Farmers Matter draws 800

© AgMedia Inc.

Farmers and politicians grapple with ways to make Ontario’s livestock sector sustainable

Photo: Wayne Easter

Comments

Did anyone have the presence of mind to remind Wayne Easter that he, and his former Liberal government, had approximately 18 years to do something about this problem, yet did absolutely nothing?

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Mr. Easter admitted that himself on the podium!

Easter should be ashamed to show up in anything less than sackcloth and ashes for his and the Liberal's part in agricultures multi term decline during his years. Same goes for Goodale and Vanclief. All deserve to hang their heads in shame for not having the backbone to stand up to bureaucrats and opposition to achieve what was needed for their constituent farmers.

As for the present, plain and simple, Harper said he would scrap CAIS for a program that worked. Ritz has said all programs must be national in scope Strahl dreamed of bankable dependable and predictable. Simply put they have all failed to achieve and lied about their promises.

Our representative voices seem ok with that, but it has been said by pollsters recently Ontario can not be won by the GTA vote alone. The rural reconciliation card could be played but won't even be dealt by any present board representation or GFO.

If this group does not sacume to a love in, they may be at the right time to be a force of reckoning.

A legacy of failure is exactly right. I've been to enough of these desperate meetings to know that all it is........is a chance to let off some steam. That one about a level playing field with Quebec was brought up in 1997/98 and nothing has happened in the ensuing years.
One of these days farmers will realize that they are looking at this completely different than the politicians. Farmers are trying to find ways to get assistance like RMP or a level playing field. Nothing wrong with any of that, but the politicians don't look at it that way. They have a score card and try to score political points to get re-elected or to last long enough to get their pension.
I have to ask,is the government really the solution, or is this a waste of time?

So te big question is how do we as farmers get our directors and organizations to be more firm and demanding of our MPs to supply better programs? What does it take to get their attention?

Legacies of failure
Bet your nieghbours sow and boar hog, what ever.....on what ever

Farmers need Performance Measurement of farm organizations, CEO's and board of directors, agriculture ministers

The free ride needs to end

By drawing on the private sector’s methods of collecting data that help improve for-profit business models, nonprofit and other farm organizations dedicated to improve net farm income, should have to use performance measurement to continually assess their efficiency, sustainability, and progress toward achieving their missions for their farmer shareholders. This completly lacking in agriculture's general farming but is highly visable in agribusiness,somewhat in federal and provicial government and is draining dollars and services from farmers bottom line. Were does farmers net income and profit stand in the organizations mission statement objective compared to advocacy and research?

Performance measurement for farm organizations, etc. gives

Ability to track progress over time of organization,CEO, directors , staff
Evaluation of process changes of success and weakness, flaws

Accountability and expected specific deadlines on time frame to meet farmer expectations
Developing action plans and setting strategic direction to improve net farm income,

A documented process that rewards or weeds out employees for progress or lack of in sustained net farm income improvement

Business corporations do external regular employee manager audits and performance measurments to get improvement.

Farmers send in resolutions to farm organizations which boards take under advisement and dont have to act. Directors are accountable only to the board until re election time.

But Mr. Easter, it was Mr. Van Clief the brought in the dysfunctional CAIS program. Van Clief destroyed any semblance of support programs to welfare programs for farmers.

Now we pay 2 premiums for the same program (RMP and Agri_stability) but only collect once. The support programs have become revenue generators for both levels of government.

Farming has been going down hill since and imports keep rising with little inspection.

This BF story is an other example why farm legislation in Canada is so poorly developed for farm net income survival

1 farmers expect to do the same old thing(meetings etc,) but want a different result from the past.

