Via a Press Release from Hon. Carol Skelton’s office;
The Government of Canada today announced plans to address a budget commitment to Canadian farmers by providing $950 million in new support to Canadian farmers.
The Honourable Carol Skelton, Minister of National Revenue and Minister of Western Economic Diversification, supports this new funding for farmers, including changes to the Canadian Agriculture Income Stabilization (CAIS) program. “Our Government is committed to supporting our farmers and providing them with income programs which meet their needs,” said Minister Skelton. “Today’s announcement is a step in the right direction to providing with the support they need right now and sets forth changes which will be used to develop a better, more suitable farm income support program.” Changes to the CAIS program include:$900 million to adjust inventory valuation calculations retroactively for 2003, 2004, and 2005 $50 million for expanding the eligibility criteria for negative margin coverage under CAIS
The inventory valuation adjustment will result in CAIS applications for 2003, 2004 and 2005 to be recalculated. If entitled to more money after recalculation, producers will receive additional payments, returning $900 million to Canadian farmers. Negative margin coverage changes for 2005 and 2006 will amount to $50 million of federal funding and is a part of the annual increase announced in Budget 2006. In addition, the Government of Canada reiterated its commitment to replacing CAIS with a new program which separates disaster relief from income stabilization and is working with the provinces to include these changes to inventory valuation and negative margin eligibility as a new income stabilization program is developed.
“I have heard from farmers in my riding and across Saskatchewan who have said time and time again that CAIS does not work for them. This new support for farmers across Canada will better address the challenges our farmers face and put more money into their hands for this year,” said Minister Skelton. “These changes address the short-term problems and provide groundwork for developing new long term solutions for farmers and farm families.” For more information on these changes, producers can call toll-free 1-866-367-8506 or visit http://www.agr.gc.gc/caisprogram
What? They are still DOING things? I’m just not used to this kind of thing from the Govt of Canada.
I agree. Pinch me! It sure has been enjoyable watching a government at work, working for the people. PMSH sure has changed the rules in the government game. I think he has caught alot of people of guard. I love it! It’s about time that the farmers had the backing/support of the government.
I think I’ve lost count of the promises kept by the gov’t!
I agree with all above comments,but boy,maryjane is sure going to be pissed…
And the Welfare State continues to grow.
Dang it all Canadian Observer, you beat me to the punch although I think maryjade has another nom de plume lately.
A government that is doing things without weeks of photo ops, press releases, pompus aragant grandstanding or contracts to Liberal ad agencies and friends. What will they think of next?
“Our Government is committed to supporting our farmers and providing them with income programs which meet their needs,” said Minister Skelton.
And this is conservative how?
Well, Abe from Alberta, the Conservatives are just as into welfare as the rest of the parties. Any belief to the contrary is naught but propaganda that’s fed to people like you and Ian so you’ll vote for them.
“…fed to people like you and Ian so you’ll vote for them.”
Actually, Robert, I don’t bother with voting. I refuse to participate in a system where some large minority or majority of people get to kick the rest of us around and demand that we be subdued into their value systems.
A benevolent dictator that simply guranteed to protect natural rights would be a far superior system to any “democracy.”
Just a thought Abe from Alberta. This is conservative because it generates wealth. Unlike leaving the income supports trapped in the thousands of government jobs created by the Liberals, this brings the money into developing the natural resource. There are hundreds of occupations making their livlihoods from agriculture and the farmer is the place where it all starts. Without supporting farmers you have nothing to build the economy on. One thing every farmer counts on these days is a good accountant to sift through all the BS and get the farmer the entitlement that is out there. Just another example of all the spinoff from getting some money into the pockets of farmers. Just maybe some of the money will make it to the people doing the work this time.
I just love it when the lefties accuse Stephen Harper of being too socialist for their taste.
If government subsidies generate wealth, the Atlantic provinces would be the wealthiest region in Canada.
