UPDATE: Thurs. Feb. 13, 2014
Originally published Wed. Feb. 12, 2014
by JIM ALGIE
A livestock insurance pilot project exclusively for Western Canadian farmers shows the federal government is “turning its back on Ontario,” Premier Kathleen Wynne said in a statement, today.
“Once again, Ontario is left out,” Wynne said in a response to Better Farming inquiries about the insurance pilot project identified in Tuesday’s budget by federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. Premier Wynne is also provincial minister of agriculture, food and rural affairs. The response was emailed via her agriculture press secretary, Mark Cripps.
“The federal government has opted for a regional deal with Western Canada and continues to refuse to discuss business risk management options preferred by Ontario’s producers,” Wynne said. Cripps issued her statement following a media conference at the provincial legislature reacting to the federal budget. Both Wynne and Ontario Finance Minister Charles Sousa attacked the federal budget as part of long-standing unfairness in federal financial dealings with the province.
The premier did not address agriculture directly in remarks to reporters, which were broadcast on the Internet. However, Wynne did accuse the federal government of drastic cuts in recent years to provincial transfer payments.
The premier also released a list of 116 programs affected by federal cuts, including eight in agriculture. Among them are: eliminating Statistics Canada’s rural research group, closing agricultural research stations in Delhi and Kapuskasing, cuts to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and further cuts to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
“The 2014 federal budget expands the livestock insurance program in Western Canada but fails to provide a commitment to support Ontario’s Risk Management Program (RMP),” the premier’s subsequent statement said. “We have been seeking federal support for, and participation in, RMP since its introduction,” Wynne said.
Likewise, both NDP and Liberal opposition critics for agriculture in the House of Commons seemed puzzled during post-budget interviews, today, by the federal government’s moves on livestock insurance. The NDP’s Malcolm Allen and Liberal Wayne Easter said the budget lacks clear information about its key announcements: added food inspection; expanded broadband communications in rural areas and the four-year pilot program to insure Western cattle and hog farmers against unexpected price drops.
The livestock insurance program is available only to Western farmers and follows a pattern set by a similar program available in Alberta since 2009.
“I am shocked the federal government will be implementing a price insurance program for the Western livestock industry while ignoring the needs of Eastern livestock producers,” Easter said.
For his part, Allen said it’s strange the federal government would decide against operating the pilot nationally.
“Why wouldn’t you do it as a national pilot?” Allen said. “The biggest complaint about the provincial Alberta model is that it was distorting in the market place,” the NDP agriculture critic said.
The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association welcomed expansion of the Alberta concept when it was announced recently and has advocated such measures nationally. Canadian Pork Council communications manager Gary Stordy played down worries about the potential for regional disparities because of the Western Canadian pilot.
The program was actually announced recently by Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz. The concept has received widespread discussion among provincial agencies and producer groups in recent years, Stordy said in an interview.
“It’s not clear what the pickup is currently,” the Pork Council spokesman said, adding initial adoption of the concept among Alberta hog farmers was slow.
“It shouldn’t affect the market,” Stordy said. “It does provide another tool for producers to use to manage their risk,” he said.
Beef Farmers of Ontario communications manager LeaAnne Wuermli expressed disappointment “that the federal government did not extend the program across Canada.” Her organization “looks forward to the results from the Western Livestock Price Insurance Program pilot,” Wuermli said in an emailed statement. She added national access to the program had been recommended to the government by Canadian Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) officials.
CCA President Martin Unrau and Vice President Dave Solverson welcomed budget news of the Western Livestock Price Insurance Program in an association statement issued in late January. The statement describes both men as “passionate advocates for cattle price insurance program.” They will “continue to push federal and provincial governments to develop an effective and affordable national price and basis insurance program for cattle producers,” the statement said.
The Calgary-based national beef producers group welcomed Tuesday’s budget measures. A statement issued, Tuesday, describes the Western livestock insurance program as “a positive step towards the CCA’s goal of achieving a national plan.”
The statement also praises continued federal support for BSE eradication measures, new tax deferrals for weather-affected sales of livestock and investment in increased market access, innovation and competitiveness.
The Quebec farm organization, Union des Producteurs Agricole, used the budget to roundly criticize the federal government for a long-term program of cuts in agricultural spending. A statement by Union communications director Elaine Hamel cites cuts last year in payments through federal AgriInvest and AgriStability programs. The budget “offers no significant initiative to support the development of the agricultural sector,” Hamel said. BF
UPDATE: Thurs. Feb. 13, 2014
photo: Gerry Ritz
Federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, in an email statement sent to Better Farming on Wednesday by his director of communications, said all provinces were invited to participate in the federal livestock insurance program pilot.
