By BETTER FARMING STAFF
The nine industry-specific points that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has outlined in a mandate letter to Canada’s new minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food are “right on the money as far as we’re concerned,” says the Ontario Federation of Agriculture’s general manager.
“Our priorities are all in there that we (the federation) spoke of during the election with a couple of things that are added bonuses,” says Neil Currie.
Those perks include a directive to rebuild the federal agricultural research capacity and another one to develop a food policy that draws on Canadian products to deliver healthy living and food safety.
“That’s almost like our national food strategy,” says Currie of the food policy, referring to the strategy the Canadian Federation of Agriculture had developed a few years ago.
What is refreshing, he adds, is the decision to make the prime minister’s mandate letters to his cabinet ministers public. “It’s very helpful for us.”
The letters were released Friday and it’s the first time mandates to ministers have been made public at the federal level. Last year, Ontario’s premier, Kathleen Wynne, publically released mandate letters to ministers in her new government, making her priorities clear.
Alfons Weersink, a professor in the University of Guelph Food Agriculture and Resource Economics department, says while Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Lawrence MacAulay’s letter contains some components that are reflective of the overall priorities of the new government, “I’m not sure if it would have been much different regardless of which party had won the election.”
For example, a review of the federal agriculture income support programs, one of the objectives listed, is part of a well-defined and routine approach to the development of agricultural policy. “Every five years they’ll take a look, work with the provinces and producers to see what needs to be changed,” Weersink says.
Carrying more of the Liberal platform stamp “is looking at the climate change aspects and what investments will help the ag sector in moving to a more sustainable system,” he says.
The proposal to create an investment fund that will help create jobs in food processing is unique as well, he adds. “Increasingly we’re seeing that what is really important to the success of the agricultural sector is having a viable processing sector.”
But ultimately, the mandate letter’s objectives are broad, even “a little vague,” Weersink says.
Both Currie and Weersink concur that the objectives and how the new government ranks them in terms of priority should become more apparent once the new Liberal majority government establishes its first budget early in the new year.
However, Weersink adds, some of that priority establishing will involve negotiation with the provinces — “in terms of income support programs for sure.”
Other agriculture and agrifood objectives Trudeau lists are:
- “Promote Canadian agricultural interests during future trade negotiations;”
- Review components affecting agriculture in the review of the Canadian Transportation Act and help to ensure transportation infrastructure for agriculture is in place and has the capacity to meet its needs; and
- Support the goal of the ministers of Natural Resources and Environment and Climate Change “in making investments that will make our resource sectors world leaders in the use and development of clean and sustainable technology and processes.”
While MacAulay now has a mandate, a receptionist responding to a Better Farming call to the minister’s office Friday afternoon said he does not yet have staff. No official photo of the minister is available. BF
Comments
The test of agriculture's mandate will be when the protectionist and regressive evils of supply management rub avowed free-traders like Trade Minister, Chrystia Freeland, Finance Minister, Bill Morneau, and/or John McCallum, the former bank economist who is also in Cabinet, the wrong way.
Stephen Harper, in the same way that he ran everything as his personal fiefdom, swallowed his education in economics for the sake of political expediency, and kept his Cabinet and caucus from criticizing supply management - Justin Trudeau doesn't have Harper's ability to instill fear in his Cabinet, arguably has far-more economic talent in his Cabinet than Harper, and has even gone so far as to claim that his Cabinet Ministers will be able to be relatively independent. Therefore, it's doubtful that cross-Cabinet scuffles won't break out between agriculture's protectionist bent and the free-trade inclinations of those in Cabinet who have more clout than the ag Minister and who are prepared to be vocal about it.
As an indication of the "winds of change" already underway, the statement:
"promote Canada's agricultural interests during future trade negotiations"
can mean anything to anyone, but notably does NOT vow to defend supply management at all costs, a welcome change from the Soviet-style protectionist rhetoric of past governments.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I believe your anti-Supply Management ship has sailed.Someone should remind you of what party and what 2 provinces were instrumental in bringing legislative SM for the dairy industry.They weld the power now, not the West.
