Agricultural Policy Framework Site

[rodbradshaw]

Charlie
This process is the best kept secret going. Was at a potato meeting yesterday and we had to phone to find out if the PGA could go. The answer was yes but it is like the meetings the MP's had on their consultation tour, you only heard about them after the fact. If it is not in Quebec or the ministers riding it doesn't matter what your opion is.

[charliep]

Rod

What are your thoughts on the documents.

Comments I hear are:

1) At a broad level, the documents are okay and reflect where we should be going.

2) Potentially more government involvement in farm businesses.

3) More costs associated with activities with the strong likelihood farmers end up paying.

4) Concerns that issues like environmental/business plans will be tied in as a requirement for government support payments.

5) No mention of or addressing the problems associated with unfair use of subsidies by competitors.

[parsley]

Charlie,

When you say,

"The issues that are being dealt with right now are objectives for each one of the chapters and measures to determine success. Everyone has to be comfortable with the process, objectives and measures of success",

that bafflegab is hard to interpret, but the bottom line is that the words seem to caress the process.

I'd say: it sounds to me like the top generals are told to take it into the field and sell it to the captains , and and now it's just a matter of how to sell it to these stupid farmers, try selling it a little later on, without too much confrontation and bad press. Take questions from farmers, only if they are handed in to the chairman, at the meetings (sound familiar?). Agree, rodbradshaw?

As you say, "It will be setting the stage for your business over the next ten years". Do we have a bunch of yokels planning our industry, comprised of "experts" and politicians that most farmers have no confidence in, whatsoever? ( Most of them have advised each and every person in Canada to become $18,500.00 (Federal only) in debt. Plus farming that they planned carefully is in the toilet.)

Might be a hard sell, Charlie.

Parsley

[charliep]

Parsley

My objective is not to take sides on this issue. It is only to make sure people are aware. It is also in time to have input into the process. The answers may be go really slow or give us the freedom to run our businesses without government interference.

The real question in my mind is how to get people involved in the process. Ideas are welcome.

Charlie P.

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie,

Is there any farmer survey for this process like they did with NISA?

Is there a web site we can send input?

[charliep]

I am not aware of any formalized survey process for the AFP. There is an area to provide comments in the web site.

www.agr.gc.ca/puttingcanadafirst

[rodbradshaw]

Charlie
Basically these statements are the government trying to catch up to where the industry is headed. Public pressure is very strong and so the government has come up with some feel good statements to make themselves look good.

You are correct on the costs being forced to the bottom of the chain where the producer has virtually no way to recoup those costs.

The enviromental farm plans will definitely be a priority to getting any paultry assistance.

There is no inkling of support of an even playing field for farmers from foreign subsidies.

Overall, the food system and public opinion is moving in this direction and the government is playing its traditional leadership role from about two miles back in the pack. This will happen but it does not in my opinion carry strong government prioity to support adoption or help in transition for those who will not be able to adapt to the changing world.

[cropduster]

My response is "why do we need more government?"On the web site it states"Government programs must keep pace with market realities...While the review showed that,in aggregate,safety net programs have been relatively successful in minimizing the impact of fluctuations in farm income,it is questionable today how adequatleythey promote the growth,innovation and adaptation neccessary to succeed in an ultra competitive global markerplace."Even the bureaucrats seem to know it so why not butt out???

[parsley]

Cropduster, in a quick answer, I'd say they are drooling for taxes and what better than to eye-up value-added? Farmers have been quick to seize opportunities, and what better way for the Government to gain a toehold in the profits than to "consult" with consumers, and then to "respond" to what consumers want! They step in, clean the plate and download on producers.

kyOTO is the cause of the "consultations " with the public. And it will be another grab.

rodbradshaw , when you say, "You are correct on the costs being forced to the bottom of the chain where the producer has virtually no way to recoup those costs", and I'd sure agree. But not just producers are effected.

An actual convenience store owner in rural in Saskatchewan provided me with their actual fuel costs for one fill from Petro-Canada (two weeks ago), as follows:

What the gas from Petro Canada actually cost the owner $2,734.63
Federal tax $ 857.25
Saskatchewan Tax $1,285.25
GST $ 341.44
The Total amount of taxes that the owner paid was $2483.94, darn near as much as the fuel !!!

The convenience store dealer needs to pay expenses and make a profit out of this. Rural and small town citizens need to buy gas if they continue to live in rural Saskatchewan and if they want a community left, the gas has to be competitively priced. Petro Canada needs to pay their expenses and make some profit. Who's the pig at the trough here, folks? It's the governments.

******* Governments exact more and more taxes from gasoline...but if they really wanted to help farmers, and help rural communities, they would TAX LESS. Obviously, they don't care about helping rural Canada.

Input into this "Government Plan" process is obviously predetermined and is quite often futile, but farmers should be able to make an impact if determined enough.

I'm sounding pretty militant today, aren't I charliep?

Parsley

[ianben]

The tax on gasoline in UK is nearly 80%.
Money has to be raised for our subsidies. Cheap food is only cheap if you dont pay tax. This level playing field is a myth. Return on capital invested in ag.is very similar both sides of the pond.
Stop worrying about our subsidies and lets get prices higher.

[parsley]

And in this case, as the price of gas gets higher, the tax money gathered is more plus the tax rates often go up higher.

If you get $25.00/bu....everything goes up correspondingly. Fertilizer goes higher. Chemicals go higher.. taxes go higher. But the taxes stay higher even if the price goes back down to $10.00. The inputs quite often reduce in price correspondingly.

One of the variables that governments can help with is taxes. Paying more tax so that you can beg for more tax money back is a little futile, isn't it Ianben?

Parsley

[rodbradshaw]

Parsley
There are many on the short end of the stick.

The tax on fuels is unreal considering that a large portion of it is suppose to be used to keep up roads and other highway infastructure.

Subsidies over along period of time just go to land prices and other costs such as machinery. I think Ianben will concur as it has happened in the UK and in the US.