• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Farmers rally in Ottawa to seek billions in aid

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,117
Location
Canada
Farmers rally in Ottawa to seek billions in aid
Updated Wed. Apr. 5 2006 6:42 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

As thousands of angry, cash-strapped farmers rallied on Parliament Hill, Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl said he would fight for an additional $2.5 billion in farm aid over five years.

Strahl told reporters Wednesday he hoped his cabinet colleagues would approve the funding in the coming budget.

While the farmers demand cash now, saying they can't otherwise afford to plant crops, a process that starts for some farmers in a few weeks.

In addition, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture says farmers need $6.1 billion in immediate funding to counter the rich subsidies paid to U.S. and European farmers.

No new federal money is coming until after the federal budget, Strahl said.

The budget date hasn't been set yet.

Strahl promised farmers that the government will replace the Canadian Agriculture Income Support program, or CAIS.

The program supposedly provides a safety net for farmers to protect their operations from both small and large drops in income.

But many farmers have expressed frustration over the complexity of the program and the inadequacy in the way it's been run.

However, Strahl said he can't make any changes without the support of the provinces, because it's a federal-provincial program.

"If we're going to get a speedy change to that program, ... I'm going to need more co-operation from the provinces to make that speedy change," Strahl said during a Wednesday morning news conference in Ottawa.

"And I would urge farmers who believe, as I do, that the CAIS program is not the right tool, is not working for them, they need to bring pressure to bear on the provincial government and tell them that program is not working. Let's get to the next generation of agriculture programs and let's do it now."

Farmers 'against the wall'

Strahl made the announcement as thousands of farmers gathered on Parliament Hill for a day-long protest.

Hundreds of tractors, trucks and buses clogged Ottawa streets Wednesday morning as they made their way to the event.

"U.S. farmers don't care what they sell their crop for because Uncle Sam tops it off for them, so they're never losing money," protest organizer Paul Vogel, a farmer from the Cornwall, Ont., told The Canadian Press as he approached Ottawa in his vehicle.

"Let's say Canadian corn growers get $100 a ton -- the U.S. farmer is getting, I believe, around $165 to $170 a ton for his corn."

Despite Strahl's promise, Vogel said he wasn't optimistic about the government moving quickly to address farmers' concerns.

"They promised $750 million would be released as soon as they came into power and as soon as they were voted in they say, 'well, we'll see when and how that money will be released'," said Vogel.

"We're hoping they're going to have a change of heart and realize what's going on, but we don't have a lot of hope."

"The anger's building on the farm. The desperation, really, is building," Perth, Ont. area farmer John Vanderspank told CTV Ottawa.

"We have eight-generation farms that are in desperate financial trouble. And that's just not right."

Bob Friesen, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, said Strahl's proposal is a "very, very important" first step.

But with farmers reeling in debt, cut off from banks and unable to plant crops in time for the spring, Friesen said they need help now.

"They are desperate, they are frustrated and they are right up against the wall," Friesen told CTV Newsnet. "We have got lots of farmers across Canada. This is an income crisis -- an unprecedented income crisis across Canada."

Strahl said the government has already sent 73,000 cheques worth nearly $400 million under the grain-and-oilseeds program -- with more to come.

But he said the problem can't be solved by simply throwing money at it, and that the issue will require international solutions.

Question Period

The farm income crisis was the first issue Prime Minister Stephen Harper faced in his first question period in the Commons.

Opposition Leader Bill Graham blasted Harper for not making agriculture one of his top five priorities in Tuesday's throne speech.

Harper fired back by accusing the previous Liberal government of underfunding farm income programs and causing the agriculture crisis.

During the election campaign, Harper promised to add $500 million a year to farm support programs, as well continue with $755 million in emergency assistance to grain and oilseed producers, announced by the Liberal government on Nov. 23, 2005.

"As you know, in the last campaign we did commit to significantly increase agricultural funding. We intend to follow through on those commitments," said Harper Wednesday after a meeting with his caucus.

When asked to comment on the Liberals push for billions more in aid for farmers, Harper said it's a "little late" for the Liberals to call for a funding increase now.

"They had their chance and they left farmers with the mess we do have today," said Harper.

With files from CTV Ottawa and The Canadian Press
 
""U.S. farmers don't care what they sell their crop for because Uncle Sam tops it off for them, so they're never losing money,"

That is incorrect.
 
Wouldn't say they don't care. I remember a stat from the USDA from 1998 (I believe), that stated the average cotton farmer receives 85% of his income from government subsidies. In that example, I think the producer takes pride in his crop, but the amount or qualityt taken off isn't so crucial.
 
Sandhusker said:
""U.S. farmers don't care what they sell their crop for because Uncle Sam tops it off for them, so they're never losing money,"

That is incorrect.

So Sandhusker tell us how the US farm program works and how these crop prices are topped up.
 
Sandhusker said:
""U.S. farmers don't care what they sell their crop for because Uncle Sam tops it off for them, so they're never losing money,"

That is incorrect.