I have no doubt the TPP will be ratified at some point after a number of issues by a number of Country's are amended.Anything more or something called "wind of change" is simply grasping at straws.lts retoric that usually comes from west of Manitoba, or of course a pork producers meeting.
Yes the ship has sailed leaving Stephen and a couple others standing on the dock with their water wings on and duckie tubes around their waist . As for a one time pork meeting that seems to have been a ghost or phantom resolution . Not a word about it since or maybe leadership put a damper on it .
Anonymous posters, especially those who support supply management, should be reminded that ships most-often sink at sea, and rarely, if ever, at anchor, Pearl Harbor excepted.
And insofar as "rhetoric" is concerned, it appears that our national press, the only press to which politicians pay any attention, is, if anything, increasing its condemnation of supply management, and rightly-so, now that supply management can no longer hide behind the flag of "receiving no government money whatsoever".
And, really, it's of no importance what provinces were instrumental in the formation of supply management, especially now that Martha Hall-Findlay's numbers have shown that supply management, thanks to the hugely-reduced numbers of quota-owning farmers, has effectively no electoral clout at all and might, at best, influence the electoral outcome of only 8 ridings, most of which, at least the ones in Ontario, didn't vote Liberal at all - therefore, if Justin Trudeau was to simply get rid of supply management, not only would he likely lose no seats, he'd probably gain seats at the expense of the NDP by appealing to poor voters who would benefit from the elimination of supply management.
Finally, at the risk of turning an inept metaphor proffered by an anonymous poster into a more-appropriate naval metaphor, while the anti-Supply management "ship" may have sailed", it is manned by over 30 million consumers, it is fully-armed, dangerous and able to sink supply management's luxury yacht, manned by a feeble contingent of some 16,000 quota owning aristocrats, from well-over the horizon.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
The problem is that SM is not on the ship but on dry land with no fear of drowning .
I have heard stories of ships boats sinking while tied at a dock . Just so you know it does happen .
It's supply management's arrogance and belief that they are immune to the whim of government that will eventually be their downfall - unfortunately, we may lose, and it appears we will, a complete generation of non-supply managed farmers before we "level the playing field" among Canadian farmers.
The "best and brightest" of our youth are simply not going to squander their lives pursuing their farming dreams when the cost of entry is, thanks to supply management, land priced at up to 50:1 price earnings multiples.
Hope is coming, thanks to TPP, in that supply management will no longer be able to claim it receives no government subsidies, and without that "shield", a crack has appeared in "fortress supply management", and as noted by some, a crack only gets bigger - but can 25-year-old non-supply managed farmers wait that long? Not likely!
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
There are a lot of young families renting in towns and cities because they can't afford the high costs of a house.
A 25 year old wannabe farmer is not going to get a lof of sympathy from the urban centres because he/she can't buy a farm,which is probably a heck of a lot more than a house!
For the first time in history, and certainly for the first time in my more-than 40 years as a farm management practitioner, we have oodles of 37-year-old "beginning" farmers who have been farming for a dozen years or more, and who, thanks to the land-grabbing ability 200% tariff barriers have given to supply management, still do not own a farm and who, instead, have bought good, affordable houses in rural towns where they wait for supply management, and the aristocracy-creating cancer it has inflicted on agriculture, to end.
While Canadian housing prices, both on an ownership basis and a rental basis are over-valued on an affordability index, even in Huron County which, thanks to an annual decrease in population, has the most-affordable housing anywhere, housing is still a bargain compared to farmland - more to the point, any (long-overdue) correction in Canadian real estate values would affect farms to a far-greater extent than housing.
I keep telling these young farmers, a good many of them my clients, that sometime during their career, they'll be able to trade their fully-paid-for house in Clinton, Goderich or wherever, for a 100-acre farm with the same quality of house as their house in town - that was the case in 1973 and again in 1986, but it won't happen again until we get rid of supply management.
