Agricultural Policy Framework Site

[parsley]

rodbradshaw, you say, "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."I agree.

So if the taxes are not being used in any way that helps farmers, ( you should try driving on the roads in Saskatchewan!), why would we want to to be taxed more for the reason Ianben gives as, "Money has to be raised for our subsidies. "? It's a little like lying down in front of traffic, isn't it?

Parsley

[cakadu]

I was recently at a meeting looking at rural development in 2015 and of course one of the big topics of discussion was this document and "Branding Canada". One comment that stuck in my mind was if this is as creative as they're going to get then they should just stay home and leave us alone. I agree with Rod that they are doing this to try and catch up to where some things have been headed for some time now.

I am also very concerned that so much of this is going to travel downhill to the producer and more than just costs should flow downward. At some point in time all of these on farm food safety, environmental plans etc. are going to have to be taken from an economic standpoint i.e. the producer always paying to one of a policy standpoint. If the government - both federal and provincial - wants us to get into the value-added export game, Brand Canada, safest food etc., then somewhere along the line this has to be paid for and not just by the producer either!

A while back I read an article about how having an on-farm food safety plan wouldn't cost consumers anymore and would end up costing producers only 10%. Well, if it's 10% for that and another 15% for an EFP, HACCP, etc. etc., by the time you add up all those minimal percentages and put them against shrinking or razor thin (sometimes non-existant) margins, where does that leave the producer?

Yes, we should get involved with all of this and be concerned about where it's going. I find it hard that certain people are "invited" to attend. Sounds to me like they are looking for the answers that they want to hear and/or know they will get. Bottom line is we need to get involved!

[cowman]

People need to realize the government has no more money. So don't be misled...any new program will not help you it will hurt you.Kyota was designed for one thing and one thing only....to separate you from your hard earned money!!!
The taxes on gasoline are a scandal! If they were being used to maintain the roads we would have the best road structure in the world! Now that money does go to pay certain subsidies....like financing for Bombardier! And to buy golf courses and hotels from Chretien?And horse farms for certain Quebec Senators? The governing elite of this country is completely out of control. Read the book "On the Take"...a document on the Mulrooney era. And guess what? It got worse with Chretien!
Remember there are three big lies:
1- I'll respect you in the morning.
2- The checks in the mail.
3- Hi! I'm from the government and I'm here to help you!

[parsley]

If we want input, let's get at it! How be we quit moaning and hand-wringing , and let's have a meeting right here on line.

We can discuss all 5 topics listed on the website:

1. Food safety and Food Quality
2. Environment
3. Science and Innovation
4. Renewal
5. Business Risk Management

One topic per week Starting with #1 on Monday, 8 April. Read#1 online by Monday, and decide what you want to say in a very clear way. Are you game?

We can discuss what to do with our conclusions, if we have any we want to put forward. It will be difficult to ignore a public meeting online with input by a whole lot of producers, and I don't doubt we can come up with some conclusions!

Is everyone game?

Parsley

[cakadu]

That is an excellent idea! Ghandi once said, you are the change you want the world to become.

It's okay to point out the problems, but we've also got to be willing to offer solutions.

[rodbradshaw]

Parsley
Yes, I have driven on roads in Saskatchewan and you don't need those big signs announcing that you are entering Saskatchewan, the roads make it obvious. Our Alberta roads are going to suffer the same fate though, as more money is withdrawn from infastructure and spent on those two black holes of Health and Education.

Subsidies are like feeding a pig. When the pig is small it takes a small amount to satisfy its appetite. As the pig grows it requires more food to sutain it because it has gotten bigger. There are two ways to humanely deal with the situation:
1) Keep feeding the hog an ever increasing amount of feed and let it live out its life. (Europe & US)
2) Slaughter the hog.(Cairns Countries)

The other way is to turn the hog loose and see if it can survive. The only difference between farmers and the hog is that we have a whole lot of chains (environmental regulations, food safety, other government regulations)that will slow us down so that the wolves and other predators can get us.

What we have to decide as a society is how we are going to manage our environment. Are we going to allow our food to be produced under two different standards:
1) Highly regulated, high quality and expensive
2) No regulation, frontier mentality.

Some people have principles and will opt for the first one but by and large most people will hold their nose and buy the cheap product from number 2.

Ianben talked about the supermarkets threatening to by from offshore at cheaper prices (due to lower standards), but it is up to the producer to hold them up to their high standards and to let the consumer know that the supermarket is being two faced.

[TOM4CWB]

I don't think anyone could say it better than Morris Dorrish just did on his most recent BACKGROUNDER!

"Blah blah blah. Blah blah, blah and blah blah.

Blah blah blah, but blah
blah and blah.