This is about vote buying, pure and simple. The statement from Carol Skelton is so left wing it could have been made by a Marxist.
If government subsidies generate wealth, the Atlantic provinces would be the wealthiest region in Canada.
This is about vote buying, pure and simple. The statement from Carol Skelton is so left wing it could have been made by a Marxist.
Here’s a proposal: all of you who want farm subsidies to end – first lobby your politicians to lift the multiple and costly layers of government oversight and regulation over the ag industry.
In the current “cheap food” climate, it really boils down to deciding what it is you want – a safe, reliable domestic food source, or dependence on US, Mexican, Aussie and South American imports.
Because some of these comments suggest that there are people here who believe that Canadian farmers have become obsolete now that food is readily available in the Safeway and Superstore aisles.
Abe
And what do fishery subsidies have to do with farming? Perhaps if some of the Atlantic subsidies had made it to the proper places fishing might have a lot to do with farming.
I just love it when the lefties accuse Stephen Harper of being too socialist for their taste.
Nice try but I have no problem with the subsidies. I just love it when you conservatives are willing to abandon free market capitalism and rush to embrace socialism whenever it suits your needs.
Here’s a proposal: all of you who want farm subsidies to end – first lobby your politicians to lift the multiple and costly layers of government oversight and regulation over the ag industry.
Here’s a better proposal. How about we eliminate the commodities market so that farmers can charge what they need to for their product in order to turn a profit instead of forcing them to sell it at prices determined by a bunch of elitists working on Bay Street.
I consider this a conservative action,well,simply because it is an action.It was not proceeded by 12 years of broken promises then quickly put together just before an election.It was not proceeded by fanfare and grandstanding,it did not facilitate the creation of a new bureaucracy,it JUST GOT DONE!
I suspected this would happen when the Liberals hit the opposition benches,but it has surpassed expectations.The hypocracy coming from the left is reaching a fever pitch.The reason?
They simply cannot uncover or manufacture a transgression of Harper’s that they themselves have not already committed!
Honestly,how can they NOT realize how transparent they appear screaming “WOLF” at every turn.As in the proverb,they are destined to be ignored when it really does count!
“This is about vote buying, pure and simple.”
?!? you think Harper is scared of losing seats in Alberta and Saskatchewan??? or that there is opertunity to gain more?? lmao
Well said Kate. And we should remove all the other subsidies paid to non-ag industries too. Tax freedom day could be in the middle of Februrary.
Eliminate the market?
How does that change the price? and is it even possible. Markets… are how econiomics work, and you might have several thousand other countries to contend with being a global market and all.
superdave: And what do fishery subsidies have to do with farming?
A business subsidy is a business subsidy. Fishermen produce food too. They are also a powerful lobby that vote as a block to ensure such entitlements as seasonal unemployment benefits, income support programs, and other handouts continue to flow from Ottawa.
Eventually, they become such a burden that Ottawa begins bringing in programs to buy them out and reduce their numbers.
And all of this is paid for by the taxpayer – whether you eat fish or not.
Give me a taco anyday.
Robert McClelland: Nice try but I have no problem with the subsidies.
See. Robert McClelland is now agreeing with “Conservative” economic policy.
Some arguments just write themselves.
Food is one of the commodies we can’t live without. If we are in such a state that farmers can’t make a living then we’re all hooped. If we all lived subsidy free and we taxed back any import subsity entering canada we would be in great shape.
As soon as we make an exemption we condem ourselves to socialistic, comunistic, assholestic rule. Thats what we have now. Time thw new PC party identified it self.
So, it’s OK to be entitled to your entitlments as long as you’re politically correct Conservative?
I love it when righties demonstrate the shallowness of their “ideals” as they race for their place at the trough.
I wonder how much the Skelton operation is recieving as their share of the windfall? Conflict of interest, anyone?
?!? you think Harper is scared of losing seats in Alberta and Saskatchewan??? or that there is opertunity to gain more?? lmao
There are farmers in Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada. They all benefit from these subsidies.
