Will our government ever support us?

[wilagro]

Good post Carebear...I pretty well feel as you do.
The last line of your post says it all. In Canada, we haven't learned much except to knuckle under to the WTO and show how stupid that we can be. They have been trying to get rid of our CWB for years as they see it as a threat to THEIR interests. From what I read, the USA through the WTO is doing most of the bitching.
I do not place much trust in OUR negotiators either, they seem awfully naive.

[cowman]

There are "hints" that finally they might be considering a cull but even last week Shirley McClellan stated firmly "no mass cull"?
The fact is if they had killed off a million cows last year, we wouldn't be in such a mess? But then it wouldn't have looked very good to the public? Or at least the urbanites, who have no clue of the realities of the livestock business?
Maybe it is time that they were drug into reality? Yes the porkchop/steak you are eating came from an animal that was shot in the head!
If the government finally realizes that 700 million dollars is actually a pretty cheap solution to our oversupply problem, it will be interesting to see how they will spin that story? I just hope they get their act together and start digging the pits before the ground gets froze too hard! Although in Alberta they might have a tough time finding enough hoes and cats as they are all busy as bees making oil leases!

[cowman]

Have to agree with Carebear and Wilagro on this one!
Gywnneplain; I was never advocating more government workers, or more taxpayer dollars...just laws that protect us from unfair predatory countries and corporations?
The popular theory is that globalism is a good thing? For who? For the big corporations for sure? But how about the average Joe? Globalism means one thing, and one thing alone...the lowest common denominator? So that is good right? Cheaper consumer goods, less taxes right?
The only problem is this. How are you going to compete with the guy who doesn't have to spend a fortune just trying to keep from freezing? How are you going to compete with the guy who has absolutely no environmental costs, no social costs, no labor laws to adhere to, no medical costs, no infrastructure costs?
Whether we like it or not our country has evolved into a high cost state where we have fundamental values that most Canadians support? Do we chuck the whole thing in the garbage and enter the good old dog eat dog world?
The reality is this: When we lose the system we have in place, it won't just be the factory worker or the farmer who has to live like the third world peasant, it will be the whole Canadian population...including that well educated/well paid professional!

[dalek]

I agree. I have a friend who spends the winter in a dairy area in New Zealand. The local high school asked him to teach high school science because he has a 2 year college science degree and they thought he would work cheap. Why? Because since they opened up to compete with the world and cut so much social spending, there isn't enough government money to hire qualified teachers for ALL courses (in the rural schools anyway), so the local parents run their own school and have to decide which courses will get qualified teachers and which will just have to get whoever will work cheaply. No money for janitors or maintenance either, the parents do it themselves.

[cakadu]

The salary quoted last night on the news, for a teacher with 5 years experience and 5 years of university (must have spent a year trying to figure out what they wanted to do) makes $65,800 - according to the figures released by the ATA. They were questioning whether there would be schools who would take the money but not hire the teachers because they were already at tolerable class sizes.

Seems to me when I went to school, there were always over 30 kids in my class and it was never a split class. My how things have changed.

[cowman]

The whole point here is that teacher worth that salary? Maybe they are or maybe they aren't! Is a doctor paid enough? According to them...no!
Whenever you have a situation where a group can control how many people they allow into their "profession" you have in effect created a monopoly? And as with any monopoly you now control the purse strings?
Canada seems to have a shortage of doctors? Here is a novel idea...instead of trying to steal more doctors from other countries, why not train and license more from Canada? Create enough doctors so we get some competition back into the system?
Maybe we need to have a farmer monopoly? Make every farmer join the "association" if he is allowed to sell food? Then when the prices get to low, withold our services until the price rises?
In fact have a real union/monopoly just like the teachers,lawyers, doctors and other "professionals"? Every other successful rip off group does it, why not us?

[cakadu]

Fact of the matter is, cowman, that even if we employed all the medical school graduates that we produced, it would still leave us short of a great many doctors. It's hardest to get doctors into the ob/gyn category as they are the most routinely litigated category.

In order for agriculture to have one voice, it would imply that we would have to agree on certain things. How easy is that to get us to agree? It seems to me that the biggest hurdle we have to overcome is being able to work together towards common goals. How can we move it from an adversarial atmosphere to one of cooperation?

[WoolyBear]

A farmers monopoly makes perfect sense, and all the time someone has been trying to kill the whole idea.

Manitoba had a single desk pork board that got the pork to all the processors that needed our pork at a reasonably fair price to the producer. Everyone at the time was happy. Then along came the large ILO's that figured they were more worthy of doing their own thing, Maple Leaf lobbied the PC government of the time saying " get rid of single desk and we will come to MB".
NOW we have multiple sellers, JM Schneiders, and Mitchells have been bought out by Maple Leaf and there is no transparency in price and ML has most of producers on strings............

The CWB is the next one to go............ Thanks to our American owned companies of Agricore United (ADM) and Cargill.

Sure be nice if farmers could get together like a union and demand a raise every year......