Moreover, blah blah blah. The government blah blah, blah and
blah. Blah, blah blah, although blah blah. Blah blah blah, while blah blah
blah and blah blah. Blah, blah and blah blah blah blah, but only if blah
blah blah and blah blah.

That pretty much summarizes the Chretien government's plans for a new farm
policy.

If you think that's bad, how about ``This vision is only attainable
if we have comprehensive, cost-effective and consistent implementation
across Canada.'' Or ``Governments and industry moving forward collectively
to integrate all elements of the proposed APF...''. Or ``a comprehensive
plan for accelerated environmental action'' or how about ``....a strategy
for the global marketplace, including improved linkages through the
production and processing chain'', or yet again ``levering science and
innovation into excellence.''

The best path to good risk management is to
force all farmers to take out government crop insurance and stop them from
accumulating funds in their NISA accounts if they expect other government
money. Above all, all farmers everywhere in Canada must be treated
identically, so that no one benefits from anything that is not available to
everyone.

All this is pathetically beside the point.

At least 99% of Canadian farmers want only three things from their
government. First, to enjoy something a little closer to subsidy parity
with farmers in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere; second, relief from
taxation and user fees that are higher in Canada than almost anywhere else
on the planet; and third, to be left alone.

Neither farmers nor agribusiness need the government to tell them what to
do to advance and protect their interests. Innovation and new ideas, of
which there is already no shortage, work their way from the bottom up. No
one in any government, and certainly not in any government of Chretienistes, is smart enough to be telling the people who make their
living in farming and agribusiness what they need to be doing to get ahead."

Too bad the $5 million Ag Canada just spent on this process had not been sent to farmers instead!

[cakadu]

Tom it sounds like you want hog option #3 put forth by Rod. If you want to be left alone, then don't you have to stand on your own too? It's not unlike teenagers who want to make all the adult decisions, but who want mum and dad to foot the bills and consequences for those decisions.

Can you have it both ways? You want the government to bring you up to a parity level with the subsidized countries, but then you also want to be left alone to do as you wish. Perhaps what needs to happen is that the "subsidies" continue in the way of safety nets, but they should be tied to environmental, food safety etc., so that the wolf doesn't come so quick and the piggy has a chance to survive.

We can't continue to farm in the same way we did 40 years ago. Things have changed and we have to change our practices too.

By the way, 97% of the "subsidies" paid in this country are paid to the supply managed sectors. How do we handle them?

[TOM4CWB]

cakadu,

I am sad that millions of dollars of our hard earned cash is being spent in vain, and appears to be wasted.

I am sure you agree this is a crime, and the fact that our governments regularily waste our money does not make it any less a crime!

There are very real regulatory problems in western Canadian agriculture, as there is for agriculture in general, ie. supply management as you indicated.

I can only be responsible for changeing what I personally can change, but the provincial and federal governments must own up to the regulatory problems they have created!

The federal government tells us they are responsible for international trade and commerce, therefore they have a moral obligation to pay up when they fail to perform, don't they?

We were sold a bill of goods that was faulty in the mid 90's when our subsidys were restuctured.

Now it is not fair that governments leave our farm communities stranded and recked, is it?

[rodbradshaw]

Supply Management

I have had the opportunity to work with supply management groups over the last 6 years. Is it that bad of an idea?Basically everything that we buy that holds it's price is supply managed. If John Deere is not selling enough tractors, their long term stategy is build fewer tractors and control the supply. Any advance they make in cost reduction goes to their bottom line not that of their customer.

Supply management would be hard to implement for grains and oiseeds in Canada as we export far more than we use ourselves.

The one problem with supply management in its structure is entrance into the system. Quota costs have sky rocketed and thus the entrance feee has become prohibitive in most of the sectors, let alone the capital cost of setting up the farming operation.

[parsley]

rodbradshaw,

John Deere does not have a government mandated monopoly. I I were to start building tractors in Canada or the US tommorow, I would incorporate and proceed. Equality of opportunity. Willing trade and commerce. I would not be jailed.

However, if I were to start milking cows tommorow, and shipping the milk. Targeted opportunity. Coercive trade and commerce. I would be jailed.

There is a very distinct difference between a monopoly business and and a free enterprise one. Considering that you worked in the supply management sector for 6 years ,it seems incredible that you cannot cannot differentiate between the two systems.

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

rodbradshaw,

I was amazed when the supply managed dairy industry sold out of the value added side of their industry, why did they do this?

This move seemed to be completely against processes like the APF that tell us are a must in the future to survive!

Just where is agriculture headed when failure is nipping at our heals no matter where we go?

I see that the Dairy industry says only 33% is being produced above the cost of production, and that huge increases are slated over the next three years.

Now, where is this going to lead this industry but into disaster as substitutions devastate their demand side and restructuring must occur anyway?