Stephen Harper and Chuck Strahl are appearing at a live news conference at a farm about 20 miles from here at the moment, covered on local radio. They are about to announce that CAIS is being retired and replaced.
Harper makes a few intro comments and
Our government recognizes more needs to be done, especially about rising costs of production… input costs have risen over 3 times faster than product prices… and that’s what brings me here today.
$1 billion in new money for income stabilization … modelled on conventional bank savings accounts … an annual cost of production benefit… inviting provinces to share in funding.
Basics are now up at the AAFC website.
Claire Hoy: Are you the famous “CBC” Claire Hoy? Lots of time on your time on your hands without your old gig? Trust an old Liberal hack to toss about accusations of hypocracy. Pot calling the kettle black. No?
“BTW, if farmers didn’t vote conservative, does anybody think they’d be seeing one thin dime?”
Using that logic, are we to assume that SOW votes Conservative?
Why, how much swill is Steve slopping for SOW?
Bazoo:
What difference would it make if I linked a story to another MSM provider? According to all the paranoid posters on SDA, the MSM has a left wing bias…all part of the vast left wing conspiracy, don’t you know? Do you have a problem with the facts in these stories?
Shamrock:
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I wrote at 4:10 pm “I can understand the need for subsidies in agriculture, but using taxpayer’s money to help profitable industries is wrong.”
I did not write that CO2 is pollution or that I want to see the oil sands shut down. Exxon made $39 BILLION profit last year on revenue of $377 BILLION!! But according to you, I’m the one who is confused about how profitable oil companies are.(!!)
Should we subsidize Bombardier? Not if they are just selling stuff to Canadians. However, if the competition is being subsidized by their respective governments, we don’t have much of choice then, do we?
No, Iberia – I continue to disagree with you.
Your view is that research should not be funded by the collective, ie the gov’t. By the way, Iberia, taxes come from individuals, from industries, from corporations, from investments, from oil companies, from banks, from purchases, from sales. OK? So – your claim that when the gov’t funds anything, it’s with money from individual taxpayers – is wrong.
So, when the collective, ie, the govt, funds research, which is then moved out of theory and into practical application – you consider this wrong. You think that the private company should fund its own research? Fine – except that would also mean that no-one but the company should benefit from this research.
After all, the chemists in a private pharmaceutical company, can only be funded in their very expensive lab work and equipment, from profits. You are against profits? How would research and dev’t occur?
This would mean that in order to continue those scientific endeavours, the company must not allow any copies of its products. It must keep sales confined to its products. No ‘no-name’ brands allowed. But that’s not how science and technology develops.
The collective – both private and public – funds research. This result is moved into practical application by private industries. It benefits the collective – both in the product and in the economy. Copies are made, competition occurs – and the results benefit the collective.
Your naive opposition to private companies and profits ignores that the results of research and dev’t benefits everyone. Not just the single industry.
Why the big hate for “Big Oil” Iberia? If your numbers are correct, Exxon only returned a 10 percent margin. How much is their investment? Do you think your local food store can operate on ten points? My suggestion of sources other than the CBC were only to broaden your thought base. By the way, you frequently declare that persons that dissagree with you have a reading comprension issue. I suggest you have issues with differing opinions. IMO.
Nomdenet @3:52pm. When the reform party, whom I supported went after the pc’s I told my MP’s rep (Reed Elley) that I thought the reform had sold their soul for a few votes. When I voted for the Conservatives I voted for honesty. When Harper brought in a liberal and a unelected to the cabnet I felt (sorry can’t think of a better word ATT) scorned (sounds religeous which I’m not). Harper does some great things then tops it with some thing stupid. One example only Quebec as a sovern nation.
Corrupt. As supposedly honest I approached them by letter in hopes of recovering the severence pay that the liberals under trudeau stole from me. Prespective 13yrs 10mts 2days RCN CAF $4000.00 only paid half. Min of defence O’Connor gave ne the same song and dance as the liberals. Letters/e-mail sent to Harper not acknowledged. Thats corrupt.
