Lobbyists

[parsley]

Maybe you sit at a table with ten guys and you lunch together, and snort a bit of coke, just kidding, and you make decisions and vote. But mostly the same guys will grind out similar agendas year after year. Look at the CWB. We are, after all, creatures of habit. That's why agriculture heads for the Ministers' offices every session. Habit.

Now, I'm not nearly as effective as you are if you are sitting at a Board table. Nor do I try to be. I'm writing books! But I can write an opinion piece, and information and ideas do spread. You may not like them. stubble wants government always selling his wheat. Some guys never thought any differently until the idea of dual marketing came up.

There are better and smarter ways to do things. I learned that from my kids when they were ten. It's just that sometimes we don't hear or want to hear.

Going to government is what Canadian farmers are accustomed to doing. How would pulse growers do without government largesse running things? Fall down on the ground like fainting goats?

btw, just a small point, if you check, some of the guys worked for the CWB Pars

[dave4441]

You can not go to China to eliminate a trade barrier to Selenium levels in field peas without the Canadian government. You can not go to India to negotiate phyto issues without the Canadian government. An individual can not go to Morocco or columbia or Peru to negotiate a free trade agreement without the Canadian government. You are not going to change regulatory requirements for pesticides and generics without the Canadian government. You will not enfluence carbon trading and get paid for those standards without government involvement. You can not address transportation without having the feeral government onside. These are big picture issues that have to be addressed. These are actvities done that i do not see as lobbying activities, they are what Pulse Canada does to put money into the growers pocket. Call them lobbyists if you wish, but that is not the literal role of their positions.

I agree on many levels that less government is better. No question. But when research dollars are available then we as growers must enfluence how they are spent. Lots of public research has put lots of money in farmers pockets. Key is to being close enough to direct the research. Governments want to be told from a broad group what needs to be done, from a group that represents national interests. Not many farm groups can do that. Pulse industry is not without conflicting ideas, but it does have few issues that are combative.

Re the $22000 number. I have to ask if anyone on this site really believes that is what their average annual/equity income is. I think that number does a diservice to the industry as noone in their right mind would invest and risk the dollars we do to obtain that level of income. What effects this number? Tax planning/deferred income, absentee landlords with farm income, hobby farmers, income splittin with family, cousins, etc. Personal write offs become farm expenses? Is it our tax system? I think their is alot of people with a bit of farm income that spend their days in the city. I know alot of farmers that have created alot of wealth in the last 10 or 15 years. What we can agree on is that wealth did not come from CWB crops.

[dave4441]

Actually Parsley, I may not be a fan of the CWB but i do know there is some really strong people at the CWB that's carreers will sky rocket if the board falls. No body wants to hear that but it is the truth. You want to hire CDN grain industry analysts, it is a good place to start. Many employees leave because they want to do more with their careers. Just working at CWB has no influence either good or bad and more likely is a good training ground.

[parsley]

I had a dandy discussion with a consulate member involved with writing one of the free trade agreements, and also with one of the the lawyers who did the draft for the government. I wasn't involved, my role was a social conversation with both of them.

The point is free trade agreements are government to government documents. I don't get to write it. Neither does an employee.

Free trade agreements are regulatory frameworks set up by government.

Not Buckwheat Bureaucrats flying over to Bolivia. Now, a lot of bureaucrats want to wangle a trip, okay, I understand. But I'm saying, no. Let's be smarter. Not just agriculture, but as a nation.

Your idea is grab all we can get,and ask for more right?

[dave4441]

We have lentil markets that are at risk to free trade agreements between some of our main customers and the USA. We will have a 20% disadvantage on a generic product and a supplier of last resort. You say sit and do nothing?? Some have calculated that the pea phyto issue in India is costing $10/MT on field peas. SHould we as an industry do nothing because the only way to enfluence the Indian government is to involve the CDN feds? What possible gain could come of that. In conventional agriculture we are reliant on exports and always will be.

Are you actually concerned about the travel costs? They are insignificant part of building a bridge between countries. Could the canola issue be resolved without travel costs, or the flax issue. Do you not visit your customers from time to time?

I want to grab it all and ask for more? You bet. Kinda thought that was what an enterprenuer did. Don't mean to come off sounding greedy with that comment, but i am not so philosophical that i am concerned if the government is involved in developing solutions. They have to be involved becuase they are involved.

I voted for Mulroney on free trade, not too many people will admit that, and i think it has put more profit in my pocket as John Cross would say. I view free trade as less government involvement.

