Empowering Canadian Farmers in the Marketplace

[grassfarmer]

kpb, I realise Easter's report is by no means something the Government will automatically adopt as Ag policy. This is where we as producers should play our hand a bit smarter. For a start, as this report is favourable to all sectors of Canadian agriculture, I would like to see it being loudly applauded and promoted by every commodity group in the country. If we can raise awareness of this among producers, build some momentum and put it in front of the general public using the media we could increase pressure on the Government to implement the reports findings in formulating future ag policy. The Government only walks on you if you allow them to.

Regarding the Canada - Europe comparisons I was indicating that the cost of living and wages are higher in the UK than in Canada.
I wouldn't say that subsidies are paid through the higher cost of food - rather through a persons general taxation. There is however an on-going campaign to try to show that farmers are OK because they recieve subsidies which the consumer pays for through high food prices - not true!Essentially the subsidies are paid to make up the farmers cost of production defecit after he has been robbed by both input suppliers and retailers/processors at the other end.
A good parallel would be the calf set aside program run in Canada last year. Cow/calf producers had a serious income deficit and the industry a potential over supply of fat cattle at some point in the future. So they developed a scheme that was so full of holes (replacement heifers etc) that it ultimately was never going to alter the flow of fat cattle. So producers here got a substantial subsidy - where did the money come from? general reserves I guess - it certainly didn't cause retailers to raise prices of beef so that consumers would pay for the subsidy directly.
This is pretty much how subsidies work in Europe.
Since the 1980s they have been used to replace the income removed from the production chain by retailers, processors and input suppliers just as we have witnessed in the beef sector in Canada in recent times. I would argue that it isn't really the consumer that benefits through subsidised agriculture by way of cheap food as they have to pay for the subsidies as well. The people that are really benefitting from the subsidy are the processors and retailers who buy their inputs at well below the cost of production. I think this idea needs further developing as there may be a way to link producers and consumers politically as both are getting a bad deal under the current system. Working together we could maybe bring some pressure to bear on the true beneficiaries of both subsidised and unsubsidised(if there is such a thing) agriculture.

[kpb]

grassfarmer, your last paragraph addresses an issue that I was getting at with my previous questions. At the risk of being branded a commie by our farming friends, I think if we were able to show consumers here and abroad that they are basically funding the profits of the multi-national packers, processers and retailers when tax money is allocated to producers, we would go a long way down the road to fixing our problems.

As I see it the fundamental problem in agriculture everywhere is that producers do not own the means of processing and distributing their goods. As long as a middle-man controls the buying of the goods from the producers and the supplying of the goods to the consumer, both ends get screwed. A first step to rectifying this is to show the consumer, who has the political power, that he/she is getting used just as much as the producer.

kpb

[grassfarmer]

I believe the idea definitely has merit kpb. I think maybe in Canada it could happen as there seems to be a fairly strong tie to the land and rural roots (at least in western Canada). In Europe I think it is a lost cause - too often the largely urban consumer sees the farmer as their rich, landowning enemy. I think possibly they have been off the land for too long to have any affinaty or sympathy with ag producers.