Never mind, Iberia. You keep stating the same argument over and over again. You obviously don’t understand the concept of return on equity (check YOUR reading comprehension); nor do you understand that profits aren’t the same every year. You obviously don’t understand the concept of economic externalities. You make my argument that you are only willing to put the profit test to industries you don’t like (ie- not Liberal enough). Your comeback on Bombardier is one-dimensional and juvenile.
Typical Liberal projection. I recall Chretien saying he was going to clean up Ottawa after Mulroney. When he proved even more corrupt and political, he said he was no worse than Mulroney.
Now, Liberals vote against their own legislation, accuse Conservatives of negative politics when they are the kings of smear, and expect them to be transparent on issues like judicial appointments when Liberals never thought they should do the same.
It’s called a double standard; also known as hypocrisy.
Iberia, get over it. The Liberals are not getting back power anytime soon. It must drive them crazy when Harper proves just a wily as them and, yes, makes power moves. Conservatives are winners, and Liberals are losers. Great to see the shoe on the other foot, with Liberals hoisted on their own petard.
It’s been fun though.
Tony W said: “Prespective 13yrs 10mts 2days RCN CAF $4000.00 only paid half. Min of defence O’Connor gave ne the same song and dance as the liberals. Letters/e-mail sent to Harper not acknowledged. Thats corrupt.”
I am curious about this. I’m not sure what you are referring to. Can you provide more detail? I was a Logistics/Admin officer in CF, so I know something about these issues.
Claire…Steve is slopping $5 million for you SOW’s..so just STFU!!
“Why, how much swill is Steve slopping for SOW?”
Read the latest news.
Whether you like agricultural subsidies or not, its clear to everyone that the CAIS program was not working for anyone except accountants. A new program would get help to the people that need it and likely cost the taxpayers a whole lot less money. As far as paycheques going to subsidize farmers, farmers have been putting food on your plate for less than the cost of production for quite a while now. Don’t you think that we are sick of subsidzing you?
Shamrock. The last contract I signed with CAF was in 1970. The term was indefinate with a 6 month clause, both ways. At that time I was intitled by contract to rehab leave that had a set formula. When I was backed into a corrner by the XO on my ship I told him that it was up to him to fix the problem that he had caused or as by his actions my carrer was over, that I would exercise the six month clause. He told me to piss off so I did. When I left the navy a month and a half late, notice given 9 nov 76 release 24 jun 77, I was asked if I would take severence at a weeks pay for every full year served instead of rehab leave I agreed. They then only paid me half of the severence pay. Thats theft
Sorry I should have added that this government is still condoning it.
QUEBEC AS A SOVERN (SIC) NATION
TONY W
I would suggest that you find in some archives the actual words PMSH said. This is not verbatim but close enough. He believes in Quebec being a nation of people within the dominion of Canada. as someone who was raised in Northern Quebec I believe it was an existing system that worked fine for everyone
It is EXTREMELY important for a country to be able to produce it’s own food. Relying on other countries for your food production is hazardous to your health. The basics must be covered.
What communist rubbish. Or fascist rubbish. It depends on whether you think that farmers and their customers must be enslaved through nationalization, or merely made into de-facto serfs through subsidies and quotas. But why quibble.
When another country subsidizes the products its citizens sell to you, they are not punishing you or setting you up for conquest. They are giving you a gift. In any case, punishing your own consumers and taxpayers is hardly an ethical response to other governments allegedly doing it to their own citizens. This is not an “extreme” or “ideological” opinion. It hasn’t been seriously disputed since John A. MacDonald was sober.
As far as paycheques going to subsidize farmers, farmers have been putting food on your plate for less than the cost of production for quite a while now. Don’t you think that we are sick of subsidzing you?
Yes. Please stop doing it. I want to know what food actually costs so I can budget accordingly, not so he can get elected and get all of his loser friends on the government payroll.
ronrob you may pick at the way I’ve pharsed it but it was one of the really stupid things done by Harper.
As for working fine for everyone define everyone. It sure doesn’t include me. I have lived on the boarder with Quebec and travelled in Quebec on several occasions. Talk about feeling like an outsider.