I can’t speak about Saskatchewan politics, but in Alberta, farmers certainly have a symbiotic relationship with “conservative” politicians. Ever hear of the Alberta Alliance? Supposedly a small-c conservative party, right?
Read their platform sometime. It is full of new grants, handouts, and other entitlements for farmers. Conservative politicians are all too willing to buy the farm vote, and it is for sale.
There is no question farmers need help now. However I watched CPAC tonight and Wayne Easter was adamant that the money would not flow until 2007. He said this announcement is just a smoke screen. Is he right? or is there something I don’t understand?
There is no question farmers need help now. However I watched CPAC tonight and Wayne Easter was adamant that the money would not flow until 2007. He said this announcement is just a smoke screen. Is he right? or is there something I don’t understand?
When exactly does the farming industry become self-sufficient? Thank you very much, but I’d rather have American taxpayers subsidize my food. Bring on the Wisconsin cheese, the Iowa corn and the Texas beef at prices below cost. And put the extra dollars in my pocket.
The best way to win a trade war is to surrender and have the other country’s taxpayers subsidize us.
When does the farming industry become self-sufficent?
Why, never of course. They’ll be whining next year, the year after and every year as long as wind blow and grass grow.
Kate, arent you in Carole Skeltons riding?
If so, please congratulate her for me, and tell her to keep up the good work. If i remember correctly, she is considered by her peers to be the second hardest working MP in Canada.
Go Carole!!!
In a perfect world I would agree with mad eye moody.
But, alas the world’s trade system is far from perfect and political necessity requires that the federal government “defend” and “support” our agricultural producers. The Conservatives are significantly more active on this issue – reforming CAIS, and soon removing the wheat board’s monopoly (AND after achieving a majority climbing down from its support of the supply management system) – than the Liberals were. And that change of course helps us in working towards a reform of international agricultural trade. We are finally going into the GATT determined to put up fight for market-share.
2.
As for Kate’s comment “In the current “cheap food” climate, it really boils down to deciding what it is you want – a safe, reliable domestic food source, or dependence on US, Mexican, Aussie and South American imports.” – is she proposing that Canada act immediately to ensure a “safe, reliable domestic” source for our banana comsumption – we eat more of them than any other fruit after all.
And how about rice and sugar?
As an arch-conservative she is way off her ideological base on this issue.
A cheap food policy is the granite foundation upon which the US economy has prospered more than any other western nation since WW2.
I would assume that someone against subsidies for farmers would be against subsidies of any kind to any group as a matter of consistency.
With the money flying fron Ottawa in every direction,who can keep track of the special interest groups funded and industries’subsidized.
Maryjane,all your posts focus squarely on your strong dislike of farmers getting our bucks from the government,fair enough,but I never hear you complain about Bombardier or the hundreds of other handouts that have gone on regularly for decades.Only farmers.What’s up?
Wow, and I have always believed Canada does not subsidize agriculture….yeah right
Well, observer, I am quite willing to be consistent and live and die by the no subsidy sword, Bombardier, fisheries, farmers, myself, whomever…..
I focus on farming because no other issue demonstrates quite so starkly the inconsistency of your side of the political spectrum. I mean ever since parson Manning hit the scene Canadians have been lectured about the purity of the free-market fudamentalist vision, the corruption of the old-line parties, how you’re for small gov’t., low taxes,etc.
The ag issue shows that conservatives pander to their own special interests and you and the Liberals are peas in a pod.
If it is good for farmers than it should be good for Bombardier, the fisheries and everything else under the sun. It’s you and the Conservatives who have a problem with consistency.
maryjane…whatever!
I’m sure all Canadians will be happy to learn I am the source of all their problems.Very astute of you,no one else has figured it out yet.I can see you don’t let little things like facts and fairness taint your arguments,just making things up seems to work ptetty well for you.
You need to put aside the hate,it will give you wrinkles.
