Ontario budget leaves RMP program commitment as-is

© AgMedia Inc.

Description (Tag): 


Why was John Vanthof the NDP Ag Critic not asked to comment . In reality of the three Ag reps in Gov , John is the real farmer of the three .

Further ..... In being fair and unbiased , NFU should have been contacted and asked to comment . NFU is also an accredited General Farm Org so why no comment from them ?

Editor: Comment will be published if resubmitted and signed.

The RMP would be far better for the average farmer if there was an individual cap , not allowing a few big operators to take the majority of the dollars .

Unfortunately, it set far to high to prevent the big operators from taking the majority of the money.
see: http://www.agricorp.com/en-ca/Programs/RMP/Cattle/Pages/HowItWorks.aspx
Quote: Payment caps

RMP payments for each livestock category are capped at $1.2 million per participant, per program year. For example, if you participate in the cow-calf and the feedlot categories under RMP: Cattle and the grower/finisher category under RMP: Hogs, your payment for each of the three categories is capped at $1.2 million.

So, if a few hog farmers as mentioned in the above posting were to each cap out at the $1.2 million individual limit, then it would only take $100 million/ $1.2 = 83 farmers to cap out the program. Perhaps the $1.2 million is tad too high? Maybe something for the gov't to think about?

Caps are easily evaded simply by forming clone companies with a different ownership structure and/or Board of Directors.

For example, back in the 60s and 70s, the USDA had, if my memory is correct, a $250,000 sales cap for a certain program or a set of programs. Farmers immediately responded by setting up:

(A) their 90-year-old great-aunt Agnes from Omaha
(B) their hired man's brother who worked in a gas station in Muscatine
(C) their sister from Chicago

as the principal operator of whatever number of farms it took to come close to, but not above, the $250,000 cap.

This type of action is, of course, in response to having a consistently-generous enough program to warrant setting these things up - I doubt that either RMP or AgriStability provides that much of an incentive.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Yes, but at least the U.S. system is somewhat transparent as witnessed by the EWG.org numbers. Try doing that same number comparison here in Canada? The fact is, Can-Ont. individual cap levels at $1.2M and $3M are set at obscenely high levels while the overall program investment levels are capped at low levels. Even more interesting, is that Can-Ont. investment support numbers offer no specific commodity transparency in which to do cross border competitive comparisons.

Farm groups, politicians and the like that come up with various support programs(SM included) never consider the long term impacts of them. Anonymous posters are in denial about this also.
For example, it was only 10 years ago when prices were considered low for grains. Farmers were pouting. Land in my area was $5000/acre and rent was $180-200
Interest was slightly higher, but hey, it was tax deductible!
Fast forward to present day and crop prices have not doubled, but rent has, and land has tripled.
So why do we need an increase of the cap???? Why do we need some programs?

Raube Beuerman

You state your case well that as a hobby farmer/custom feeder you don't know what other countries have for farm support programs and what a farmer has to compete against in a global market .

The argument that hobby farmers "don't know what other countries have for farm support programs" is little more than a variant of the argument often proffered by supply management supporters to the effect that only current quota owners are qualified to express an opinion about dairy issues.

This type of mindset, alas, speaks volumes about the extent to which the farm community still distrusts anyone:

(1) with more than a Grade 8 education
(2) who doesn't live on a rural-route
(3) who reads the Globe and Mail, and even worse, anyone who writes for it

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Nonsense Raube. You might want to ask your local Pork or Beef board why they want to raise the cap. While your at it, you may also want to see if EWG.org would do a competitive evaluation of Canadian-Ontario-Quebec programs compared to U.S. for Livestock- Hort.-Fruit and Veg.-Grains.

The fact that these two posters want to compare province to province or country to country is irrelevant and does not make my post incorrect. The fact of the matter is that any support program leads to an increased cost structure which negates any intended benefit of the program in the first place. This has been played out numerous times and facts don't lie.

Raube Beuerman

Correct the facts don't lie so when are you going to state facts rather than your opinion ? Fact is real farmers compete in a global market.
Do you actually understand the program ? I would think not since you don't participate in any or get any subsidies .
Didn't you also state that anonymous posts weren't worth replying to !
Bet you can't eat just one !

I have recently posted the numbers, they are real and they speak for themselves. I have no hidden agenda, as I sign my name.
But you seem to be looking down on me and a few others from a high horse for some reason. Why don't you come down off of it?

Raube Beuerman

Whenever I was part of a delegation sent to lobby our former MP, Paul Steckle about the need to increase any given farm support program, he'd ask - "Why should government do that, all it will mean is that people will offer me more money to rent my farm?"

Steckle was right, but never did understand (at least publicly) that his observations about government support getting capitalized back into asset values also applied to supply management, which, alas, he supported.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Welcome to the real world on planet earth.There is no such thing as absolute free trade or even fair trade. Wish you luck in trying to get a level playing field in World Agriculture. Furthermore, it is no secret that the European and U.S. Farm Bills plus other countries such as Japan all have various forms of regulated protection and investment support for their agriculture. In fact, some retired politicians often claim they couldn't support farmers because they forgot it was a competitive investment. To add insult to trade injury, some retired politicians are often the first to jump on the subsidised wind turbine bandwagon which provide expensive, intermittent, surplus power. "Pot calling the kettle black" or "Do as I say not as I do" comes to mind. Depends on who's ox is being gored as always.

We heard for years COOL was costing the pork and beef industries billions annually in lost revenue, that now should be "found" money ! They have a lot of gall now asking for an increase in RMP contributions.
The other grain,sheep and veal farmers are probably vindicated asking for a hike, the other 2 ... Not so much!

Once again it is a problem with double dipping of the program . Close the loop holes and it will fix it self .

The new question then is if producers received any money from Gov because of COOL then they should have to pay it back . Right !
Now then this new found COOL money will get distributed to people who are no longer farming and dead people like past programs . Sighhh

Post new comment

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
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.