Tony W. Understood. Can you explain what you mean by “left the navy a month and a half late?” How many years service did you have?
ET:
Why do you keep twisting things around? I don’t oppose private companies or profits. Where have I ever written that I did?
I’m well aware that taxes come from a variety of sources, but the majority of tax money going to the government comes from individuals, not corporations.
You use drug companies as an example. Fine. So why do they get to have patent protection for 20 years? To get a return on their investment, right? In my opinion, if gov’t is going to fund research for them, that should be reflected in lower costs for consumers.
I find it interesting how you always rail against socialism, yet you advocate for this type of corporate socialism.
Bazoo:
I don’t hate big oil, I just don’t believe in subsidizing profitable corporations.
I’m just posting my comments here, not writing a thesis, so I don’t understand your problem with my sources. If the info is on CBC, I link to CBC. If you think my info is wrong, then prove it. Most people here bring up issues without ever providing a link.
And if you care to notice, I’m not commenting about people’s comprehension simply because they have a different opinion than me, but when they are making things up. If I take the time to write something, they should have the courtesy to read it and not make crap up. Like Shamrock, for exammple.
Shamrock:
You’re an idiot. I never once mentioned anything about the Liberals, and I don’t like the Liberals. So STFU.
According to your “concept of economic externalities,” profitable companies should get subsidies.
Good ol’ corporate welfare bums.
“Conservatives are winners, and Liberals are losers.”
That pretty well sums up your mentality.
Iberia. Name calling again. Tsk Tsk Tsk.
Not name calling Bazoo, just making an observation.
idiot: a stupid person.
stupid: lacking intelligence or common sense.
When someone starts arguing with me about things I never wrote, their intelligence (or sobriety) needs to be questioned.
Why is it that farmers always get subsidies? The crop is bad, the get subsidies. The crop is too good, the get subsidies. Whatever happens, they get subsidies.
When another country subsidizes the products its citizens sell to you, they are not punishing you or setting you up for conquest. They are giving you a gift.
Sell cheap, get them hooked, then raise the price. One of the oldest marketing ploys in the book.
Some people don’t think any farther ahead than their next meal.
When another country subsidizes the products its citizens sell to you, they are not punishing you or setting you up for conquest. They are giving you a gift.
Although, I see you are a typical socialist. All for sharing so long as it’s somebody else doing the sharing.
Regarding the validity of subsidies for farmers, may I suggest a different perspective to consider? Farmers are, generally speaking, less educated and possess fewer marketable skills than the rest of the working population. If the farmers can’t make a go of it financially (without subsidies), then they would go out of business and (likely to a great extent) onto welfare.
What is cheaper…farm subsidies or welfare?
The same concept goes for grants, etc. to Bombardier and the auto industry. If the companies don’t get the money, they threaten to close down the industries and move them to the third world. If the government were to call their bluff, the industries may or may not cave, but it is likely that at least SOME reasonable number of jobs will be lost. Again, you have to calculate the cost of the subsidy against the cost of welfare.
I’m not saying the foregoing is absolutely correct, but just a perspective to consider that contains some validity (IMHO). And I’m NOT saying that I’m happy about it…just that it is likely unavoidable. Big industries / companies essentially hold the government/country/taxpayers to ransom…but what can we really do about it? Cut off our nose to spite our face?
In a somewhat related vein, I predict that the banks WILL back off on the ATM fees…I suspect that Flaherty will have raised the thought at his meeting with the banks that perhaps the banking industry could be opened to foreign competition. This is ALSO a form of subsidy that the government provides to a VERY VERY profitable industry.
Always consider the Law of Unintended Consequences. You have to think several moves into the future when making any government funding decision to ensure that you don’t screw things up royally by exercising your conservative principles.
In the meantime Lorne is pissed!!
LMAO
Ryan;-P said: “Actually I basically agree with you there, but Harper is operating in a broken systme, I’m not sure how realistic it is to expect it to change overnight”
Well this was my point. We voted reform and CA and finally (reluctantly) for Harper because he promised reforms and to do things “differently” from status quo Liberal graft and bribery…then we see him ingage in it to gain reelection.
