by SUSAN MANN
For part of this summer, Ontario’s non-supply managed commodities tried to convince the provincial government to remove the $100 million annual cap starting next year for their recently-launched risk management and self-directed risk management programs.
Dan Darling, president of the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association, says “we spent probably too long this summer trying to convince the government that $100 million (annually) should be expanded on.” But that idea fell on deaf ears.
So “we ended up just negotiating the best deal we could make,” he says, noting there are segments of the changed program that are a huge win for agriculture, including the ability to retain farmers’ premiums for future use.
In a July 14 letter to Brenda Lammens, chair of the Ontario Agricultural Commodity Council and Amy Cronin, working group commodity chair of the Ontario Agriculture Sustainability Coalition, provincial Agriculture Minister Ted McMeekin states agriculture in the province is facing significant changes. Farm groups need to face the changes ‘squarely’ and “make decisions to ensure the best possible outcome for a thriving agricultural sector,” McMeekin writes. Better Farming obtained the letter through a Freedom of Information request.
McMeekin states in the letter that he made it a priority to meet with commodity producers on several occasions in the weeks before July 14 but he was “concerned on a number of these occasions to see our energies focused on denial and resistance to change rather than working constructively to define a way forward.”
The agriculture minister called that approach “too narrow” and an unrealistic response given the province’s current circumstance. He advised the two groups that the risk management program had to be reformed in line with principles he outlined earlier, including that it had to fit fiscal restraints, demonstrate measurable benefits from public investment and leverage federal dollars where possible.
“The status quo is not an option,” he notes.
Industry and government rolled out the new programs this week. Darling says it was exhausting to develop the changes to the programs. “But we’re happy in general with the way it ended up.”
Commodity leaders would have been happier if the government allowed a bit more money towards the program than the $100 million annually, he adds. “Our numbers showed it didn’t need to be all that much more in order for it to have been a fully funded program most years. That was the discouraging part.”
Darling says it would have taken an estimated $150 million for most years. With that amount, “I would say nine out of 10 years it would have been a fully funded program.” BF
–– with files from Better Farming staff
RMP archive
Comments
What the heck is RMP is it another way so certain people can get free money to help line their pockets. What BS why don,t they just help out the farmers in bad years and forget giving some family member a job to collect a paycheque. They want you to sit down a fill papers out and know all the connections how to get it, and the people who farms by themselves never seems to have enough time to find all the dots to connect and end up with a goose egg . The big farmes that seems to have someone sitting by and knows evryone or ways to do it gets a fat cheque to take to the bank. So why don,t they send out facts to the farmers and I mean every farmer not just the big guy on their list so every one knows what to do.
On and on this RMP bad joke continues,,,,,, remember the hard times of the early 2000s. IT WILL BE INTERESTING IF BF KILLS THIS POST.
Farm People have forgot and farmleaders have changed blood. When usa and world grain supply becomes plentyfull again we are in BIG ECONOMIC income SHORTFALL, we are screwing up allowing this to happen and those farmers paying big $325 plus rents and buying $15000 dollar land has no simpathy from govt , minister and civil servants
It is laughable how this and other MPPs become Ontario agriculture ministers become experts on agri economic policy in short time. More laughable Liberal and Conservatve agr ministers produce the same crap. They then retire leaving farmers with bad worthless no teeth legislation, while the greedy GO GO economy of size farmers will ask for economic bail outs. Sooner or later Interest rate will climb and you know what! Go back and look at who was the farm org farmleaders the last 2 decades, what have we learned and what real possitive programs of real value do we have? Were are those farm leaders today and should they be allowed to be eventually be in the Ontario hall of fame? Look back at the policy views of farmleaders 4 to 7 years ago and you see a big void of undrstanding how to improve agriculture for society while giving hope to next generation farmers. Our leaders have fallen asleep.
We cannot spend our way out of this economic macro world problem and farmers like others will pay!
Just so you have it right . Here in the south end of Huron County we have a farmer tossing $350 out as an ice breaker to try rent land . So what is the real figure this cashcrop hog farmer is willing to pay ? 400 450 ???
Also land has sold for $22,000 acre .