"The fact is that rather than support this bankable and predictable insurance based program, Ontario remains stuck on RMP which is countervailable, distorts market signals, would put trade at risk and thus is not supported by the federal government,” he says. BF
Comments
The federal Government has simply seen so many billions of dollars wasted in Ontario and is fed up that Ontario is a have not province .When this Government or a new one gets things back on track the feds then and only then will help out Ontario again.
John Van Dyk
look who is calling the kettle black!!!!!!!
joann vergeer
Yessiree, Bob - Gerry Ritz shuns RMP in order to remain firmly welded to supply management, the ultimate trade distortion mechanism, the reason he's the most lobbied Minister in Cabinet, the reason we're an international laughing stock at trade talks, and the reason, in addition to ethanol, why livestock needs RMP in the first place.
Eugene Whelan has long been considered the worst Ag Minister in memory - the intransigence Ritz demonstrates while trying to balance things which are completely at odds, is likely to place him solidly in second place.
AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Ritz is absolutely correct when he says that RMP for livestock is countervailable! Unfortunately, so is the proposed and existing Federal safety net money for any livestock program that the U.S. livestock producers don’t have a comparable offset program for. Want proof? Simply ask the NPPC.
http://www.nppc.org/2012/06/stop-subsidizing-hog-production-nppc-asks-ca...
lets all get together and not pay our taxes if the federal wont support rmp
Premier Wynne Please meet with this group.I was on the CFFO board for 5 years and this is one of the worst things I saw done by your government to Ontario's producers.This action done to Ontario's livestock producers can still be rectified.Since you are now paying up to 110,000 dollars for solar panels that can't get hooked up surely you can meet with this group and get some resolve.
John Van Dyk
Agristability cap level is $3 million. RMP cap is $1.2 million times up to 3 livestock categories = $3.6 million RMP cap limit per individual. Now mix in the overall program cap of $100million and it is abundantly clear the Ontario gov't is sending conflicting messages when it comes to beginning small farms ever having a hope of competing with the big boys. The message is clear Canadian/Ontario Ag policy starts in the mega feed lot alley in the west and this is irritating U.S. livestock producers
So .... This begs the question of our Ontario Ag Minister . Since the Feds have finally pounded this into your head , when are you going to step up and give the Notario producers a fully funded RMP program ? Enough with the excuses !
Program to insure farmers against unexpected price drops? l guess in reality its only a free-market system in Beef and Pork when prices go up!
It would appear that there are a whole heap of Canadian politicians, livestock commodity groups and general farm organizations in maximum denial mode when it comes to understanding there are very few U.S. livestock support programs in the export market Canada is trying to compete with. They either simply refuse to comprehend the details of the U.S. Farm Bill or are intentionally slow when in comes to understanding that the U.S. gives very little support to livestock producers. Hence, as another poster below suggested please read: http://www.nppc.org/2012/06/stop-subsidizing-hog-production-nppc-asks-ca... . Can anyone spell Canadian livestock countervail?
When it comes to federal support for Canandian livestock producers you would expect that there would be complete fairness or at least a sense of fairness. Unfortunately it looks like it is " my way or the highway". The one thing that is clear is that livestock producers require production insurance for all the same reasons all the way across Canada
You either missed the point again or still in denial mode. There is no U.S. livestock production insurance. Please re read http://www.nppc.org/2012/06/stop-subsidizing-hog-production-nppc-asks-ca... Can you spell justifiable countervail?
Anyone who believes that the US has no livestock production insurance is completely wrong. The Canadian government is good at making excuses but in reality they offer their farmers less support than any G8 country.
Ah yes, the old smoke and mirrors tactic of the G8 averaging all commodities per country. Which average farmer are you talking about. Please be specific. Is it the pork, beef, emu, chicken, egg, turkey, grain, apple or carrot farmer. In other words, where is the Apples to Apples, Grain to Grain, Beef to Beef or Pork to Pork comparison with the country you are exporting to. Please read: http://www.nppc.org/2012/06/stop-subsidizing-hog-production-nppc-asks-ca...
Canada, through supply management, offers farmers oodles of support, however, the sleight of hand is that consumers are the ones who pay for it, not government.