I realize that people have become addicted to welfare subsidy and almost expect it…making change hard
I further realize that the system is a leviathn that will take years to contain and I never expected over night change.
However, the practice of pre election seeding of broken welfare and subsidy systems is something that could have been addressed….certainly doing something with the CWB and other marketing/price fixing free market impediments was in order…at least some tax relief for producers front end costs.
It is just very disappointing to see a government I voted for act exactly like the one I have despised for the past 2 decades…I’m hoping this is a temporary thing caused by a minority position.
WL, i see it a bit differently.
I think that the Prime Minister explained it yesterday.
If all of these announcements were left for Budget Day, a lot of them would be lost in the myriad of detail.
Even Bob Fife admitted that this announcement for farmers would have no resonance in Ottawa.
I dont think these spending announcements are as much pre-election as they are pre-budget. In doing it this way, Mr. Harper is making sure that they get the attention they deserve.
One could argue that an election is being forestalled by making it very difficult for the opposition to bring down the Government over the budget.
Farmers “less educated”….
You’re probably lucky this thread has gone beyond the length at which most people read to the end.
Again, iberia – how is the gov’t subsidizing ‘big oil’? It isn’t subsidizing any oil companies.
It is subsidizing research about oil, as well as about pharmaceuticals, various diseases, engineering technology, computer and robotics etc etc.
You are effectively claiming that an industry that uses various technologies applicable to it (such as the oil industry, the automotive, the construction, the medical etc) makes a profit in its own applications of these technologies, then, no research on such fields should be carried out by any other than that industry and that industry alone should pay for the research.
Do you use a computer? The technology for that was funded by various governments; the application of that technology was carried out by various private industries. According to you, computer development should not take place in various research institutions but only in the private computer corporations.
Do you use a car? The technology for that was, at first, carried out by private individuals. The application was moved into many private corporations that could fund mass production AND research. But, research into various aspects of the automobile are carried out in research centres, in univerities – and the research is funded by the gov’t. According to you, this research should be funded by the car manufacturers.
I don’t agree with you. Your division of the society into public and private ignores that the two are closely networked and don’t operate without the input and output of the other. Your anti-capitalist and anti-private production obscures this entangled network.
My dear Kate, I meant no offense at all. I grew up on a farm and I love the farm life. I’m not saying farmers are dumb at all…my Dad was very wise but only went to school until Grade 6 or something like that. As did most of the neighbours. Therefore, based on my personal observations, my statement re: limited education is correct (at least for my neck of the woods)…besides, education is NOT synonomous with intelligence…Stephane Dion is the current example of that.
Farmers just generally don’t have many skills that could easily translate into any other line of work.
The younger generation generally graduated high school but that’s it…only a few went to agricultural college. If they don’t work on a farm, what other career could they readily shift to? Factory work? Only if they move to Mexico or China.
But maybe my opinion is more applicable to the small family farms in Ontario than out west. Or maybe it is just pertinent to the slack-jawed yokels where I grew up. 😉
Iberia said: “I don’t hate big oil, I just don’t believe in subsidizing profitable corporations.”
I disagree with subsidizing unprofitable industries! Think about it. If all we subsidize are money losers, we just reward mediocrity. But to subs=idize a profitable industry might just make it pay you even bigger dividends in the long run. I would make the exception for unprofitable industries that are strategically vital, like say …. farming. How much more ought we to subsidize profitable industries that are also strategically vital, like oil.
I actually don’t really like subsidies very much, but sometimes they are a necessary evil. It is strategically very bad to be reliant upon other nations for essentials such as food and fuel.
