November 2001

Tax consequences severe

   Douglas Matthews (Letters, Better Farming, October 2001) didn't get the message. Instead of rebate cheques from the provincial treasury, "farmland" and "managed forest" ratepayers (since 1998) get a tax credit from their local municipal government. This property tax credit means that all ratepayers in a municipality must pay more property tax to make up the loss of rebate cheques.
    This may be okay in places like the new City of Ottawa with a large urban and commercial assessment base. However, for municipalities having a high "farmland," "managed forest" and "conservation land"" assessment base, the tax consequences for your neighbours and your own residence may be severe.
    Property tax rebates for "farmland," "managed forests" and "seniors," by the way, were introduced as an interim measure in 1975. The current government re-instated the "managed forests" rebate in 1995, which had been terminated in 1993 by the NDP government. Too bad about "seniors."     On the other hand, a landowner in the Collingwood area with property designated as "escarpment natural area" may be in for a handsome federal income tax credit when it is turned over to a land trust. Or it may fetch a fair market price if the Nature Conservancy of Ontario or the Escarpment Biosphere Nature Conservancy take a shine to it. Then there's no property tax collected at all!
Bob Woolham,
North Augusta




Chatham Daily News turns a deaf ear

    I really enjoy reading your magazine, especially the article on sewage spills in your October 2001 issue. Which brought to mind of a letter I wrote and submitted to the Chatham Daily News on September 9, 2000. I was so impressed with last year's article in Better Farming concerning bypasses and spills that I faxed the article to the editorial department of the News looking for a response.
    Holly Lake (reporter) called me a short time later and asked me for my thoughts. At that time there was a lot of attention drawn to farmers and their pollution practices. I remember the bad press farmers were getting then, including a protest at city hall, and the press coverage was emotional as well as confrontational. Livestock farmers seemed to bear the brunt of the accusations.
    After a couple of weeks, I called Ms. Lake to check on the status of my letter. Her reply was that she was very busy and didn't have time to go back to this issue. A couple more weeks went by and I called Ms. Lake again with the same question. Her reply this time was that she would hand it over to the editorial department. I don't think that's where it went, considering the one-sided press coverage at that time. My letter on this issue has never been published in the Chatham Daily News.
    Seeing this month's issue in Better Farming reminded me of that letter. I support your magazine's stance on pollution.
Henry Ptaszynski,
Merlin




Lawyers like us too

I read with interest Rob Gamble's helpful article on family farm transfers (Better Farming October, 2001). I cannot emphasize enough the need for the family to take a very careful look at what Mr. Gamble refers to as the "human aspect" early on in the process. A lawyer familiar with such issues can help the family sort things out and work with the financial advisors to put a plan in place. While the tax issues are complex, they can be just the tip of the iceberg in terms of complexity when dealing with the "human aspect."
Congratulations on your excellent publication.
Robert A. Wilson
Wilson, Spurr LLP
Lawyers
St. Catharines





top













October 2001

Grain producers losing out
The production of wheat and other grains in Ontario is at a crossroads: all are being produced at below cost. One way being considered to increase the return to growers is to produce Identity Preserved (IP) varieties, such as a certain wheat variety destined for Nabisco's flour mill in Toledo. Locally, approximately 3,000 tonnes were produced with a $10 premium attached.
The required certified seed cost $35-$40 per acre and the grain was delivered to designated elevator locations. These locations do not pay the $5 per tonne paid by end users, so the net bonus available on a per tonne basis is halved at $5 per tonne. Bin run seed costing $10 per acre last year yielded the same amount, in many cases. IP growers, who thought they were going to improve their bottom line, actually lost. The question, then, is who benefited? Obviously, Nabisco got their wish, a supply of IP wheat with which to produce their products at a positive margin on sales. The broker of this deal, a southern Ontario company, locked up its margins successfully. The Ontario wheat board got their marketing fee with no risk or service. The seed company enjoyed its full margin on sales.
The only person I see not winning is the one taking all the risks of price, weather, quality and yield. These growers, who are taking advantage of the latest technology and the life sciences revolution as they have been instructed, are the only ones not benefiting. It remains to be seen if this market will enjoy increased growth this year, based on growers' bottom lines.
It is the goal of seed breeders, seed companies and the Ontario wheat board to expand the production of wheat in Ontario through better science. We are not using all the knowledge available to us today, as the price of wheat is below cost of production and many farmers will not produce at these levels, Check the declining producer numbers.
Technology and the life sciences by themselves will not make us successful without first creating sound business principles on which to sell this crop. Without a positive margin on our sales, which may include government support, we will fail. We must focus on the continuing erosion of our equity. And we must develop programs and the marketing skills of our Ontario wheat board and our producers to strengthen, rather than erode, our position. It is only then that we will be able to enjoy the full benefits that technology has to offer us, the producers.
John Doner
John Doner Ltd.,
Gormley




