SuperNISA

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie and Lee;

We have not been able to extract the info of whether this programs contributions will be counted as a farm expense... can someone let us know for sure!

Supernisa will cost $20,000 worth of cash flow... on $95,000 of margin coverage... a new deductable of $5,000 is being applied... I guess because of WTO trade reasons...

$100,000 to $95,000 at the farmer's risk totally;

$95,000 to $85,000 is shared 50/50% between the gov. and farmer; $5,000 farmer contribution...

$85,000 to $70,000 is shared 70/30% between the gov. and the farmer; $4,500 farmer contribution...

$70,000 to 0 margin is shared 85/15% between the gov. and the farmer; $10,500 farmer contribution...

This adds up to a contribution of $20,000 for $95,000 of margin coverage.

This should make the bankers happy, lending money to farmers everywhere...

Accountants will now get mega hours of work... before our year even begins... as we are supposed to "precalculate" what our margin is... before the crop is even planted...

How on earth is this all supposed to happen for 2003...

when the program design is still a moving target ...

Does anyone even know what the "Production Margin" components are yet?

[charliep]

Still a work in progress. Stay tuned.

[berwick]

What I would like to know, why did our Alberta Minister sign Alberta up without program finalization?
Speculation anyone?
I understand that Quebec and Ontario producers want more changes.

[TOM4CWB]

berwick;

I am afraid this process is kind of like a dirty BOMB going off...

The fall out is going to hurt many a farm... but the feds are on the final count down... it is easier to let them take the flack... as they are in the drivers seat.

On the SuperNISA farmer contribution issue, I am told by a source that should know... that SuperNISA contributions will be with after tax money... the feds require SuperNISA to be done this way...

The banks will really love this one... cause almost everyone will need to borrow the money (then it doesn't need to have the taxes prepaid) to be able to afford being in this program.

Better buy bank stocks!

[dalek]

Western Producer:

Vanclief takes agriculture policy to urban masses
this document web posted: Friday March 7, 2003 20030306p6
AGRICULTURE minister Lyle Vanclief opens up what might be considered a second front this week and next in his public relations campaign to sell the government's agricultural policy framework.

On March 4, he went before a Toronto business crowd to tell them, and through the urban media tell the millions of consumers in the Toronto area, that the APF is about a lot more than farmers.

It's about clean environment, safe food, investment and innovation.

Why, it's about "the priorities and values of Canadians," as the meeting notice from the Toronto Board of Trade so poetically put it.

Later in the week, he takes the same message to urban audiences and movers and shakers in Montreal and Halifax. Next week, it is Winnipeg, Saskatoon and Vancouver.

The tour is the brainchild of senior Agriculture Canada officials frustrated that all the attention has been focused on business risk management and farmer complaints about it.

The broader message of the APF — environmental sustainability, food safety, research and 'renewal', whatever that means — is being drowned out by the traditional fights and complaints over farm supports.

In the early going, the question on the ninth floor offices of the agriculture department headquarters was whether briefings should be set up with reporters (and not just those damn agriculture reporters with their ear to farmer positions) to see if a broader, more benign message could take hold in the public mind.

But in the end, wisdom prevailed and using reporters as a conduit was ruled out. Their filter is too negative ("but if it's so good, why are almost all farmers against early implementation? Eh?")

Vanclief will go directly to opinion shapers in urban areas to explain that the government's vision is far greater than helping farmers. It is out to help CANADA AND ALL CANADIANS.

Chances are, his audiences will be receptive. Many of them probably think farmers already get too much taxpayer support. They will know little or nothing about the agricultural battles, about the fact that farmers actually want to support the APF and its five pillars, if only the government would slow down enough to listen to the critics, to quit imagining farmers are obstructive and to try to create safety net systems farmers will buy into so the other parts of the APF can be implemented by willing producers.

Instead, they will hear messages close to their consuming and business ethic hearts: promises of investment in environment, Kyoto compliant, safe food to protect kids, support for science and helping farmers train to better compete.

If there is a single member of the Toronto audience who opposes any of that, they might want to consider turning in their membership in the Toronto board of trade for a spot in the National Farmers Union.

So this national tour to take the focus away from farmers likely will do what the deep thinkers in Agriculture Canada hope. It likely will create an urban and business skepticism about farmer concerns.

It will not help Vanclief's standing in the farm community, which he says is his first concern.

[dalek]

From Ontag:

Attention: Canadian Ag Producers


Canada's farmers can no longer subsidize the Canadian and Provincial
Governments. In 2002 Canadian farmers and their organizations were grateful for
the promise of better safety net programs that would replace existing enhanced
programs. Unfortunately, some farm organizations have just finished crunching
the numbers. The shocking truth is farmers that have had equity with the U.S.
farmer for 2000 and 2001 crops, will, for the next 6 years receive less than
half of what the U.S. farmer will receive. Obviously, Samy and Lyle's APF
promises are not worth the paper they are written on.

The really sad part is the spin doctors at Ag Canada have allocated $15 million
dollars to hire paid professionals to convince the rest of cabinet that this is
indeed a wonderful plan, instead it is a plan that will lead us deeper into
crisis management. Why spend $15 million on hired guns, when a good APF would
sell itself?

Why is Ag Canada constantly at war with its own farmers?
Why are several key government committee and task force recommendations being
ignored?

Forward this email to cdnfarmers@damsma.com or submit the form found at http://www.hcfa.on.ca/petition/default.htm (mirrored at http://www.damsma.com/petition/default.htm).


Let your voice be heard, a copy will be forwarded to all the Mp's in the House
of Commons.