A good-many people think that economics is all about numbers, but a great part of economics deals with "socio-economics" or the study of human responses to given economic situations and/or stimuli - therefore, while many members of the farm community, and simplistic farm groups, fall all over themselves to brag about the economic contributions of protectionist agricultural policies, they never deal with, or even consider, for example, the socio-economic costs of opportunities denied to these 37-year-old victims of agricultural protectionism.
It's time we recognized, and admitted, that the victims of supply management have been victimized.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
BUT Does our good new Government see this ,Im fifty I could not get money to get into sm cause my dad was not into supply management for backing , so as I see it chicken farmers got another allocation plus 43 bill payment that should increase land values up additional 5000 an acre I would like to keep farming but there is not a chance in hell to keep up with just cash crop and no federal rmp
There are many area's of this Province were cash croppers are doing very well,in fact to the point were they are out-bidding Supply Management farmers for land.Some of them near us rent or own over 2,000 acres with lots of shiny new equipment and few of them had SM backing.So you would have to ask you financial institution why you can't be one of them.
Blaming chicken farmers for expanding is like blaming consumers for eating more chicken,maybe try getting the pork and beef prices down in grocery stores so that chicken wouldn't look so appealing... That would teach those land grabbing chick guys.
Not long ago, 2006 to be exact, the fortunes of the Ontario grains industry were lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut. Since then, Ontario grain farmers have ridden the "shooting star" of ethanol mandates, going from zero net incomes to 6 or even 7 figure annual net incomes - but it's over.
US farm management people (particularly at Pro Farmer) are advising farmers to lower their land rent payments by $100 per acre for 2016 in order to break even - not doing so will take $100,000 of net farm income right out of the pocket of every 1,000 acre grain farmer.
One hopes that farms purchased by Ontario grain farmers in the past five years have been for cash, rather than financed by debt, because it soon could be 2006 all over again.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
An excellent comment and so true. SM is now officially a subsidy and a burden to the taxpayer.
How things work.
No order in council was passed.
No payments can be made.
Election promises are meaningless if the guy making them loses.
People fooled by the shell game because it fits their narrative.
Yes, TPP and it's conditions received initial signatures. Since then the new Federal Government has an opportunity for some reconsideration before continuing with TPP. Payments to SM like the one's currently on the TPP table are likely 100% at the new Government's discretion v/v the other signatories.......so changes are likely possible. Also, please note that the CETA Agreements are still not yet ratified, so SM may not see loss of market or any payments under TPP for a few years to come, if at all. Then, you can declare the subsidy as above. Thank you.
Supply management has stood on the narrowest pin-point of the truth for four decades by boasting about being unsubsidized by government, yet studiously ignoring and even denying the truth that they are subsidized to the hilt by consumers.
It's this egregious slipperiness with the truth that exemplifies everything rotten about supply management, and given how duplicitous supply management has been with the truth about subsidies for over four decades, giving supply management a well-deserved and long-overdue "taste of their own medicine", even if it's only for a short while, looks really good on them.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I believe we have already had a mass number of young people who did not enter into farming not just because of SM but for more reasons . Those being that Gov was not willing to give agriculture the programs that were/are needed to ensure a living let a lone a profit and surely not any sort of equity with other countries farmers . Parents too have told their sons & daughters that there are good , many times better ways to make a living off of the farm or more so instead of farming . So many times it is that when you talk to Gov their first word out of their mouth is SM farming . It really is like no other agriculture exists in this country .
Our General farm orgs also are not with out blame in this either . Many just spin their wheels and really don't do any thing . They do like to say they are working for and helping young people to get started but sorry member benefit programs do not put profit in Ag . I might buy a new truck after I make a profit from my farm . We need good effective farm support programs first and foremost .
Leveling the playing field could mean to bringing "up" the income of farm sectors who are not receiving enough. Removing marketplace power like what SM does will only enslave "the best and brightest" to a lifetime of hard work with no reward.