[parsley]

http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=df6bc26d-420a-4cca-9c9f-7753ef1235c7&k=17645

"On average, Saskatchewan farmers earned $17,000 from their farm operations in 2006, slightly less than the $17,300 they earned in 2001, not accounting for the increase in the cost of living"


http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=6dae21c7-fdfe-4e7d-bd31-ddcb176618f4 :
Average Farm Operator Income
2006 2001-05*
Net Farm Operating Income $19 218 $18 065

My apologies, Dave.

[dave4441]

Wow, you got me on this issue.

[parsley]

The more money farmers beg from government, the more governmen get to make decisions on your behalf. Their own people get put in place, too. Who really pays Pulse Canada staff?

So if China has a deal and wants xy, and Canada wants mnop, all of a sudden,to reach common ground both negotiate by putting Canadian ag exports on the chopping block, say, yelling "disease" in a crop.

That's government to government roosters strutting and lunging. And ag is the pawn. Farmers don't want to be a pawn, not a good position to be in.

Argentina went from being a lively healthy vibrant ag export indusrty TAXED on their ag exports, to now being weak and government influenced and overun.Pars

[parsley]

It's one of the reasons Dave, why I have pursued blogging and commenting.

Net income for farm families is appalling. It is a systemic problem, as I see it. It isn't because farmers are bad at what they do. it's because first of all, farmers are so bloody busy creating wealth, that they get bogged down in work, but the worst is, they have trusted governments to work in the farmers' best interests.

Governments have done exactly the opposite. IMHO.

I don't get any money for blogging. I only say what I want. And although I may be wrong, out to lunch, and pretty dumb most of the time, and may get on a rant, I have to say, I'd really like to see all the farm Mammas with a fuller purse.

Farm families are good, good people. Pars

[dave4441]

Yes,on that point I agree. The point I am trying to make though is that our customers in the pulse industry are India and China. Really important future consumers and you are not going to influence these countries without using the CDN govt. It is unrealitic to think these issues are going to fix themselves. We have to move big volumes and as it is a competition in global business, we have to be efficent. I would love to see a day where govt was not involved and where industry could create and controll it's destiny, but we might as well hope and plan for the 2nd coming of Christ because it is about as likely to occur in our lifetimes. I am more interested in what is possible then what should be. Heck it was not long ago china quit killing protestors. At the end of the day we will work with these mkts on their terms as we are pretty small fish. We can not even market our own wheat in Canada let alone plan to negotiate without govt influence with a 3rd world customer.

[wd9]

Geez parsely if i didn't know any better i swear you'd be lobbying for the line companies and the crop life companies to keep those trouble maker farmers away.

There is nothing that opens a door more and has an MP listening better then when a farmer goes to Ottawa. A real one that is.

[parsley]

I don't consider farmers' Wheat Board lobbying successful at all.Do you? The government has no intention of providing market choice.

I do agree that some farmers lobby Ottawa to "advance" the GM/biotech agenda via government set up/funded agencies...ie Pulse Canada/Flax Council etc. That's why they were set up in the first place. They are government instrumnets, and they keep sproinging up for every commodity,looking to grab grant money.

Lobbyist-farmers merely provide the government with a voter-face to legitimize chanelling practically all agricultural tax dollars where governments want them to go....mainly private biotech corporations, or else universities with their chairs owned by those corps. The Liberals set it up that way in the 90's. And indeed , Wd, goverments do "listen" to a farmer 'come to the Hill' who says the right things.... but you know that.

Governments have run debt and deficits for so long, it's terribly harmful. But they continue to spend spend, Harper included, (God slap Canada, Tom) to which I propose they should adopt frugality and restraint. Old fashioned, isn't it?

The government looks to commerce to crank the economy, because if companies make money, it keeps grinding. And indeed, farmers ultimately buy more fert, more gas, more chems, and soon more seed.

But returns don't increase because most of the institutions are really government directed, and governments don't want inflationary food prices. Can you see who's paying here?.

Yes, well, although the present kind of strategic planning does indeed guild the hand of a few enabling farmers, ordinary farmers and indeed farming as a whole will suffer the effects of such policy.

The young will run.

I have the stats from a few years ago from Saskatchewan; they are general stats, not individual, overviewing farmers undergoing a farm review. The four quarter section farmer will survive. Some have an off farm job, but he also is frugal. It was the guy who had between 3500-8000 or so acres that gets bloody desperate. Operating and long term loans could crush him overnight with a sharp interest rise coupled with a small downturn in prices. His average net income...well read it in a previous post.

But he is the guy who lobbies and courts government handouts.

So...
one group...off-farm jobs
other group...farming governemnt programs/getting government per diems. Either one is not farming.

Hey, I think there is actually really good coin to be made from farming if strategically, farmers plan differently. Pars