[gwynplaine]

Never once did I say to cut social programmes. In fact, I believe I was the one who said to raise teachers salaries (I'd like to do the same for doctors and nurses). I beleive there is, in fact, a surplus of teachers who can't find work, so I'm not entirely sure how the ATA has created a shortage of teachers who demand 6 figure incomes. Especially seeing as the numbers of Education graduates seem to be increasing. My feeling is we spend a lot of money on the supply side of social programmes, when there is an almost unlimited demand for services that must be addressed before we can call our system sustainable. Does this mean user fees for routine services? Perhaps, and I for one would be glad to pay them.
I will, as well, be the first in line to accuse 'our' government of not doing anywhere near enough to protect capital ventures in Canada from unfair competition. This should be one of the only two mandates our federal government has - providing us with protection from Military attack, and economic attack due to unfair trading. Everything else, under our very own constitution, falls into the juristiction of the Provinces.

That being said, yea, it is in fact true there are places in the world that are able to more efficiently produce then we can. Is it fair for Canadian Citizens to support unprofitable businesses, simply because they are that demographics chosen way of life? Would (or do) you support government bailouts of unprofitable, non-ag businesses, simply because that is their chosen line of work? Air Canada and Bombardier leap to mind, as does the CWB. Do you like your tax dollars going to support unprofitable Chrysler or Ford plants, simply to employ people who have chosen auto manufacture as their career? Why should Ag be any different? Honestly. Take a step back and look at it. Why should we expect it to be our right to farm and make taxpayers subsidize it? This may sound vicious, but why do we, as an industry, feel we are more special than any other segment? I know, I know - we grow the food. In the grand scheme of things, so what? Until people are willing to pay more for food (which can, in fact, be produced more efficiently elsewhere. Simple fact.), we have no right to expect to be supported. Find other avenues for income. Value added avenues, for example. I would like to remind you, gentle reader, this is our CHOSEN way of life. There are other choices available. Not everyone gets to do exactly what they want. Can I expect the government to support me, if I wanted to be a professional wrestler, in the absence of talent and - to extend the metaphor to agriculture - luck? (I'm sure you'll agree there's a fair bit of Luck involved in Profitable farms)

I'm sure I'll get criticised heavily for this posting. I will close with three simple points.

1. We choose to farm, and we choose to farm in Canada (with all the disadvantages - ie; cold weather and socialist government) We know what's involved. There are other career choices, and other, warmer, countries we can re-locate to, in order to farm.

2. There are profitable farms out there, of all sizes, and in Canada. I work with them, regularly, and am from one. Perhaps we should analyze what these operations are doing right, and what we're doing wrong, before we demand money to marginally extend the life of an unprofitable venture.

3. We will be far better off with less restriction and legislation concerning production (quotas, single desk selling), and more Government protection and trade action to ensure fair production. Granted, Canada's voice is small on the world scale, but we've got the gas, oil, and Lumber to leverage it.

I eagerly await reply...

[gwynplaine]

I do agree with some of your comments, however, when things happen that are beyond the control of anyone within an industry (eg: BSE) which create financial hardship, telling these folks that they chose to be farmers does little to solve the current situation. Governments will have to consider whether the cattle industry in Canada, and most particularly in Alberta, is worth saving or not, and that includes the spin off industries and the jobs they create.
Many of the people who face extreme financial challenges now, weren't in this position prior to BSE, and were likely able to say that they too, were successfully in agriculture.

[cowman]

Gwynneplaine: I agree with you! Get rid of all those whining snivelling farmers! We'll buy our food from South America and turn the whole shooting match back to the Indians.
Some how I don't quite get what social programs have to do with paying doctors, nurse, teachers more? Maybe they need the latest BMW or something? Or did I misread you and you meant we need more of them so they can bleed the system a little heavier?
You seem to be saying we don't need to be involved(as a country) in keeping a viable agriculture industry going, but you support a state sponsored industry in education and health care? I would ask you why do we need a state run education/health care system? Let's get rid of them too, and then all us little capitalists can pay no taxes and get rich? Let the idiots who choose to have kids pay for their education and let the sick pay their own way or die! And let the old people float off on icebergs or something?
I mean what is food, right? Just another commodity we can buy... wherever? And why do we need all these stupid little towns on the prairies anyway, when we could be saving millions by buying from foreigners?
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. You kill your ability to feed yourself and you are going to pay somewhere down the road...or so I believe? But then what do I know, right? I'm not a highly paid, well educated professional like you...but I do know how to make a buck and I've done fairly well in my lifetime.

[gwynplaine]

Yes. You misread me. Never once did I say we should get rid of farmers. Nor have I ever said I was well paid, nor did I accuse anyone of not being so. I think if you read my postings as something other than a personal attack, you'll find some consistancy in my argument that only promotes sustainability, of both Agriculture and our social programmes that people seem to value greatly, but refuse to entice good staff with better pay. To me, sustainability doesn't mean "maintain the status quo", or involve direct government handouts. It means finding other ways, within the industry, to be sucessful. I'm reading attempts at this in other discussions ridiculed, by some names in this forum. Obviously, the way things are going now isn't working for everyone. I could sit back and criticise everyone else for not helping me, or I could take care of myself, in ways that do not require the creation of a Welfare Ag Industry (the USA, the EU), or direct government payouts (More USA).

I do apologize if I have offended, or made my arguments seem like a personal attack. The replies, however, seem to be personal... I was under the impression that, in a free society (and I use the term "free" sparingly), there was room for different opinion. Perhaps not.