This subsidization is, in economics, referred to as a "Producer Subsidy Equivalent", which is, of course, always conveniently ignored by supply management supporters, and by those who, for whatever purpose, try to define "subsidy" in too-narrow a term.
Also at risk of being ignored is that, at whatever level of support they might get from government, Canadian livestock farmers receive substantially less in legislated benefits, regardless of who pays for them, than dairy and poultry farmers.
Therefore, it is mostly just a wasted effort to compare Canadian and US support for livestock - the real problem, a problem created right here at home, is the horrible difference in support for dairy and poultry farmers, and everyone else.
Yet, Canadian farmers, farm organizations, and politicians, steadfastly refuse to deal with the major structural problems in farm support policies here at home - once we deal with them, and we must, the rest of it follows.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
The government has legislated minimum wage. It is blatant protectionism that offers support for oodles of people. But the consumers are the ones that pay, not the government. The government benefits from the hidden payroll taxes. The consumer loses because of the high input costs, and businesses lose because they can't compete against countries with no minimum wage levels. Food is less than 8% of a household cost. Taxes take 46% of our total income. Time to set straighten out your priorities.
An increased minimum wage protects poor consumers from greedy dairy and poultry farmers.
In addition, your analysis and logic are flawed - the argument that food is less than 8% of a household's "cost", ignores the reality of widely differing incomes, and the relative portion, on an after-tax basis, that rich people pay for food, and what poor people pay for food. By the same argument, your claim of a 46% marginal tax rate ignores the fact that poor people don't pay anywhere near that, and rich people pay more.
Therefore, poor people would, by first principles, pay more than 8% of their household expenses on food, and substantially less than 46% of their net income on taxes, while rich people would experience the exact opposite, thereby leaving your analysis in shambles.
The argument against protectionism for farmers has everything to do with the fact that, as a percentage of after-tax income, poor people pay substantially more for food than rich people. Therefore, "food freedom" day for poor people comes a lot later in the year than it does for rich people.
Therefore, trying, is some sort of convoluted manner, to justify 200% tariff barriers which hugely gouge consumers, by claiming some other legislation is just as regressive, is little more than the type of "logic" used by a three-year-old when caught with his hand in the cookie jar - "But, Mom, I only took two, she took three"
My priorities are straight, and entirely consistent with sound basic economic principles, and sound public policy principles.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
How low do you want prices to be????
about every 2 weeks Butter is less than $3.00/lb.....cheese can be often found for less than $5/lb......choc milk was .88 cents .....eggs are often less than $3./dz....chicken breasts are being offered at less than $2.50/lb....
Mr Thompson want price do you want ???.........$1.00????
Just imagine if someone would only pay you $8.00/hr or less for your Accounting Services??...maybe it is worth that or less
Stan Holmes
Why are you showing sale prices? Show regular prices. The chocolate milk on for under a dollar is American milk, good chance the eggs are American also as it is widely known that American eggs are imported from time to time, then labeled as product of Canada. Even when milk is $4.00 for 4L, it is what's known as a loss leader, meaning the retailer is losing money. Raube Beuerman
What do consumers have against sale prices ?
Loss leader? next you will be telling us the grocery stores have been losing money all these years on beef and pork when those industries have been struggling.
Agree 100% how would someone like 8$ an hour to do some accounting or less.
To my knowledge, none of my tax clients has ever gone to Michigan to get his/her income tax returns prepared, but some of them do go to Michigan to buy dairy and poultry products.
When my clients start going to Michigan to get their income tax returns prepared, and stop going to Michigan to buy dairy and poultry products, Mr. Holmes may have a point, but until then, he is grasping at straws, and, in addition, his slurs and personal insults demonstrate exactly why supply management is not well-liked, and will not be missed.
In addition, unlike supply management, there is no set minimum any tax preparer is forced to charge, either on an hourly basis, or on a per-file basis - and, as a purely practical matter, many of us charge nothing, depending on the circumstance - the only time dairy farmers give something away, it's to a food bank, but if they didn't charge such high prices at the farm gate in the first place, nobody would even need to go to a food bank to get dairy products.
Or to look at it another way, when dairy farmers boast about giving dairy products to food banks, it's exactly like a motorist taking credit for rescuing somebody whose car went into the ditch, while all the time denying responsibility for forcing the motorist into the ditch in the first place.
In addition, Mr. Holmes ignores the ongoing price-gouging reality, at any level of price, caused by the three-price system for mozzarella cheese used to make pizza. The base price for milk used by DFO for the cheese going to grocery stores is almost 87% more than the base price paid by frozen pizza makers (due entirely to a Cabinet decision, much to the horror of dairy farmers who, in this circumstance, are being forced to sell milk at well-less than the Holy Grail "cost of production".