CANADIAN SAFETY NETS AND FOOD SECURITY PETITION


PETITIONING THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

To the House of Commons in Parliament Assembled:

We, citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House to the following:

THAT in 2003 Canadian farmers were promised that current enhanced safety net
programs would be replaced with better safety net programs in order to "move
beyond crisis management" ;

THAT Ag Canada has allocated $15 million to consult , advertise and lead
farmers and Canadians into thinking that the proposed APF risk management
programs are better and more effective than current enhanced programs;

THAT 22 major Canadian farm groups including the CFA, OFA, UPA, KAP, OCPA,
etc. have stated they have not been adequately consulted or listened to,
resulting in their unanimous opposition to the APF risk management proposals ;

THAT Ag Canada and the federal government have ignored several recommendations
coming from the House of Commons Ag Committee, the Senate Ag Committee, the
Prime Ministers Task Force, as well as, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce
recommending: enhanced funding and enhanced programs continue until trade
distorting subsidies are reduced over time.

THEREFORE your petitioners request that Parliament direct the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food and Cabinet to maintain current enhanced programs
until the new APF safety nets are adequately designed to move agriculture
beyond crisis management not deeper into crisis management.

FURTHERMORE your petitioners request that Parliament direct the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food and Cabinet to use some of the AFP promotion budget
to inform Canadians that investment in adequate safety nets is a food security
issue.

[berwick]

What's'the rush Lyle?

Is this program going to be accepted by Ontario and Quebec? What's happening in Sask. Man. and B.C.

Here in Alberta it very quiet in the media or no one really cares.
Actually we are all busy knitting sweaters in Ralphs' World.!!
But maybe it's...
"HEAR NO EVIL, SEE NO EVIL, SPEAK NO EVIL" or something...

[dalek]

Ontario's farm groups definitely aren't on side, the prov. gov't hasn't been so far but could probably be bought off on other issues. Sounds like Quebec got a side deal with the feds as usual.

[dalek]

Alberta doesn't like or contribute to Nisa. I believe Alberta Gov. developed the Crop insurance and Revenue coverage programs to replace the Nisa completely. Which would make a far better program for everyone and particularly better then anyother program at present for young farmers especially if cost can be keep reasonable.

The risk management will be there to cover imput cost. If fraud canbe removed from the process it will be a very cost effective program.

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie and Lee;

At the AB Gov. meeting, we were told that the price of $100,000 worth of margin cverage, is now $26,000... with a cap of government payment at less than $70,000 on this coverage.

The production margin this program operates from, has a few limited expences that are allowed... and it certainly appears that for many farms negative margin coverage will only increase marginally...

2003 coverage is supposed to be created from our income tax 2002 returns... which for individual farmers are not due to Revenue Canada before June 15th.

Since it appears the feds require after tax money must be used to buy this New NISA program, and the cost is $26,000 per $100,000 of margin...

if the nominal tax rate on this contribution is 20%...

the federal and provincial governments will get a minimum actual premium of about $5000 dollars for this coverage...

prepaid through the income tax system.

Now we have heard the complaint that too much money has been tied up in NISA accounts now... do the new numbers!

I suspect that just as much active money will be tied up in the New NISA... as was tied up in the Old NISA... but the farmer must put in much more cash flow each year... after the start up period is finished!

Isn't this just hand cuffing farmers financially... giving huge interest profits to the banks... with only a minor increase in negative margin coverage?

Why is the fed. gov pushing so hard to implement this program for 2003?

[charliep]

Tom4cwb

You will have to ask the feds.

I agree the issue is working capital. Given each farms situation, you don't have to contribute the whole amount - stopping at 70 % may be adequate to cover the businesses risk.

It is also margin money - something that belongs to the farmer but has to be replentished in years it is pulled out. My thought is to just have the feds mail the money out with no requirement for margin. But I would never suggest that.

[JACKFLASH]

Charlie P
I am trying to think how the old Grip program worked in Sask. This Super Nisa has some Grip similairities. Maybe I am way off. Does anybody know?

[JACKFLASH]

To all:
If I understand this correctly the old Nisa accounts will be rolled into new Nisa.
You can take your money out and pay tax on it,or roll the funds in and use the money for the margin.
Is this a one time thing? Or every year you contribute?
Do you get this money back if you never triggered a claim
Does this money sit in a gov't account.
GRIP had a surplus of money, that when the NDP gov't folded the program they took the money and added it to general revenue,it should have been paid back to the farmers.
Who knows the real ins and outs of this program.It looks like the feds don't even have the program baked.

[TOM4CWB]

Jackflash;

My understanding is that there will be several options.

1. you will likely be allowed to roll into the new NISA.

2. A special 5 year withdrawl program is being looked at... but untaxed gov cotributions will come out first... then your after tax money.

3. A special 5 year withdrawl program with a 50% producer taxed 50% untaxed gov. portion... each year, for 5 years... is being considered by Finance Canada... nothing is finalised yet...

Your concern about SuperNISA contributions you put in yourself... appears to be unfounded... any money you contribute will be your money if and when you leave the SuperNISA program.

Your contributions will be triggered out when your margins fall into the SuperNISA trigger payout zone... the money must be taken out... then producer contributions returned the next fiscal year... if you want to be covered by SuperNISA the next year.

On startup it appears only one third of the 26,000 dollars is needed the first year, the second third on the second year, the full amount on the third year is to be on deposit.

If a trigger creates a payout of the bottom 70% coverage teer... then the reloading of the producer contributions goes to the one third per year contibutions till the SuperNISA account is reloaded again.

Hope this helps... these were the rules we were told here in Alberta on March 12th... things could change again... so keep tuned in... they probably will!

[JACKFLASH]

TOM4CWB
Thanks for the info.