We really need to have election scares more often...

[kato]

Heard on the news at noon that Gerry Ritz has declared that income support programs do not work for livestock producers, and that the government is planning on bringing in a new program that does.

Now isn't that interesting timing? At the risk of sounding jaded, I would think the timing of this announcement is not a coincidence.

I wonder what will be the follow-up details that come next. That the new program will be dependent on re-election? That it will amount to about one tenth of what the initial estimates are? That it won't work any better than what we've got because it is just a smoke screen to hide behind while pretending to care?

I would truly love to be proven wrong on this one. In my mind, the jury is so far out on this one that it'll take a Boeing 747 to bring it in.

What does everyone else think? And how would we improve the safety nets if we were asked our opinions?

[smcgrath76]

you forgot...
We need the liberals and the BQ to pass
any bill, so we can blame them if
nothing gets done and then if they win
they can spend 2 years working on new acronyms for the same program. By then
it should be time for another election.
Any program should also produce jobs for
overseers in this time of rising
unemployment and to be truly deemed
successful it must also have at least
90% of the funds go to administration
and ensure job security for backward
thinking bureaucrats.
The remaining 10% of the budget for the
program should go on promotion both for
the program and to the general public
about all the help provided to farmers
by the taxpayer.
And just to prove I am not cynical, any
new program should come with at least 3
new mandatory practices each year of the
program and a minimum of 200 pages of
paperwork to complete every 6 months.
It should also require a legal and
accounting team for any transactions,
just to ensure the integrity of the
intended recipients. And any payout
should be allowed to be clawed back
(with interest) at any point for a
period of at least 7 years after any
payment is made.

[coppertop]

Interesting that the government is now
going to bring in a support program that
works for farmers when that was one of the
platforms they ran on all these many years
ago. If the Libs decide to bring down the
government and get help from the other two
stooges then be prepared to be inundated
with promises to help the agriculture
industry.

[grassfarmer]

Instead of designing new and elaborate "income support programs" I wish politicians of whatever party would grow spines instead and tackle the real problems rather than trying to treat symptoms. With the price consumers pay at the store there should be no need for "income support programs" otherwise known as "welfare" for ag producers. If they could grow brains as well as spines they would realise that taking political action to remedy the problems would require little or no money versus endless pits needed for an effective welfare program.

[kato]

I'm thinking that as long as there is a cheap food policy there will be a need for income support programs. Sad but true. Especially since a lot of the companies that are making the biggest profits in the food business are in control of as many if not more assets than a lot of governments, including ours.

I don't think that we need legislation and all the nonsense that comes along with inventing a new program. I think they could fix it right now by tweaking what we've got. How about adding a clause in the CAIS rulebook that covers an alternate method of calculating a margin in the case of multiple bad years in a row? Especially if those bad years happen due to something bureaucratic like a border closure and loss of markets that have absolutely nothing to do with anything we did. It's not like we overproduced and made a surplus of cattle or anything like that. All this pain is a total result of things beyond our control.

If margins drop more than twice in a row, then there needs to be a longer term calculation that includes more years. If a margin dropped due to the formerly operative cattle cycle, it would only be a one year thing based on past experience, so it would not be an issue.

We'd do just fine if they'd use 2002 values to calculate a margin. We'd do just fine if they took out the structure down adjustment that comes because you're just too vulnerable to take a big risk on that extra bunch of feeders.

Our province decided a few years back to disperse a number of government offices to small towns, which was welcomed out here beyond the Winnipeg perimeter. Why couldn't the feds to that sort of thing as well, and provide jobs working these programs to people who live where they are used. Why does someone in downtown big city need a high paying government job administering an agricultural program when they don't have the first clue about who is at the other end of the phone line? If these programs were administered in smaller locations by people who already had an idea of how agriculture runs, it would be a win win situation. Not only would the program be run better, but the administration costs would recycle instantly into rural Canada, to the benefit of everyone out here.

Of course, since there aren't enough of us to affect the outcome of an election, it will probably be a cold day in "you know where" before that would happen. It would make too much sense.

[smcgrath76]

I don't think accountability and
practicality really ever enter into things
anymore. Even provincially here in AB no
one seems accountable.
I honestly think that very few are
thinking and they just want problems to go
away, rather than seeking the opportunity
that is always in every problem.

[Kathy]

Alberta Farm Fuel Rebate - program coordinators are talking about disallowing our renewal for the "fuel rebate" because we won't answer all their prying questions. When my hubby discussed the matter with a lady from Edmonton, she was not very supportive of our right to protect our proprietary information/privacy. However, I hope she soon realized that we are "not the norm", I guess, in agriculture. We have gotten to a point that we are out of debt and want to do business without all the strings attached to the "programs" offered by the government(s).

We told her that we are no longer partaking in any government programs, ie: Agristability et al., and that the AB Farm Fuel Rebate would be the only government program we are still involved with. I think she was shocked!....

We asked her if the paperwork which they had sent us (supposedly constituting a renewal) was in fact, an AUDIT? She said it was NOT an audit. But, I would disagree. Jim Kiss, the AB Farmers Advocate, stated to me that the AB Farm Fuel people would be carrying out an audit on all the participants over the next 3 years. I think that they are trying to do their "audit" via the mail, and participant co-operation.

We are obviously ranchers with an income of over $10,000 dollars in cattle sales/year... it is no business of theirs how many tractors we use to raise these animals, or how much crop we plant or hay we cut to raise them either. We are not guilty of anything, and they should stop treating us as slaves who must jump to their bidding.

Either way, we await their decision about our farm fuel rebate exemption/renewal, which we have had in our name for 17 years. Should they cancel it, I will certainly let the board know about it!

[grassfarmer]

Kato,
I don't agree we have a cheap food policy. The price consumers pay in the store could sustain a very prosperous agriculture if the profits were more equitably distributed throughout the production chain. The fact producers get paid peanuts does not mean it is cheap for consumers - remember they pay the taxes that also pay for the farm welfare programs.
I prefer to say we have a "cheap raw materials" policy as producers are subsidized to remain in business to supply retailers and processors with their raw materials at below the cost of production.

[grassfarmer]

Kathy, Sean talks about a lack of accountability and then you slam the Government for trying to be accountable to taxpayers over the farm fuel program. I think this is a much abused program and needs some crosschecking of fuel usage relative to the farm operations being carried out. It annoys me to see oilfield workers sitting on a 1/4 section with farm plates on both a truck and an SUV that spend most of their time ferrying their kids to hockey or rodeo pastimes around the province. That is an abuse of the system and taxpayers should not be footing the bill for that.
I think there is a need for the Government to know whether someone had $10,001 of ag production and an off farm job or whether they had an $80,000 ag production figure and are scraping to get through life on the farm.

Either way this is a generous subsidy that Cdn producers enjoy. In the UK farm fuel was only for use off road - usually in tractors but if you ran a truck on it and dared to take a load of livestock to the auction on dyed fuel you ran a real risk of being stopped, tested and facing a punitive fine.

[coppertop]

grassfarmer I have always had farm
plates on my pickup but have NEVER even
tried to get farm plates for my SUV, so
if anyone using colored fuel in an SUV I
would suspect they are courting a huge
fine if they are stopped during a
colored fuel check. My understanding of
the right to use colored fuel is that it
must be used to transport agriculture
products, not to drive the kids to
hockey or head over to the golf course !
I think that all those with a Farm Fuel
access number in Alberta get checked
from time to time to ensure they still
qualify for the program.