While Mr. Holmes is quick to vent, he still ignores the reality that, at any level of retail price, Canadian dairy and poultry farmers are still protected by 200% tariff barriers, a privilege which still gouges consumers (except for consumers of frozen pizza) and still allows supply managed farmers to be financial bullies in the farm community.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Guess income tax return is worst than SM products you would not find someone in the states that know anything about the tax system to do your income tax, geared for only the ones in Canada. So you decide which is government protected the most.
If the guy wants to do free tax returns then so be it . The ones he is doing it for are not the shakers & movers in society . Ten minutes of his time is his donation to make sure that he gets his money for all of his write offs that he claims .
Spend a day with me during tax time, and meet some of the old, the sick, the poor, the marginalized, and disabled people I deal with, and then I dare anyone to make that type of boorish, demeaning, insulting, and completely-untrue comment.
I happen to care about those people who supply managed farmers obviously care nothing about - most tax preparers do.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I find it very hard to believe that anybody with so much hate toward a group of people would be capable of showing any compassion towards anybody.
We paid out the tobacco farmers that should of we for they made good money:: should have kept some money for the un expected;; we will pay out the sm that made hudge money and they are spending it on land .I for one will not put up with it ,there will be a protest
Maybe the pope will make you a Saint? Go to Walmart and see old , poor and disabled people and then see how much Walmart make off of them and you can only look at SM farmers as being the evil of the world, have to get those glasses off and look at the real world. If you are doing that much good in this world you must have a wall of plaques for being the man of the year awards.
If dairy and poultry farmers cared even 1% as much as Wal-Mart cares about giving lower prices to consumers, I wouldn't even need to be having this pointless exchange.
In the real word, 15,000 Canadian dairy and poultry farmers hide behind 200% tariff barriers in order to severely gouge over 30 million consumers, and in order to be financial bullies in the farm community - what's NOT evil about that?
Time and again you have failed to understand that Dairy and Poultry prices in this country are not a priority with consumers,even your supposedly hordes of people that cross the border for cheaper dairy produce know where their favorite gas station is on the other side of the border,not to mention the shopping malls.
We have just seen that Food Freedom day was Feb 7th,making up 10% of our average income.Tax Freedom day is guessed this year around June 12th,making it over +40% of our income.According to the George Morris centre if we had a SM Produce Free Day it would be around Jan. 7th or under 2% of the average Canadian income.
We have seen in the past little while Dairy produce and egg sale prices in the grocery stores (according to my wife) of up to 40-50% and l imagine sales are brisk but can you imagine if an advertised sale of 40-50% was at the gas stations or the Beer store.
So at under 2% Dairy and Poultry will never be a Priority with consumers or politicians,depite the wishes of some of the media types.
The failure to understand is entirely on the part of supply management - especially when it comes to the significance of Ontario Pork's 68:13 resolution at its 2013 Annual General Meeting to "urge government to place trade ahead of protectionism".
By focusing on what is, or is not, a "priority" for consumers, supply managed farmers ignore the priority expressed by Ontario Pork, and those great-many non-supply managed farmers who have no desire to spend their entire lives as second class citizens in their own communities.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
From 3 now there is 4 people who thinks the SM farmers are crooked and screwing the Canadian population.
Could you define the "we" in "if we push rather than wait"
I assume its you and Mr. Thompson
Him , his wife , The dog and the cat or maybe his rooster and the hen .
H&R Block is, for example, is a huge presence in the income tax preparation business in both Canada and the US, and there's absolutely no reason they couldn't open any number of offices in US border cities specializing in preparing income tax returns for Canadians - especially those Canadians already coming to the US on a regular basis to buy dairy and poultry products.
In addition, many tax professionals, especially in border cities, do have a strong understanding of income tax regulations on both sides of the border - if for no other reason than because they have clients who, for example, live in Canada, but work in the US, or have US investments and/or US pension plans.
Let's put it this way, H&R Block is big enough, successful enough, and smart enough, to know that if Canadians were being screwed as badly on what they pay to get their tax returns prepared, as they are being screwed by dairy and poultry farmers, these offices would have been opened years ago, and would of course, be located right beside the biggest grocery stores in each US border city.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
My daughter has to file an American return each year by April 15. Few accounts in Ontario have the expertise to file American returns. We found a competent accountant and his fees are higher than our Canadian account, but he is very competent. I hazard to guess that few accounts in Michigan have proper knowledge to file Canadian returns. Your argument is irrelevant and distorts truth and reality as it relates to agriculture.