I do grow weary of these type of press releases that point fingers of blame at huge subsidies. I would like to see a study that shows the ACTUAL level of subsidization on each crop and livestock from a variety of countries. I see what our gov't reports to the media for feel good sake, and then compare it back to what was actually paid out, and the two often don't co-incide.

Rod
 
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
""U.S. farmers don't care what they sell their crop for because Uncle Sam tops it off for them, so they're never losing money,"

That is incorrect.

I do grow weary of these type of press releases that point fingers of blame at huge subsidies. I would like to see a study that shows the ACTUAL level of subsidization on each crop and livestock from a variety of countries. I see what our gov't reports to the media for feel good sake, and then compare it back to what was actually paid out, and the two often don't co-incide.

Rod

And just as importantly is what demographic group gets paid the lion's share of the subsidy.

It is my contention that agribusiness is the majority beneficiary of the profits from those subsidies, not the avg. producer. There should be caps on size.

It is amazing to me that the Canadian (and this happens all the time in the U.S. also) cattle producers received so little of the bailout of the cattle industry in Canada over bse and it went mostly to two large U.S. companies who are tightly controlled by individual families. I wonder how much corporate welfare we can give and disguise it as help to farmers/ranchers who are having the real trouble and who produce value that is constantly being eaten away by our cheap food policy.

Always follow the money.
 
Sandhusker wrote:
""U.S. farmers don't care what they sell their crop for because Uncle Sam tops it off for them, so they're never losing money,"

That is incorrect.


BMR...So Sandhusker tell us how the US farm program works and how these crop prices are topped up.

Below are the average loan rates on grains. If the producer sells his crop for more than the loan rate he gets nothing. Even if his crop was below average or even lower. If he sold his crop for less than the loan rate, he can apply to get the difference between what he sold it for and what the loan rate is in his area. He can store his crop and take the loan on his crop and hope the market goes up.


2005 National Average Loan Rates
Commodity Loan Rates per Unit
Wheat $2.75 per bushel
Corn $1.95 per bushel
Grain Sorghum $1.95 per bushel
Barley $1.85 per bushel
Oats $1.33 per bushel
Upland Cotton $0.52 per pound
Extra Long Staple (ELS) Cotton $0.7977 per pound
Rice $6.50 per hundredweight
Soybeans $5.00 per bushel
 
I dont like hand outs. Espeacially if its just going to get ate up by corporate famers.
Okay here is an idea. Especially in a place like Saskatchewan that so heavily dependent on farming.
Ethanol and biodiesel!!!!!
Why cant the government build plants that would convert crops to ethanol and biodiesel?
This way instead of producing a product that nobody wants the farmer would be producing and have sale for a crop that everybody needs.
There are no trade restrictions when it comes to energy.
Oil is how much now a barrel? Just under $70?
Im thinking this could be done if the politicians really wanted it.
Too bad they seem to either want people to be dependent on government and or they are all bought off by the oil companies.
 
Roper...Why cant the government build plants that would convert crops to ethanol and biodiesel?

That is being done down here, but by private enterprizes not the government. Why would you want the government to build the plants?
 
Tommy said:
Sandhusker wrote:
""U.S. farmers don't care what they sell their crop for because Uncle Sam tops it off for them, so they're never losing money,"

That is incorrect.


BMR...So Sandhusker tell us how the US farm program works and how these crop prices are topped up.

Below are the average loan rates on grains. If the producer sells his crop for more than the loan rate he gets nothing. Even if his crop was below average or even lower. If he sold his crop for less than the loan rate, he can apply to get the difference between what he sold it for and what the loan rate is in his area. He can store his crop and take the loan on his crop and hope the market goes up.


2005 National Average Loan Rates
Commodity Loan Rates per Unit
Wheat $2.75 per bushel
Corn $1.95 per bushel
Grain Sorghum $1.95 per bushel
Barley $1.85 per bushel
Oats $1.33 per bushel
Upland Cotton $0.52 per pound
Extra Long Staple (ELS) Cotton $0.7977 per pound
Rice $6.50 per hundredweight
Soybeans $5.00 per bushel

Thanks, Tommy.

You see, BMR, there is no guarantee of a profit. Take corn for example. Pencil out what it costs to grow it even if all your land and equipment is paid for, which is not the case for most farmers, and see how $1.95 treats you.

Yes, our crops do have subsidies, no denying that. They're just not the golden deal some make them out to be.
 
Tommy said:
That is being done down here, but by private enterprizes not the government. Why would you want the government to build the plants?

Its difficult to attract private enterprise into Canada because of high wage requirements and high taxes. Its a Catch-22 situation. Government bellars about getting private enterprise started, however they're unwilling to reduce taxes to a level that would actually induce start up businesses. So the people are left clammering for government to start those businesses. Even getting tax breaks for startups is next to impossible in this country. We're fighting for change, however its not coming near fast enough, if at all.

So when we ask for government assistance on something like this, its because its a necessity right now, not because we so desperately want to be looked after.