Stop whining!
 Bob Woolham, author of the letter "Whose public interest?" which appeared in your May 2001 issue, is a whiner. I thought the days when knowledgeable farmers complained about the cost of conservation practices and managed forests were long gone.
Farmers have benefited substantially for years from lower property assessment and lower municipal tax rates. Only more recently have the scales been equalized. I have been "tree farming" for more than 50 years on about 600 acres and only since Premier Harris leveled the playing field by rating managed forests equally with farming has recognition been given to the benefits of wood production. It almost inevitably takes place on poorer soils, usually unsuitable for farming except for grazing.
The farm community has decimated our Ontario wetlands over the past 100 years. I would hope the farm community by now recognizes the importance in the ecological process of wet lands. Someone should educate this dinosaur!
Douglas Matthews
Collingwood




Great web site
I just had a look at your web site and want to thank you for putting together such a comprehensive ag site. It's so good that I'll mention it in my upcoming sheep production column that runs in Grainews and the Shepherd's Journal.
Peter Schroedter
Moosehorn, Man


top



















June/July 2001

Winnipeg livestock conference

I read with great interest Don Stoneman's article in your March issue, "More skirmishes in the livestock wars." We have had similar experiences in Western Canada, though the hog industry still manages to find sites that are generally acceptable.
Your readers may be interested in a conference called "Livestock -- Options for the Future," to be held in Winnipeg June 25-27. We have put together a package of tours of the latest in technologies and a full slate of leading speakers on how livestock operations can minimize their impact on the environment. For details, visit our website: http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/newsmanureconf/ Livestock producers, municipal officials and industry personnel are being invited to attend.

Andrew Dickson
Director, Regional Agricultural Services Division
Manitoba Agriculture and Food





A first for Genetiporc

I enjoyed reading the lead article in your April issue, "Animal welfare niche," and thought that I should bring some news to your attention. In March, our pork processing division in Quebec announced that it was the first company to receive the American Humane Association's free-farmed label. I would be pleased to assist you in finding more information about this and the branded product "Natural Pork" that originates with Genetiporc animals.

Ivor Bernatsky, General Manager
Genetiporc Canada Inc.





Small hydro sites an uphill struggle

I would appreciate your printing this note to correct a misunderstanding in your April article, "Farmers switch on to wind and sun." The 600 kW hydro generating plant referred to in the sidebar is one of three plants constructed and operated by my partner and myself in the late 1980s. That particular plant is located on the Saugeen River, near Hanover, and not at our farm. It has always sold power to the Ontario power grid, so it is an on-grid situation, and that was not the basis of your article. I sold my interest in that plant in recent years.
The mill site on our farm is quite small in capacity. Two small water turbines rated at 25 and 15 hp utilize the water flow from a creek and a 4.5 metre-high dam. My family first generated direct current power from these mill turbines for lighting and power for refrigeration before rural electrification. In recent years, and as a hobby, we have generated some power for personal use, both electrically and also directly to operate a shingle saw.
The process of developing a green field small hydro site that requires a new dam and headpond on a flowing stream or river is certainly an uphill struggle today, particularly in Southern Ontario. Many government agencies and public groups have something to say about a private development, and the process is onerous, costly and success is not guaranteed.
Nevertheless, there have always been people interested in this truly renewable form of energy, and interest has increased along with escalating energy costs. There are a few small private hydro plants generating electricity in Southern Ontario for personal or homestead use, generally making best use of existing sites which were originally developed for water-powered feed and saw mills.
If some of your readers are interested in looking further into the issue of small waterpower, there is an active Canadian chapter of the Society for the Protection of Old Mills. It arranges site visits (usually twice a year) to water-powered mills and generating stations, and is also a good information source for mills and waterpower sites that are available for sale. The secretary-treasurer is Ms. Maryanne Szuck, who can be contacted by telephone at (519) 633-5577. The Society also has a Canadian web page giving details at www.hips.com/spoomcanada

William Trick, P. Eng.
Clinton





Decade-long discrimination

Ontario rye growers produce and sell rye for livestock feed, soil retention enhancing activities and rye bread consumption. Western rye growers have been included for years in the federal component of any matching aid, while Ontario rye growers were excluded. The price of rye has fallen from $180 per tonne in 1996 to $80 per tonne in 2000.
Rye is grown mainly in Oxford, Brant, Elgin, Norfolk and Middlesex Counties. Net Income Stabilisation Account records could provide a five-year data set for individual rye producers with provincial input on averages. Without the involvement of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to champion fairness and equity, Ontario rye growers will go grey waiting for this decade-long discrimination to end.

Hugh C. Zimmer
Otterville

AgMedia Co-operative Inc..


top






















May 2001


Moving to Guelph?