At the present, supply management very-much enslaves the "best and brightest" non-supply managed farmers to a lifetime of hard work with no reward, and to try to defend supply management by claiming that eliminating it would condemn supply managed farmers to a lifetime of hard work, is exactly like claiming that slavery should have been preserved because without slavery, everybody in Mississippi became poor.
Supply management supporters, like anyone with legislated privileges, never see that their benefits are benefits denied to others and they also refuse to understand that, as has been amply and well-demonstrated in economic history, everyone prospers when protectionist priveleges are taken away from the favored few.
Until we recognize, and admit, that supply management has created a rural aristocracy, complete with all the flaws inherent in any aristocracy, the gulf between the land-grabbing aristocrats and the chronically-marginalized will widen.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Students of language, and people with legislated priveleges to defend, carefully scrutinize everything written by government - therefore, government's use of the word "promote" rather than the word "defend" in reference to Canadian agricultural interests in future trade talks, is significant as well as quite deliberately-chosen.
"Defend" is the word government would have used if supply management was more important than not - that it used "promote" would indicate, thankfully and at long-last", that protecting supply management is less important than advancing export interests.
Therefore, what's in a word? - hopefully everything!
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Although I agree with you we who are not SM still should be skeptical until we see real results . Gov can say they are promoting while still being stuck on protection of one sector . You could really say that all gov's & Ag Ministers until Ritz/Harper sold out non Sm ag for the apparent protection of SM . They should really be recognized and given an award by the non SM ag sectors .
Moving forward how will SM spin things to down play that they are not getting support or gov subsidies ? Will SM be made easier for young people to enter or will they still be shut out unless they inherit the right to produce . We are supposed to be a free country . Should we not also be free to produce "ALL" ag products with out restrictions & limits ?
Wally Smith, President of the Dairy Farmers of Canada (DFC) is already claiming that the proposed billions in federal subsidies aren't subsidies, but rather, "compensation".
Smith, of course, and as always, is trying to have it both ways - in his mind, supply management wasn't a subsidy because the subsidy came from consumers, not from government, but now that money is to come from government, it still isn't a subsidy because it is "compensation".
What's worse is that, according to Smith, money coming from the governments of other countries to their dairy farmers is still a subsidy, but when the same thing happens in Canada, it's not.
And then Smith still can't figure out why supply management was dubbed "lactosa Nostra" by CBC reporter, David Cochrane, earlier this year.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
A student of language
Editor: Anonymous comment will be published in its entirety if resubmitted and signed.
As I understand it, supply management was implemented to provide stability to both prices and supply of select agricultural products for both the producers and the consumers. Prior to supply management, there were large fluctuations in the availability of products like milk due to the season nature of agriculture in Canada, that resulted in larger fluctuation in prices (gouging consumers in off-season, not profiting producers in peak season). Supply management appears to have addressed these issues, but brought in others in relation to 'subsidies' and trade issues. Lack of supply management in dairy in the US has resulted in government subsidy through purchase of excess milk to avoid dairy producer bankruptcy. Lack of supply management in New Zealand results in extreme seasonality in production and dependence on export to Asian markets (probably with risk of market access issues as experienced by Canada's non-supply managed beef industry after May 2003). Recognizing both the benefits and negatives of supply management, I have no clear for or against viewpoint. There is an issue with supply management that does concern me...if it is removed, how will that be accomplished? Will quota simply be abolished with massive economic loss to existing producers? Or, will it be bought out at full value by government (another form of subsidy)? Either way, Canadian producers will be subjected to an production and marketing environment that they may not well prepared to compete in. If the supply management 'solution' that the people of Canada have supported is removed, I believe the people of Canada need to find a way of accomplishing this without bankrupting the Canadian dairy industry. Argument in favour of removing supply management is inadequately developed without consideration of how to accomplish this. The alternative will be too similar to the ending of the Canadian Wheat Board and the argument by some producers that this was little more than a way of transferring producer collective resources to government coffers.
Post new comment