If my understanding is correct, the Canada Revenue Agency has no residency, or citizenship, restrictions on who can become an e-file agent.
Therefore, if the market was there, and unlike with dairy and poultry products, there is not, there is no reason why I couldn't set up a sub-office in Michigan dedicated to preparing Canadian T1 income tax returns (personal returns), and even if I had to hire US residents to run it, I'd simply give them a copy of the rather-good H&R Block tax manual for preparing Canadian income tax returns, set them up on a good tax program, give them the link to the Canada Revenue Agency's web site, and tell them to e-mail me if/when they had questions.
As usual, the non-thinkers on this site ignore the point which is that, unlike with supply management, income tax preparation has no barriers to entry, no tariffs to distort the marketplace, absolutely no quotas, and no reason why people can`t prepare their own income tax returns, and many do.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
There , they make sure that they have their own doing it . Here , we don't care who screws you over for the collection of Gov money . Heck you could likely be a US citizen and do Canadian Tax returns .
There is no reason why any tax preparer, on either side of the Canada-US border, couldn't electronically outsource the actual preparation of his/her firm's income tax returns, to a center in India.
After all, the income tax preparation software could have been written there in the first place.
Yet in this type of border-less e-commerce world we still have the Edsel-era system of supply management based on the propositions that Canada is:
(A) a nation of dairy farmers
(B) the only country in the world
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Same can be said with health and education. If you want change in monopolies, you need to call for change in all sectors, especially minimum wage protectionism . Minimum wage protection rose from the Edsel era and is now crushing our economy in today's global trade. We cannot compete against some states south of us that have no minimum wage laws. Harper is about to sign a agreement to create the worlds largest free trade zone, Mexico, USA, Asia. No business in Ontario will survive if we keep a minimum wage law. It will be our biggest barrier.
So, if you are going to abolish min. wage laws then you also have to address the reasons for Canadian cost of living issues. Things like double digit hydro cost increases caused partially by the serious flawed Bully Bill called the Green Energy Act. The GEA was never made to produce a complete business plan showing the plus and minus of various alternative and emerging energy sources.
There will be no need to address cost of living. Less money in your pocket, you will spend less. Your cost of living with drop with your drop in income. How much do you spend on hydro and how much on communication? Phone/internet/tv/cell a month compared to food/water/hydro?
Our health care and education system was designed to help the poor - supply management was designed to hurt the poor, and is, therefore, the exact opposite, and no comparisons can be made.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Minimum wage was in place decades before SM. 46% of our income goes to one sort of tax or another. Lower income families suffer more by being dinged by taxes/ fees. More money is sucked out our pockets by payroll taxes than the difference in the price of milk or eggs. That's reality. The other reality is our government spends our tax money with no consideration where it comes from.
Spinning the blame for Canadian livestock support back at Canadian SM support is simply a bogus attempt at deflecting from the real truth of commodity specific comparisons across our export border. Canadian specific commodity support (yes ...including SM) verses the same specific U.S. commodity support needs to be done. Git-R Done. Furthermore,
http://www.nppc.org/2012/06/stop-subsidizing-hog-production-nppc-asks-ca... It says very clearly, " It pointed out that if similar programs existed in the United States, U.S. pork production would more than double in 10 years, adversely affecting the Canadian hog market. In addition, "Hayes has calculated, for example, that over five years Ontario’s Risk Management Program, which would boost Canadian hog production by more than 606,000 animals, would cut U.S. pork production by more than 430,000 hogs worth more than $73 million and cost nearly 600 U.S. pork industry jobs.
The NPPC, like SM5, and the ethanol lobby, is an organization with a vested interest, and, in this case, a substantial vested interest.
I may be faulted for not believing the rubbish published either by, or for, SM5, and the ethanol lobby, and I suggest that, to the same extent, claims by NPPC should also be viewed with extreme caution.
More specifically, Hayes is making a huge leap of faith to conclude that Ontario's RMP program would "boost" Canadian hog production by more than 606,000 animals. Furthermore, Hayes seems to be silent about whether this 606,000 animal increase would happen, in any event, if Ontario was to abandon subsidies and/or mandates for ethanol and supply management, two huge factors affecting the long-term growth and profitability in our hog sector.