A land price crash is a lot like a forest fire - it's needed to clear out the deadwood, and allow new seedlings to grow. We are definitely overdue to get rid of a lot of deadwood, mainly the entire baby-boom generation, especially those in supply management, and a crash is the best thing to ensure the next generation of farmers gets off to a good start. I won't be at the next Ottawa protest - I'll be at home helping aspiring farmers get their financing in place to buy bankrupt farms.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I also agree to not go to protest, will they bail out some that spent way too much , They let them go down in the 1930s and they were not guilty of spending through their A$$
Can anyone write in and tell me what and how to get and what,s all about this rmp. Like I said is it a secret or just for the big guys. Its no different than the crop insurance you have to be big to get in and collect , the goverment pays for a animal or a bird that is killed by wildlife and you don,t need insurance for them and if your crops are totaled by wildlife they say you got to have insurance to cover the loss no money without. So the people that do all the bitching about the SM farmers thinking its unfair to the rest open your eyes and look at all the other things that is unfair to the rest of the farmers and the country.Canada is selling out to the rest of the world and we just sit back and let it happens, time to start getting manufactoring jobs back here and not let us go to a high class, low class country. Can,t blame the sm farmers for wanting to have a stable income just like the goverment workers, look at the money wasted in there yet I guess its alright the small people can,t do anything about it.
The amount of money non sm farmers (grains and oilseeds, cattle, sheep, hogs and veal) have recieved and/or do recieve over the past 40 years from taxpayers is peanuts compared to the estimated 45 billion in quota capitol sm farmers (poultry and dairy) have gouged from consumers thanks to the government legislated price fixing system called supply management. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
Raube
Are you sure about that ? Seems that if I add up all the billions that get announced for ag every year be it Federal or Provincial it has to be many times more than that . At least the general public thinks so .
Joe Vermunt
The $45 billion is, by definition, the net-present-value of what dairy and poultry farmers expect to gouge from consumers in the future. This figure doesn't represent the actual dollar value of what supply management has gouged from consumers in the past, nor is it the actual dollar value of what farmers expect to gouge in the future. Net-present-value is, by definition, the amount you would take in cash today, instead of at some future time. For example, if you were to use a 5% interest rate, the net-present-value of a dollar you were to receive ten years from now, would be 61.4 cents, or, in other words you'd be just as well off to get 61.4 cents now, as you would be to get a dollar ten years from now. Therefore, in total dollar terms, the amount of wealth farmers expect to gouge from consumers in the future, is well-above the $45 billion. Unfortunately, this $45 billion is also what supply managed farmers mistakenly believe the government will pay them if supply management ends.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Wow. What is RMP???? Where have you been . Call agricorp or go online and google it. You will know quickly what RMP is. If you qualify and send in your premium you may get a payout . Whether you are big or small farmer . See it is based on animals produced or Kg 's of meat that make's it relevant to your production. Of course they need you to fill out an application . Is that not reasonable? If you do not have time to fill out an application you better consider getting out of this business because that is not going to get easier.
Mike Van Kessel
Forest
I don,t raise beef, pigs or sheep and I don,t have insurance on our crops , we kept getting the run around so we don,t have it. I guess I will just keep reading about the ones who depends on the goverment handouts so live.
Crop insurance is easy to get and I don't know how agricorp could possibly make it any easier for anyone, it's that simple. It does not matter if you are big or small. Crop insurance is directed at protecting your yield, where the other programs, like RMP are directed more at protecting your bottom line in case of extreme market fluctuations. Just who are you referring to in your last statement?
Why is it that there can't be a story printed that the SM haters have to try twist into a bash SM story .
I guess BF online has tuurned into the new "Ontag The Bullpen" .
Guess it won't matter till people stop subscribing to BF .
I think maybe that a do you want to recieve BF should be a question on this years FBR form .
Editor's note: We know that most of you have strong feelings about farming that's why anonymous comments and emails attacking or threatening to cancel your subscriptions aren't unusual. We've made a one-time exception to our policy and allowed this comment from an anonymous individual because we are interested in feedback on how useful our comments really are.
We invest resources in moderating these discussions. Most anonymous comments don't get published because they fall outside our existing rules. Many of these come from people who are looking for a safe way to attack organizations or individuals. Some publications have discontinued both signed and unsigned comments altogether for these reasons.
If you believe data from Alexa, the online statistics monitoring srvice, this website has the highest agricultural website traffic in Canada. That tells us we have a big responsibility to the farming community.
Here are a few of the questions we are asking ourselves.
Should we continue to allow comments or discontinue them?
Should we be allowing one group of farmers, even though they do identify themselves, to attack another group? If so should there be any limits?
How can our website policies best serve our online readers and the farming community?