Regarding the reported move of Ontario Pork to Guelph, I wouldn't want to embarrass our pork industry. In light of Guelph's record, with 11 "manure" spills and 41 "manure"" bypasses last year, I'm not sure we can allow the addition of any more "animal units" in Guelph until more manure storage is added, the nutrient management plan is revised and the contingency spills plan is re-done. Why not treat Guelph like farmers? No nutrient management plan, no building permit, no more development.
Mervyn Erb
Certified Crop Consultant
Huron AgVise Inc.
Brucefield





Humane Pigs

I enjoyed reading "the animal welfare niche market," lead article from your April 2001 issue of Better Pork and thought that I should bring the attached news to your attention. Earlier this month, our pork processing division in Quebec made the announcement that they were the first company to receive the American Humane Association's free-farmed label. I would be pleased to assist you in finding more information about this and the branded "Natural Pork" product that originates with Genetiporc animals.
Ivor Bermatsky
Gneral Manager Genetiporc Canada Inc.





Renewing CURB

At a beef production meeting in Keady in March, a speaker told us about the strict regulations that are in place in Quebec. There, the government pays up to 70 per cent of the cost of corrective measures needed to conform. Here in Ontario, a former government ran the Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) program which covered up to 75 per cent of the cost of fencing off waterways and pasture watering systems. The Harris government axed the program in their slash-and-burn mode, and so beaches along Lake Huron continue to have bathing prohibitions from time to time. The federal government also discontinued their funding to the Environmental Farm Plan program. (Editors' note: The EFP was renewed at the end of March, just before the program was due to run out.)
The press has been carrying stories on angry farmer reaction to the federal government's too modest relief program. In the euphoria over North American free trade, our farmers are supposed to compete with U.S. farmers. For every dollar Canada pays farmers in subsidies, the U.S. and European governments pay more than double. Subsidies in other countries are sometimes hidden. The U.S. Department of Agriculture pays out nearly US $40 million just for its school lunch program.
The government of Canada, in concert with the provinces, could finance a greatly expanded Environmental Farm Plan program. It would be a timely subsidy (or call it something else), highly advantageous to society as a whole.
Jim Boynton
Chesley



Editor's Note: Last month, Mr. Boynton was made an honourary life member of the Ontario Institute of Agrologists. He served as secretary-manager of the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board between 1956 and 1975, followed by eight years as vice-chairman of the National Farm Products Marketing Board.





Whose public interest?

Who is paying to protect the "public interest" in rural Ontario? Adequate acreages of public lands (and waters), "managed forests" and "farmlands" are, of course, important to all of us. All these classes of land have been recognized in the past as deserving of broad public support.
In Ontario, land owned by conservation authorities was exempted from municipal tax in 1994. In 1998, the cost to the province of this support was downloaded to the local municipality. The new rules mean less money and higher taxes in the countryside. While "conservation land" and "managed forests" seem largely driven by urban ambitions and the benefits of public access in the countryside, (or in stopping development), it is the local ratepayers who now must shoulder the tax revenue lost.
Prior to 1998, the municipal tax bill was paid in full by all landowners and an extra $150-$180 million flowed in as rebate cheques to the owners of "farmland," "managed forests" and "conservation lands." These rebates were cancelled starting in 1998. Since then the cost of this public support has been handed to rural ratepayers. No wonder rural communities are struggling economically, facing higher taxes as well as the loss of large revenue transfers from the province.
By my reckoning, about $300 extra per rural household is now needed in property taxes to support the new tax credit and exemption system. Not a small sum. In practice, these extra tax charges would devolve upon any rateable local industry or business. Each municipality and its ratepayers will be impacted differently, according to the proportion of classes of rateable properties, and according to the number of properties within the municipality mandated to receive a 75 per cent tax credit or tax exemption.
"Conservation lands" which would qualify for full exemption are likely to increase more rapidly in the future. More and more land is being mapped in Official Plans by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and many special interest groups are working at expanding this process throughout Ontario as quickly as possible. Land Trusts are popping up all over. So apparently are "species at risk." As well, the federal government has recently enhanced income tax credits for "ecological gifts." All such lands will qualify for property tax exemption. So higher local taxes, or less service, or both, seems assured for municipalities in which these lands are located.
Some conservation land is fine, of course. But who pays? Is it fair? When is enough enough? I think we need a better, more equitable system for all landowners and all ratepayers. In my view, there must be a better way to accommodate the "public interest" than the one that has landed so unevenly on the countryside.
Bob Woolham
North Augusta






Editor's Note: In the March issue of Better Farming, Anita Frayne of Ashfield Township in Huron County was identified as a spokesperson for the Agricultural Livestock Expansion Response Team (ALERT). She is actually a member of PROTECT, which is a member group of ALERT.

AgMedia Co-operative Inc..


top