I’m not sure where the assumption came that I favour farm subsidies. I don’t favour any type of industry subsidy, including those sent to wheat farmers, fish farmers, health farmers, baby farmers, art farmers.
However, I will repeat: very few industries are as handicapped financially by the costs of regulation and government interference in the market as the ag industry.
Demands by consumers for “risk-free food” have begun to resemble a Monty Python skit in their absurdity. Hysteria over herbicides and pesticides, the “frankenfood” debacle, zero tolerance for “zebra” diseases like BSE, the egg and milk quota system that require so much capital investment that they’re virtually impossible to kill off – not to mention the environmental regulations that prohibit farmers from performing what was once routine farmland maintainance like spraying weeds around a slough (it’s a body of water!!!), or draining unproductive land that they are nonetheless taxed on.
In Saskatchewan, some primary producers even have to compete with their own government. (See crown corporation involvement in the pork industry)
And of course, there is the fact that, after paying the capital and input costs, the interest, the taxes – some commodities are not even the property of the person who has invested to produce them. They are effectively “owned” by the Canadian Wheat Board – where they pay union wages to farm bureaucrats.
We are going to have to decide what we want – to rely on foreign sources for food produced under a less restrictive regulatory system or accept that Canadian farmers are increasingly disadvantaged by our demands for near perfection in what is presented on our plates – and help pay our share of those costs.
Observer:
“I would assume that someone against subsidies for farmers would be against subsidies of any kind to any group as a matter of consistency.”
Absolutely correct.
Kate:
“I’m not sure where the assumption came that I favour farm subsidies. I don’t favour any type of industry subsidy, including those sent to wheat farmers, fish farmers, health farmers, baby farmers, art farmers.
However, I will repeat: very few industries are as handicapped financially by the costs of regulation and government interference in the market as the ag industry.
Demands by consumers for “risk-free food” have begun to resemble a Monty Python skit in their absurdity”
So? Why should any government – especially one that claims to be non-statist or less-statist, give into these stupid and idiotic demands by people, and hypocritically be involved in a wealth redistribution scheme?
Do you support wealth redistribution by the government? Yes or No.
Just because farmers are in a financial strait at the moment, does that mean you support distribution to any group, who at whatever times find themselves in financial straits?
I’m quite familiar with the agricultural industry and have always found it interesting that some farmers who complain the loudest are the ones that are buying up the biggest, best, and most expensive machinery, get themselves into debt they cannot handle, and then complain because they can’t afford a family vacation.
Yes – that’s a generalization.
The root cause of this mess is in fact, all government programs that are designed to “protect” people and be the Nanny.
Farmers here in Ontario, that 20 and 30 years ago, were all for ag. marketing boards which were created to control supply and artificially keep prices are up are today, reaping the results of that. Farmers who produce efficiently and produce more than their quota are penalized.
Egg marketing boards are now trespassing on farmers’ land, and removing the livestock and charging farmers who don’t wish to buy into government subsidy and government control. They simply want to be able to sell to whoever wishes to purchase from them.
You cannot claim to have principles but then when it is one of your own pet topics, suddenly turn around and support something when you’re against it when it’s not one of your own pet topics.
Kate:
We already “…rely on foreign sources for food produced under a less restrictive regulatory system…” for our bananas, rice, Televisions, telephones and countless other things, why should we get all high and mighty about grain producers?
If we subsidize them in order to protect market share and to engage in trade brinksmanship in order to drive this ag trade war to a free trade agreement under the GATT I and all for it. Doing it to “protect” our food supply flies in the face of current reality.
Kate:
We already “…rely on foreign sources for food produced under a less restrictive regulatory system…” for our bananas, rice, Televisions, telephones and countless other things, why should we get all high and mighty about grain producers?
If we subsidize them in order to protect market share and to engage in trade brinksmanship in order to drive this ag trade war to a free trade agreement under the GATT I am all for it. Doing it to “protect” our food supply flies in the face of current reality.