In addition, Hayes ignores any effect on US jobs which may be affected by increased exports of US pork, which is a factor completely independent from subsidies received by farmers.
I guess, however, the biggest flaw in the NPPC argument is that they didn't complain in the least about the Canadian federal hog buyout program - a program which arguably substantially reduced the number of hogs in Ontario. Hayes, and/or the NPPC, ignores any analysis about where Canadian hog numbers were before this buyout, thereby giving the appearance of trying to make RMP far more of a boogie-man than what is merited.
Therefore, it would appear the NPPC is taking a one-sided analysis of something outside it's jurisdiction, to a rather-extreme, and unwarranted, conclusion.
The point being, is that even if Ontario hog farmers had perfect equity with US hog farmers, they would still be at an absolute disadvantage to every Canadian dairy and poultry farmer, and that is still the problem nobody wants to admit.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Seems the Canadian Livestock organizations have their own vested interests in keeping their Agricorp program $$$$$ numbers secret. Next thing they will be claiming is they need equity with their U.S. export partners because the U.S. livestock are getting more support.
@ "secret livestock support numbers" You are one of the ones Mr. Thompson is referring to as someone who chooses to "ignore", the "producer subsidy equivalent". No matter if it is true or false that certain groups numbers are secretive, I would say it is high time someone makes reports public on how many tens of millions, maybe even hundreds of millions of dollars that poultry and dairy farmers recieve every year from over 30 million Canadian consumers. Raube Beuerman
Yes, I agree that vague PSE numbers perhaps could be used to approx. the numbers for SM, however I am not so sure that would work for non-SM livestock as the numbers are not available from Agricorp, yet are available for other commodities.
"If similar programs existed in the United States, U.S. pork production would more than double in 10 years." Now that prediction is "bogus".
First of all, there are way too many variables involved to make any such prediction...government support (or lack of) does not form the basis for expansion.
This is nothing but politicking and is not worth the effort.
By the way, lots of hog farmers and cash croppers do not participate in RMP.
Well, for those who think the Canadian livestock support numbers are bogus or non existent, then why is it so hard to get the numbers from Agricorp? You can't complain the support programs exist and are being capped out, then in the next breath claim they really didn't payout anything. That would be like an accountant-economist trying to have it both ways by producing an economic report for the Liberal government suggesting hydro rates are increasing at a double digit rate, yet the numbers are secret.
the numbers Agricorp uses for RMP for cattle are printed weekly in the farm paper, and are on line. The numbers come from StatsCan and Beef farmers of Ontario.
The formula that Agricorp uses for pay out are in their free booklet.
The payout of course is based on commodity that has need, and how far it will go with the cap.
has for the USA, several states do have COP programs for cattle. When I sat on the Canadian Cattlemen's Board; the staff at from the chair of the Ag committee (Larry Miller at the time) asked me to send him the information I had collected from the different programs from USA, Australia, NZ etc. As the promise from the Mr. Harper before he was elected PM was a production insurance for livestock. we are still waiting for that.
Kim Sytsma
Been following this new thread about new livestock support especially the SM info.
Thanks so much for the RMP details Kim. My new accountant is suggesting RMP for my small beef and pork operation, as well as, a bit of cash crops such as corn, soybeans and wheat might be worth the effort. Anyways my last accountant said no to RMP because he claimed the payments weren't going to amount to a lot. Unfortunately, some of my neighbors who are enrolled in the livestock program claim they are getting decent payments from it. Needless to say, I have ditched my previous accountant for poor advice. To further complicate the decision, my new accountant now says he has trouble de-sphering the "target price" in livestock handbook you refer to. For livestock such as beef it says: “The target price represents the industry average cost of producing a livestock category covered by the program.” My new accountant is still hesitant to recommend this as he claims there is no actual $ number in the (C.O.P.- target price) for livestock either pork or beef. He says it's a bit like insuring your new car for a steep premium without knowing if you are going to get anything in return if you write it off before you get out of town! On the other hand, for my few crops that I sell for cash he currently recommends I enrol because the (c.o.p.-target price (in the grains and oilseed handbook) for 2013 corn is $5.62 and the cash price has been approx.. $4.00 to $4.25 since last fall.
I am at a loss to figure out why one commodity can publish their COP in advance while another can’t?
Perhaps you can explain as I would like to know the target price for beef and pork this year before I spend the big premium on something that might not pay if the livestock price keeps going up. Please advise.
Did your first accountant inform you that RMP is only a advance on AgriStability? You pay for 2 insurance programs but can only claim once. Now they cap the program too but not the fees.
