Agricultural Policy Framework Site

[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.

[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.