Maybe I’ve been operating under the wrong assumption, in thinking that most who are not from SK, are still aware of the agricultural/political situation in this province. It’s been said that in SK, wheat is 15% protein and 85% politics. While agriculture is no more than a relative footnote in the Ontario budget, in program spending in SK it comes fourth after health, education, and social services and ahead of debt servicing and highways and transportation.
If Ont. spent as much provincially, their ag budget would be $7 billion.
All of the provincial income tax paid by a minimum wage worker is about 45% of the per taxpayer share of provincial ag spending.
It takes all of the provincial income taxes of 16 minimum wage workers to fund the provincial share that the Carol Skelton operation recieves for provincial ag spending.
This doesn’t take into account federal spending (there’s only one taxpayer, the right is fond of saying) preferential tax treatment or things like subsidized vehicle insurance.
So, observer, you want to talk facts and fairness….Bring it on.
50,000 farmers in sask pay taxes. More when you have a good year, less when you don’t. Pick 1000 of the ones that made money (yes some of us are) and distribute 16% of their taxes for the program.
Even when the farm doesn’t make money we are still on the hook for 30+ grand in school taxes. And then the subsidies are taxed back as standard income.
Subsidized vehicle insurance?? You have a household of 2 right?? and prolly 2 vehicles. My farm licences 15 vehicles and trailers. (and mom’s personal van too) Most of them don’t drive all that far. And historically the licenced group of F vehicles has less claims.
So tell me, while you and your husband are out driving both vehicles you licence. And I (and my family and employees) are out driving 5/15. How likely is it that both your vehicles are in accidents and compare that to the likelyhood of all 15 (guaranteed to have 10 of them not moving) beng in accidents…. Who subsidizes who?
Facts are easy to come up with. Its all in how you look at them.
Most farm subsidies go to supporting the 9% of farmers in supply management. The other 91% of us get to watch our trade negotiators bargain away any reduction in tariffs and foreign subsidies to protect the elite 9%. Foreign subsidies and tariffs on grains and oilseeds account for large reductions in price to the Canadian farmer. Any subsidies paid to grain and oilseed farmers doesn’t even come close to pay for what we’ve lost from the marketplace.
If the government has decided that supply management should be protected at any cost, why should grain and oilseed farmers be the only ones to pay that cost?
barcs …Farmers get a 10% discount on their non-farm use vehicles, for no other reason than their status as farmers. These are same family vehicles driving down the same roads for the same purposes as any other family vehicle in this province. So a Carol Skelton can get a discount on her minivan, even though she is in the top 1% of income earners, while someone working in Walmart pays the full shot.
Farmers own property, but you don’t want to pay property tax? The education portion of education tax on farm land is about $100 million, which a tax deductible business expense. Residential property is not a write off.
Other taxpayers subsidize farmers.
Most subsidies go to supply managed farms? Nonsense. Completely untrue.
I have a minivan, no farm plates, burn fully taxed unmarked fuel, and paid the full shot on the purchase price, no 10% discount.
Education tax – Just because a tax is deductible doesn’t mean its fair.
Just go across the border and compare the price of milk, butter or eggs to what you pay in your local grocery store, and then tell me that Canadian supply management agriculture isn’t subsidized. You may not call it a subsidy, but the consumer pays the subsidy directly at the grocery store, instead of through government taxation.
Nonsense indeed.
banachek… If you are a SK farmer (even a supply management farmer) you are certainly eligible for that 10% discount on your minivan.
If the education tax is unfair (how?), it is unfair for every taxpayer, and more so for residential because they cannot write it off.
One can choose not to consume supply managed products, so the subsidization is voluntary. This is not so with other ag products. Even if the consumption of meat is against one’s moral and religious values, one is coerced into subsidizing it’s production.
Supply managment farmers are not elegible for the regular billions that make up the great bulk of what constitutes farm support in this province: cais, crop insurance, ad hoc etc. So yeah, what you are saying is indeed nonsense.