I checked, no need to ask,,,,,, because you get the HIGHER of the two programs.
It’s a no brainer RMP wins hands down, especially when you get see the COP target price before you enrol. I agree with the previous poster in that ALL commodity target prices, not just some, should be revealed before you pay the premium. Seems livestock target numbers are available, yet they are not being released by Agricorp. Begs the question why the big secret?
When you get the higher of two possible benefits, it means that the enrollment fee in one program is completely wasted - in this case, since one has to be in AgriStability to be in RMP, AgriStability serves no purpose except to transfer money from farmers to government.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Or Accountant and book keepers , But not economists !
Thank Allah for some thing !
So true. RMP is a revenue generator for Ontario. Small wonder they dont want a complete audit.
Take a deep breath now! Agreed! "AgriStability (at 70% margin trigger) serves no purpose except to transfer money from farmers to government." Absolutely correct, and therefore RMP beats Agristability hands down. Want further proof? Even Ritz and the Alberta cattlemen know that Agistability has been neutered hence the recent release of the Western Canada RMP for Livestock only program. The larger question, just as important in Ontario remains. For mixed farms why are livestock Agricorp RMP target (COP) prices being kept secret when other commodities allow you to see and evaluate what their RMP target (COP) is before you decide to sign up?
Firstly, it would be really kind of stupid to know in advance what one might get paid for RMP because enrollment would then tend to go up and down like a yo-yo.
RMP is an insurance program, and the thing about insurance is that it protects you from the unknown, rather than rewarding you for something you knew in advance was going to happen.
Secondly, it's all irrelevant because the benefits all have to do with "the availability of money". If the government runs out of money, all of your calculations mean nothing.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Thirdly: The government can change the rules any time they want. Just look at all the farmers getting clawed back after 11 years in the program. There is no bankability in RMP.
So, once again please take a deep breath. We both AGREE the overall RMP Cap is a huge issue! However, to suggest that any of your clients are stupid to speculate or to hedge on COP (target price) protection and as a result to advise your clients not to participate in RMP is somewhat misleading if not disingenuous. Furthermore, to know what your cost of producing any kind of widget is in advance, is not as you claim "stupid" in most accountants opinion. As well, the only useful remaining purpose of the AGRISTABILITY program for most farmers is to collect COP data in which to set RMP target prices. Unfortunately, AGRICORP has target prices available for some commodities while other commodities target prices are kept a secret. The playing field isn't level here folks!
Think about it, what a ridiculous statement you just made. Nobody, I repeat NOBODY, knows what his/her COP will be unless crop/livestock is sold in advance, which some came be, but yield is not known because of various factors such as weather, mortality, and etc. In addition, anyone who buys a farm is a speculator by definition as you cannot lock in crop prices for more years than the length of the mortgage. You seem to have a poor understanding of the definition of 'insurance'. Raube Beuerman
I hope this isn’t too complex for you to understand but Agricorp RMP calls it Target Price (used to be called COP). It is published in the handbook in ADVANCE of signing up for each years price insurance coverage. The AGRISTABILITY/NISA/AgriInvest historical data base is used to develop these average Target (COP) numbers. For example: the 2013 corn target price arrived at last spring BEFORE you signed up for coverage was $5.62 (used to be called COP by Agricorp). This is an Ontario average number not a specific farm COP number arrived at BEFORE you sign up for 2013. Agricorp also claims they have a target price (COP) for other commodities including livestock, yet, to the best of my knowledge, none has been made available. So, unfortunately it would appear, AGRICORP has target prices available for some commodities while other commodities target prices are kept a secret. Why the secrecy folks. The playing field isn't level here folks!
Would you not be better off asking your commodity these questions ?
Or maybe better yet you should ask your general farm org for details . After all it was the general farm orgs who got us the program so they should have a good/better understanding than any one else .
It seems to me that if one opts out of RMP in any given year, there is a waiting period of several years to get back in. Therefore, once you are in, it really does not matter what the target price for any given year might be.
Therefore, if sombody did not pay their 2013 RMP premium, they are out of RMP for at least the next year, regardless of how much RMP might pay out that year - and that is the way it should be.
That is why I simply do not understand all of this mis-placed focus on target prices - it just does not mean anything to somebody who has decided to be in the program for the long term.