Eyore wrote: “But maybe my opinion is more applicable to the small family farms in Ontario than out west. Or maybe it is just pertinent to the slack-jawed yokels where I grew up. ;)”
Actually, I think your opinion is more pertinent to the situation a generation or so back. I also gre up in a farming community, and virtually all the farmers of my age (I am 42) finished high school, and many went to University, Agricualtural college, trade school, etc. Farfming is different now than it was then. It requires much more tchnicle skill than it once did. Knowledge of computers, welding tickets, diesel mechanics, engineering, etc. are becoming more common skills on the farm. But then, a generation ago many factory workers also did not finishe high school. Today, virtually all have this at least.
Of course, to look at my spelling in the previous comment, you would guess that I am one of the afore mentioned slack jawed yokels.
JAYDEEN!!! Get me some more coffee!! AND DON’T SKIMP ON THE COUGH SYRUP THIS TIME!!!!
Thank you, Iberia, for letting me win the argument. You obviously can’t deal with my arguments (and yes, my needling of you), so no need for you to comment further. To use your words, STFU. Still don’t understand economic externalities, eh?
You’re not a Liberal? I don’t really care if you’re NDP, Green or just plain ignorant. You shouldn’t play with the adults. Go back to your sandbox.
I love yanking the chain of Iberia types and their hypocritical double standards.
Eeyore”Farmers are, generally speaking, less educated and possess fewer marketable skills than the rest of the working population. If the farmers can’t make a go of it financially…likely to a great extent) onto welfare.”
And “slack-jawed yokels”
Wow!!! You almost made it out the door….
There probably isn’t one worker that I would rather have than one who has had farm experience.
It isn’t just because they have worked around all kinds of equipment, or animals, or learned the many skills it takes to keep a farm ticking, either.
It is their common sense, their sense of some bigger picture. It is that *something extra*, that city folk never pick up.
GRRR….welfare…really?
Eeyore has a lot to learn about farmers. If the whole country were run by farmers it would be so productive it would be like….well…Alberta.
Eeyore, of all the farmers I know (100s and 100s), the dumbest, clueless, gone-broke-in spectacular-fashion-types, incompetent, are the ones with PhDs in ag-economics.
The Proffessors were ‘market savy’ ??? Are you kidding ?? It was their downfall.
Relax, Buffalo Bean…if you missed the intent of my comment about slack-jawed yokels, I was poking fun at myself and my family before someone else beat me to it.
As I said, I grew up on a farm. I think I am qualified to pass on an observation or opinion.
Karl, as I alluded to, my observation may not apply out west or on the larger farms…but the small family farms in Ontario do NOT in general have engineers and computer technologists working on them…just grade 12 graduates and a few agricultural college grads.
I can pretty much guarantee that if we were to poll the family farmers in Ontario, you’d find the majority match this description.
A friend who has left farming is now driving truck because there isn’t much else he’s qualified for. There’s only so many truck drivers and labourers and warehouse workers that the job market can handle…after that, welfare.
Again, this is not a universal truth, just something to consider when talking about farm subsidies.
Gosh, ol’ hoss and BHA, you must be misreading my post. When did I denigrate the intelligence of farmers? I said they lacked education (i.e. Degrees and diplomas)…I did NOT say they lacked intelligence. I pointed out that education is not synonomous with intelligence and offered Dion as an example of that.
If you want to damn me, then damn me for what I actually said. And to repeat, I grew up on a farm…I have some first-person experience, not just “friends I know”.
Eeyore, ok, gotcha now. Sorry.
Shamrock. I gave 6 months notice on 9 Nov 67. MY time was up 9 May 77. Release date 24 June 77. thats what I ment by a month and a half.
My time in service 22 Aug 63 to 24 June 77 = 13 years 10 months and 2 days. If you want to be more exact I signed on in Ottawa at 11.00 and demobed in Esquimalt at 11.00 so you can add 3 hours but who’s counting.
OT I get this one. Is there some site that deals with all these initals ie; LMAO IMHO STUF?
Tony W.:
LMAO – laugh my arse off;
IMHO – in my humble opinion;
STFU – shut the frick up;
ROTFLMAO – rolling on the floor laughing my arse off;
Etc.
Eeyore; Buffalo Bean, Kate, B Hoax Beware and Ol Hoss have already addressed the IQ of most farmers.