Rod
 
Sandhusker said:
Tommy said:
Sandhusker wrote:
""U.S. farmers don't care what they sell their crop for because Uncle Sam tops it off for them, so they're never losing money,"

That is incorrect.


BMR...So Sandhusker tell us how the US farm program works and how these crop prices are topped up.

Below are the average loan rates on grains. If the producer sells his crop for more than the loan rate he gets nothing. Even if his crop was below average or even lower. If he sold his crop for less than the loan rate, he can apply to get the difference between what he sold it for and what the loan rate is in his area. He can store his crop and take the loan on his crop and hope the market goes up.


2005 National Average Loan Rates
Commodity Loan Rates per Unit
Wheat $2.75 per bushel
Corn $1.95 per bushel
Grain Sorghum $1.95 per bushel
Barley $1.85 per bushel
Oats $1.33 per bushel
Upland Cotton $0.52 per pound
Extra Long Staple (ELS) Cotton $0.7977 per pound
Rice $6.50 per hundredweight
Soybeans $5.00 per bushel

Thanks, Tommy.

You see, BMR, there is no guarantee of a profit. Take corn for example. Pencil out what it costs to grow it even if all your land and equipment is paid for, which is not the case for most farmers, and see how $1.95 treats you.

Yes, our crops do have subsidies, no denying that. They're just not the golden deal some make them out to be.


That $1.95 US is about $1.50 Can more then canadian producers are getting. US producers haul peas straight from the field to canadian elevators at harvest prices because they can collect on the top ups. More peas and lentils are going in the ground this spring because the "Program" is better on those crops.

Even at $70 a barrel oil from the ground is cheaper then ethanol. Hard to believe but that's the case. That's why they all need tax incentive to do it.
 
BMR: " Even at $70 a barrel oil from the ground is cheaper then ethanol. Hard to believe but that's the case. That's why they all need tax incentive to do it."

You got that right, BMR. Brazil is the low cost producer of ethanol with cane sugar, not corn. There needs to be a little more work on the economic viability of ethanol and it probably will not come from corn, although state officials are pushing corn because of govt. subsidies.

This is really no way to run an agriculture department that is supposed to be the promise of energy independence.

BMR, there was a real good article in the Wall Street Journal on the viability of a huge oil field from SD to southern Saskachewan called the Williston Basin. I hope you are in it. If you are,don't sell your leases too cheap!!!
 
Tommy said:
Roper...Why cant the government build plants that would convert crops to ethanol and biodiesel?

That is being done down here, but by private enterprizes not the government. Why would you want the government to build the plants?

I would love to see the private sector start building plants. Problem is I dont see it happening even in Alberta which BTW Alberta is more conservate than the United States. We have lower corporate taxes, we are not enviromental wackos either. But its still not happening.
Saskatchewan would be the place to do it though because its mostly farming over there. SK went conservative in all but two ridings in the last federal election so im thinking they are going to be more pro bussiness in future.
You have to remember Canada is not like the US. There isnt really any money up here to build these plants except #1 If the government did it. #2 If American companies invested up here and built them.
But why not have both? Example a crown owned plant that competed with private owned plants. You see my big fear is that it would be like the packing industry up here. Example three private owned plants that worked together to manipulate the prices that they give to producers.
But even having said that, any plants no matter who owns them are better than none.
 
About American subsidys
Been about ten years since I was in MT but the way it used to be was they actually paid land owners not to use their land. No cattle grazing and no farming. I forget how much it was.
Do they still do this?
 
Econ101 said:
BMR: " Even at $70 a barrel oil from the ground is cheaper then ethanol. Hard to believe but that's the case. That's why they all need tax incentive to do it."

!

I dont believe it.
According to the university in Saskatoon we could reduce the price at the pump by 30% with ethanol. Sorry I dont have a link for this because I watched the interview on TV on an ag show.
People are making their own Bio diesel at home. They even sell kits to do it yourself and I can find links for that if you want. If it pays a guy to do it in his basement I dont see why it cant be done on a larger scale?
I do know one thing. The government of Alberta is very pro oil. Oil is the biggest part of our economy. I also suspect that donations from oil outfits to political parties up here are very important.
They dont seem to want to do anything that would piss off the oil companies.
 
Roper...Been about ten years since I was in MT but the way it used to be was they actually paid land owners not to use their land. No cattle grazing and no farming. I forget how much it was.
Do they still do this?

theHiredMansWife...The specific program you're describing is the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP):
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crp.htm

and yes, it is alive and well.
Commodity subsidies are considerably more profitable, though.

The CRP is still alive and well, but all land does not qualify to be enrolled in it. In my area the land had to have been farmed for so many years and on top of that it has to be highly erodible. So just because a person has land, doesn't mean that person can sign it up in CRP.
 
Tommy said:
The CRP is still alive and well, but all land does not qualify to be enrolled in it. In my area the land had to have been farmed for so many years and on top of that it has to be highly erodible. So just because a person has land, doesn't mean that person can sign it up in CRP.

Of course not.
That's why I gave a link to the USDA's website where it describes what the program does and doesn't do.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top