through the banks of about a dollar per bushel, the wheat being accepted as security. IN THE STATES. In tho United States the position was different. Canada’s trade was almost wholly an exportable one, as the on tintry required only about 30 or 40 million bushels for homo consumption out of a. crop of 370 million bushels, but the States produced about 750 million bushels, and consumed 700 millions of these. So when there was a poor crop the grower received a hotter price than when tho crop was heavy. In fact il there was. a poor crop in the States there would not be sufficient wheat for the consumption of the people, and they would have to import to fulfil home requirements. Tn discussing the position of New Zealand, Air All-Donald said that if the supply was controlled here the price could' ho raised to import parity—providing the farmers worked in together. Tf each worked alone, nothing of a tangible nature cihilil he accomplished. DELEGATION TO AUSTRALIA. The Australian pool would have tn lie reorganised on tho lines ol the Canadian system. Otherwise there was no hope for it. Canada was sending a delegation to Australia this year to discuss the whole position, and they would put the question to the _ Australian farmers in this way: “Wo are pulling together and organising and stabilising the market for you. You in turn should organise and work with us.” It- is understood that as a result ol the information conveyed by Air .McDonald endeavours will be made to have the Canadian delegation visit Wellington with a view to having a conference with the New Zealand growers.