Thank-you for taking the time to address this issue. I'm not a large enough farmer yet to have an FBR and receive the printed version of BF, so I only read what I see on the website, and frankly what I find in the comments sections after most articles is absolutely appalling.
Instead of comments these discussions belong in a forum setting, where the haters and flamers can go at each other and leave the rest of us alone! That would allow space for an even wider discussion (which might actually be more profitable) and since BF is already playing a moderating role it would be little more work than it is right now.
Frankly I don't care about anyone's opinions on supply management, the business practices of certain GFO's, or any of the other wild tangents the comments fly off into. I come here for important information about the business of farming, not partisan mudslinging.
Take Alexa with a grain of salt, but yes, a lot of farmers do read this (and a lot more probably should). There is important information here, and while the readership has a role to play in ensuring that BF provides balanced, objective journalism within the scope of its mandate the current format isn't helpful in fulfilling that role.
Thank-you for your time.
Please note
When BF edits or deletes a story they are changing the news and views of the people. Their job is to report, both sides of a story in a balanced fashion. To delete and edit, thereby changing the story is the very fine line of stifling freedom of speech, a very strong pillar of democracy and our constitution.
When a story is edited it is near impossible not to have some preference, bias or fear associated with that decision, which greatly takes away from any possibility of balanced reporting.
As for the SM stories... when passion prevails, reason fails, often fueled by the lure of the lira, and the need for greed.
Something for BF to consider
Signed postings are only one point of view, of one fools musings. Unsigned thoughtful postings may speak volumes in seeking accountability and a balanced view for the anonymous masses.
How do you know what gets edited? Please explain.
If it's just deleting insults or personal attacks on people how does that change the news? Isn't that what moderating is supposed to be for?
One big question is how do you keep balance with the free BF subscrpitions going to one farm organizion. This creats a story telling problem of freedom of speach, editing, special treatment.
We in Canada are showing poor example of fair true democracy by our poor examples of leadership, publishing, governing etc, Can you imagine people in egypt, syria looking at this BF site and other sites . They want democracy and we Canadians dont know what to do with it after we have it, we abuse it and allow non accountability
I've wondered what's going on there. You seem to publish quite a few comments about Better Farming and OFA that are critical.
Yes -you should keep allowing stories or comments.
No- a group of farmers should not be allowed to bash another group by name calling or trying to down grade him - her- or them for trying to make a living by signing their name or group and figure by doing so they are right. They have to have limits so the so call extremists doesn,t bullie the ones that would like to voice their opinion on a reasonable level knowing that a group or person is going to come after them because they have to sign their name.FREEDOM OF SPEECH
The website policies would best serve our online readers and farming community if they had some of the mps or mmps come on every month and give their views about the comments on the letters for the month and what they think should be address and not. I like to write in and give my views but I,m not writing my name in so I can have some loony on my doorstep, but I don,t write letters and do name calling or belittling someone that I don,t agree with either.There,s alot of hard working farmers that do all the work themselves and never get out to see the world and hear all the programs that going on for the farmers which its the job of the goverment to make sure they are imformed of them and know how use them. Like I said people like to criticize someone who doesn,t understand or know about a program and tell them to get out of farming if they don,t , well I hope you,s are not my neighbour or in my community.
Great work the Better Farming magazine is doing for the farmers that love to farm and is not out there to controlled the whole country side.
VERY GOOD BALANCED REPLY we must also plan and help the next generation farmer we cannot help if we dont understand the past decades flaws and explain them to people so harm never happens again, but we never hold leaders or organizations accountable. Look around Ontario, much has been down in the past 100 years, bridges roads,cannals many done and paid for between 1930 and 1970. Today we cannot even fully fund repairing the above with out creative slight of hand debt.
The bottom line is nobody wants to talk straight calling an ACE AN ACE, A SPADE A SPADE, then when people do post frankly to get the point out there it becomes hurtful to others
There has been serious policy mistakes made in the past decades and no body is accountable and we are paying for it, we kick the can
Our fathers and grandfathers if alive to day would be amazed at the wonderful things we have today, However Today the policy , politics hide time proven verifyable truth while pushing ventures of personal gain. We can not fix stupid
I thought things reached an all time low when you allowed large numbers of anonymous attacks against OFA. I think the number of comments has increased since then and if you separate out the posts where people try to find an angle to bash SM I would say the quality has been going up. I've learned a lot from some anonymous comments.
Post new comment