The OECD estimates that the total income transfer from Canadian consumers to
dairy farmers in 2000 was Cdn $2.47 billion.
Farm gate milk prices in Canada are 41 percent higher than in the US and 135 percent above the world reference price set by New Zealand.
http://www.agr.gov.sk.ca/agrifood/MilkPolitics.pdf
$2.47 billion, Not bad for being 7% of Canadian farmers. And that’s just dairy.
Maryjane, I wouldn’t care so much if we weren’t hurting the rest of agriculture in Canada by losing our credibility (and any bargaining power) in negotiating reductions in foreign subsidies and tariffs on the grains and oilseeds we try to export. Those cost us far more than the subsidies you are so concerned about. So I should feel guilty because the government gives us grain farmers back a small portion of the money they’ve thrown away for us at World trade talks to protect supply management?
Mary Jane:
By the Supply management sector’s own numbers the price differential between the farm gate price for those products in Canada versus the US amounts to an implied subsidy of 15 billion per annum. A few years back the Econominst magazine included that implied subsidy and calculated that Canadian farmers on a farmgate revenue basis are the most subsidized producers in the developed world.
If you apportion that subsidy on a provincial basis Ontario gets about 6 to 7 billion of it puls the porcessing spin-offs. So, that would put farming pretty high up on Ontario’s prioities.
As for insurance, it is a cost of doing business and farmers are neither discriminated for or against.
Banachek:
While your minivan may not have farm plates and burns clear, you and I both know lots of farmers who do such things.
And here’s a little known fact – many, many retired or about to be retired farmers are millionaires because of the value of the land that they own yet they recieve or will recieve the Guaranteed income supplement (GIS) because they have managed to show next to no income for years. There is no net-worth test for the GIS.
The biggest drag on farm incomes in Sask is the Wheat Board, yet a significant majority of the farmers in that province want to maintain it.
They are talking out of both sides of their mouth when they rail on about being over-governed on other issues besides that one.
You are incorrect maryjane. Personal vehicles used off the farm are not subsidized. Some of them like a van can be used as part farm and part personal. Mom’s van is farm plated. She brings home parts for us lots of days, but she uses regular fuel just like you. You see keeping a kilometer log and detailing fuel purchases is too much of a pain. (and you are supposed to log every kilometer if you are using personal and farm fuel)
As for property taxes. The family farm is now over 30 grand. My personal portion is $5000. I don’t own a house yet, or have a family, and I am currently paying for my education at the universtity (3 classes left, yippee) My uncle. Who lives in the U.S. with his wife and 2 children pays $4000 into the system here while he pays for his childrens education where he lives.
The old system was good when there was a house on every quarter, but now it seems slanted. Designate me a home quater, make me pay taxes based on that quarter, for the house that will be on it, etc. I don’t care if you take the 5k I pay now and place it all on a single quarter, but paying school taxes on empty land?? When you live and work in another country??
I hope this bribe helps the farmers that need it.
Bribe?
You mean like the Lie-beral spending spree right before the election. Giving as much money to as many people they can in order to get votes.
I forgot, That was just good government. Whereas if the conservatives dole out some small amount they are in fact bribing us with our own money. Espically if they get within miles of whoever supported them in the election or might support them in the next.
Can we have a recall?? Put a good government back in who will dole out massive amounts of money to people other than me? Instead of these lousy conservatives.
Give me a break.
Liberal Tory Liberal Tory. Can you spot the difference I can’t see a difference. All I know is we’ve catered to farmers forever. Every year they wait with their greedy paws out. And they talk about people on welfare,Ui and civil servants. You guys are the biggest welfare bums we have. But you’re rich wefare bums. Even if you have assets you qualify for money. You know what civil servants salaries are what is your gross income Mr.Farmer? I think we as taxpayers would be very surprised at how much you really make. Not what you tell the news media either.