Farmers are not indoctrinated, they call a spade a spade. Contrary to what all the ‘educators’ in Canada have been spewing to their students in the last 60 years: brevity in language and actions are a sign of superior intelligence not the reverse. I am a ranchers kid, I know all about getting work done on the least amount of money in the least time.
Land is a responsibility and so are animals; the Liberanos/Dippers in Canada, have almost succeeded, though over taxation, of running all small landowners out of business.
Rhebner, the $$ a landowner gets from sale of his produce is not spending money as it is for wage earners, it is investment money to be put into the maintenance of his land and animals.
Hutterites and big Co-operative outfits that have bought out small farmers will probably not like PMSH’s announcement too much but people who do not rely on free labour(Hutterites) or subsidization through big unions(big Co-operative farms) will.
Once we free up the millions of miles of Crown land in this country to private ownership, citizens of Canada will be able to afford to OWN (we must all squawk loudly about the inclusion of Property Ownership Rights in the Constitution)property in their own country.
When cell(apartment/condo) city dwellers get a taste of the Freedom that owning land gives people they will see the wisdom in the Prime Minister’s announcement, that is, to help people maintain private ownership of property.
People with a vested interest in a country are much less reluctant to defend the nation in times of trouble; perhaps this is our Prime Minister’s ‘hidden agenda’ buried in this announcement. Imagine this – Canadians who love their country so much that they are willing to defend it against foreign aggression!!
My three cheers are for the Prime Minister who is turning this nation around – it is a funny feeling for many of us. We have never had a Prime Minister in Canada who was interested in helping the people of this country to become independant of government intervention in our lives. Our previous Prime Ministers were interested in Power; and taxing all independant minded individuals into submission and/or bankruptcy.
Tony W. I think you have a case. You were given very bad advice (release section, XO?) from someone who had no authority to grant what you were offered. We could talk through our personal emails, if that can be arranged through this website. Have you tried the grievance or ombudsman process?
“We have never had a Prime Minister in Canada who was interested in helping the people of this country to become independant of government intervention in our lives.” Jema54
So Steve is helping the people of this country to become independent of government intervention by intervening in the economy and feeding the culture of dependence in agriculture. By what twisted leap of rightwing logic does that make sense?
I suppose farmers are as a group are as intelligent and hard working as any other group, but their ability to keep their greedy faces planted in the public trough, year after year after year out is truly superior.
I suppose farmers will be willing to forgo any assistance just as soon as you are willing to forgo the massive amount of education taxes farmers pay on your behalf.
There’s no reason you can’t educate your own children, is there?
cutter; you sound bitter – are you bitter or dismissive? Do you work 7 days a week, 365 days of the year? If you don’t you are not a farmer or a rancher. Do you have a guaranteed pension, extended health benefits, access to WCB if you hurt yourself, EI if you loose your job and as Ol’ Hoss says, kids that go to school? Your food is dirt cheap – do you want to pay more?
Did you like giving millions to the Liberanos for holidays and bank accounts for friends of the Liberano party? If you did, what were your personal benefits from that redistribution of your taxes? You feel that farmers and ranchers should be taxed and nickle dimed out of business – you probably think you could take over and make a profit? Why don’t you try it? You too could be subsidized (which farmers that work independently have never been – you are thinking of Culverts big co -operative outfits and communist outfits like the Hutterites – I know I lived that life until I was 17 – my family had ONE two week holiday in all the years I lived at home). Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Everyone pays education taxes Hoss. You want to be exempt from those as well? Farmers have never shown any inclination to forgo any assistance under any circumstances, anywhere, anytime. They (you) exist in a culture of dependence, with a mentality of entitlement. Go yank someone else’s chain.
Do you work 7 days a week, 365 days of the year? If you don’t you are not a farmer or a rancher. Do you have a guaranteed pension, extended health benefits, access to WCB if you hurt yourself, EI..
If that is what farmers and ranchers do, then suck it up. Nobody put a gun to their heads for that choice.
Eeyore tks for clearing that up.
Shamrock tks for the offer but this has gone past the point of no return