2 Wayne Easter and liberal govt had 15 plus years but did little of positive lasting results, and previous conservative fed govt no better. Mean while farmers aged. Both Fed and Prov govts produce poor safty net programs. But then again with a perfect perfect program farmers would go nuts and spend, expand,etc what ever

3 Mr Hardeman was OMAFRA agr minister, what was his record of performance for farm programs past?

4Check out MP Shipley record of performance on agriculture.Does it show he must follow party line and does not represent his local farm people needs for farm programs? If MR Shipley displeases Mr Harper, Harper could refuse to sign Shipley's needed re-election permisson document.
The above #1 reason why MPs dont HELP produce farm legislation as do USA congressmen and senators

5 Mr Hardeman is correct on few farmers needing and using risk management program in 2010 because of high prices of commodities. Perth MPP John Wilkinson states the program was designed by farmers, he says. He is correct but was it was disigned by elite farm leaders who disregarded ordinary commerical farmers needs, for a generic program with of all accountant general accepted business expense cost lines( not just direct cost expense line items). Was the program watered down hoping that the federal govt would come on board with its 60% funding? The result being a watered down program that less and less farmers and acreage total are declining in years from 2007 to 2009

6 Some retired farm leaders are aware of the failure facts but for various reasons remain silent not wanting to admit or in public admit their part why failure continues.

7 How can livestock farmers buy feed corn yet complete because of corn ethanal use?

In Canada on and on this failure goes, farmers keep having meetings with farm organization restructuring decade after decade while changing farm leader/ MP/govt after farm leader /MP/govt and few good results has resulted compared to the USA farm system

One exception being the Canada Supply Management System

You would think Canada's Auditor Fraser or farmers would start questioning what is wrong with our system of governing Farmers of agriculture

But Auditor General Fraser is indeed auditing Agriculture Canada and their support programs. She has a team working on it and a report is expected in the fall of 2011, if she is not replaced by Harper in May 2011.

If Fraser goes, so does any hope that a complete exposure of program failures.

If anyone has concrete information of public money misuse it should be forwarded to the Auditors office for consideration.

She (Fraser) is still unlikely to comment or audit Ont Alberta Quebec or any province with a joint Prov/Fed companion program. She did comment last time that the CAIS program was non compliant with FIPA (Farm Income Protection Program)legislation. Nothing has changed over time so the best we could expect is another stern report letter.

Assuredly no bureaucrats heads will roll and the ag minister will remain stubbornly useless.

2011 is the make or break year with elections but only if MP's and MPP's are required to sign sworn notes to serve in blood.

I have to agree with Bev Hill, "I'm very concerned this is going to end up a love in,". Four hours worth of speakers. That is wonderful, but now what?

The same thing last spring when OASC hosted a similar type of event. What has happened since? G & O had their RMP extended. So what? What about the rest of the commodities who are struggling? How fair is it that one sector of agriculture gets RMP support and others do not? How can that even be justified by anyone?

I am surprised that the livestock sector is not as upset as they could or should be. Maybe they are just drained, discouraged, frustrated and don't have the energy left to fight? With skyrocketing feed prices how many more livestock farmers have to leave the industry before changes are made - if ever?

Lots of questions and rhetoric, yet very few solid answers. Business as usual.

Ask yourself would an American midwest farmer accept or be happy with the Canadian RMP style program as configured for grain or the livestock farmers?

Canada has a tradition for having cheap food for its public tax payer citizens. Farmers messing with the system will not be tolerated for the sake of a few farmers. Farmers are a dime a dozen.

It will be farming as usual,,,, Canada does not have Wiki Leaks in Agriculture

An interesting quote from ontag farm.com on the Stratford meeting

"It seems like even at last week's "Farmers Matter" gathering in Stratford, we are content to sit around like a bunch of 19th century school girls at a pleasant afternoon tea party, politely discussing the benefits of a woodstove while the house is burning down.

I do not see ONE farm organization that is tackling the income crisis in livestock head on. For all the dues we've paid over the years to the OFA, OCA, CFFO, Corn Producers, we are getting further behind all the time. I sold butcher cattle in the '70s for the same money as we are seeing today.

What have the organizations done for us?"

Post new comment

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Image CAPTCHA
We welcome thoughtful comments and ideas. Comments must be on topic. Cheap shots, unsubstantiated allegations, anonymous attacks or negativity directed against people and organizations will not be published. Comments are modified or deleted at the discretion of the editors. If you wish to be identified by name, which will give your opinion far more weight and provide a far greater chance of being published, leave a telephone number so that identity can be confirmed. The number will not be published.