I also really wish farmers would stop focusing on red-herring issues like this one, and concentrate, for once, on issues of substance like the issue of RMP being an advance on the Provincial portion of Agri-Stability, and even the fact that RMP for livestock is little more than an ethanol injury assistance program.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
To suggest that transparency of up front target prices last year were not important in whether a farmer enrolled in the program, is simply bad management and accounting advice. I know of several farmers who adjusted their 2013 coverage levels from 100% to 80% depending on the target price and the expected price trend of a commodity. Therefore to claim that target prices aren’t important in considering RMP coverage % is bad management and accounting advice. Unfortunately, Agricorp is revealing target prices in advance of enrollment for some commodities but no other commodities. Folks the question remains why are some commodity numbers such a guarded secret? Agricorp has the numbers they just won't publish them as they do with other commodity numbers.
Even famous investors will give the advice that projected earnings for any publicly traded company, are #'s that should be disregarded, and for good reason-because nobody knows them with certainty. For a farmer to adjust their coverage based on "the expected price trend of a commodity" is just silly, silly, silly, because no one knows the price trend of a commodity, and that is why this is an INSURANCE program. Last year was the first time ever that I did not pay crop insurance, therefore I was not in RMP. Raube Beuerman
Wrong answer! The AGRICORP RMP Target prices (COP) numbers are published in advance of signing up each year.
Spoken as a true hired hand/custom feeder .
At this point I could care less if all the developed countries eliminated any form of support from taxpayers, consumers, green energy,(which I have a small part in), and mandates such as ethanol etc. My retail business is completely right wing, but well over 90% of farmers today are socialists. You are a lefty also, that is why your post is anonymous. Raube Beuerman
The comments I heard this year from corn , soy & wheat growers were that they should have stayed in the program and that they should have taken the higher rate . I think one took advice from his accountant and did lower his coverage because his accountant told him prices would not drop .
As for Agristability , it will really only be a disaster program or a way to get adhoc dollars to livestock producers .
The Livestock program (cattle) is divided into three sub-programs; cow/calf, backgrounder, feedlot.
As the price a person receives when selling cattle varies daily, the price of inputs varies, and the price of the Canadian dollar which effects the cost/price of fed cattle. All this effects the COP. We have to report to Agricorp every quarter what we sold .
Of course there are changes to the program again for 2014. I picked up the info at the BFO AGM this past week but haven't had time to read it yet.
There was a advisory committee to Agriciorp from BFO , I am not sure whether there still is or not.
I am not sure if answers some of the questions you are having or just adds to them.
You either have some form of Supply Management or you out-subsidize your trading competition.
With the USA and their new Dairy Market Stabilization Program they have found a way to do both!
Please explain why livestock producers need production price insurance anywhere in Canada when we export our livestock into other countries who don't have production price insurance?
We don't need it...nor do we need RMP for crops and livestock nor do we need SM nor agristability...etc...etc.
However, for some reason Canadian agriculture has fastened itself to the government teat and is intent on keeping it that way!
Maybe the next generation will revert and show more independence.
With all due respect, you left out hort and fruit and veggies.
Having said that, in an PERFECT world.... as in heaven, you don't need subsidies. Unfortunately, please take a deep breath, step back, look around the globe,... we don't live in heaven yet! You don't have to go to far before you see that the good old USA throws buckets of investment dollars at primarily their grain industry which in turn dumps that grain to promote livestock production. As well, their business tax break subsidies (like section 179) promote all agriculture. To do nothing about that unlevel playing field is putting our producers at a competitive disadvantage.
You sound like a true lobbyist for gov't support.
So if we weren't fastened to the gov't teat tomorrow...you think Canadian farmers would disappear? Did New Zealand farmers disappear, or did the become stronger and more competitive?
Some would disappear and others would find a way.
You may see this become reality if the government ever realizes they're broke.
1. Because Canadian Livestock apparently can't compete on an export level playing field with their U.S. competitors.
The long and the short of it is that agricorp and the Ontario Gov know right well that posting the livestock COP #'s for RMP will lead to the USA coming after the Canadian livestock industry . Any one who knows any thing at all knows that Quebec got away with it because the USA will not go after a province . It is a new twist now on how to get adhoc dollars out to livestock . Every one knows that the RMP for grains was just a front and the Liberals never for a second intended to anty up and cover the whole program . They have been told all along that it was not trade compliant .
What needs to happen is that livestock groups push for an end to the ASRA program and forget about SM . Quebec is laughing all the way to the bank at our Ontario representatives .
Really hate to tell you folks but Ritz is not a fool . Even the Federal Liberals know he is right . They just won't admit it in public !
Post new comment