Media

[parsley]

Forum
from Darren Toews
StarPhoenix

"Framing debate differently doesn't alter CWB coercion



Re: Criticism of CWB operation based on dreams, not fact (SP, July 18). I have a dream about the wheat board, as well, and it goes something like Boyd Denny's version: "When the CWB sells wheat or barley for farmers, an initial payment is made and a further final payment is made on any profit at a later date. The board never owns the product; it is just a selling agency for the Prairie farmers."

My dream, however, has a slightly different twist in which the CWB has a gun held to the farmer's head, while saying: "Of course it's your grain. We're just selling it for you. Don't be selfish, for we only have your best interest at heart. We'd never use this gun -- unless, of course, you try to sell your own grain."

Fortunately for farmers, in the waking hours, the gun is only rhetorical. Make no mistake, however, when individuals face prosecution and jail time for acting in their own economic self-interest, they cease to own their product, regardless of how Denny tries to frame the debate.


Darren Toews
Saskatoon "

Parsley

[parsley]

Your crops are often sold as food, and part of marketing is providing safe food.



Edmonton Journal
25th July, 2008

Letters
by Gerry Ritz

"Food inspections beefed up

Re: "Harper government wrong to let meat packers perform inspections," by Lauren Lehrer, and "There will always be risks," by G.W. (Bill) Riedel, Letters, July 22.

The Conservative government is investing more resources than ever to protect Canadian families and keep our food safe.

Our 2008 budget allocated more than $113 million for Canada's Food and Consumer Safety Action Plan. The action plan will result in more inspectors and increased surveillance of domestic and imported foods. We continue to modernize our system to better protect Canadians, enhancing the safety and reliability of consumer, food, and health products.

Unfortunately, these letters to the editor focus on speculation and possible outcomes, which are not based in fact. I would like to set the record straight.

The Conservative government has not cut funding to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Our food safety inspection systems are internationally recognized. We are continually modernizing and improving our inspection systems to meet the challenges of a changing environment, whether it is emerging food safety risks or changes to technology or the marketplace.

Any changes to the federal inspection system will always include strong enforcement and compliance action by the CFIA so that industry meets the requirement to produce safe food.

Under the Conservative government, the number of CFIA inspectors increased from 2,820 in 2006 to 3,020 by March 2008. The number of inspectors will continue to grow under the action plan.

Canada has one of the best BSE prevention and surveillance systems in the world. The CFIA will maintain testing and surveillance activities so that Canada's BSE safeguards continue to protect human and animal health.

We will continue to maintain and strengthen our world-class food safety system, and the government will continue to work with Canadians, industry, and animal health and provincial stakeholders, because we all have a role to play in maintaining this standard. The bottom line is that the government is increasing investment in food safety and we are putting more CFIA inspectors on the ground to protect Canadian families.


Gerry Ritz, minister of agriculture and agri-food and minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Ottawa "


Parsley

[parsley]

"Canada's largest farms
2005


Canada's largest farms, those with annual revenues of $500,000 or more, are becoming a major economic force in the country. Large farms are growing in numbers, the people who run them invest more in their businesses, and more large farms are profitable than smaller ones.

While smaller farms dominate in numbers, large farms dominate both revenue and profits. Farms with annual revenue over $500,000 represented only 11.0% of all Canadian farms in 2005, but accounted for 55.0% of revenue.

Below $250,000 in annual revenue, the majority of farm family income came from off-farm sources. Within the $250,000 to $499,999 revenue category, on-farm income and government payments were the major earning sources for the farm families. Above $500,000 in annual revenue, net farm income became the largest contributor to family income.

There was a clear trend towards greater capital investment for farms with at least $1.0 million in revenue, particularly those in the higher ranges.

Large farms had sizeable levels of debt and high debt-to-equity ratios. But they also had more efficient sales-to-asset ratios and a higher return on equity.

Operating margins have fallen for all farms, but they fell less in percentage terms among the large farms. The average margin in 2005 for farms with revenues between $250,000 and $499,999 was 6.5%, down from 16.7% in 1999. In contrast, the average margin for farms with revenues between $1.0 million and less than $2.5 million was 12.1%, compared with 14.0% in 1999.

The trend toward larger farms seems to be strongly reinforced by the financial results achieved by those farms. Debt appears to be an essential component of growth but for most farms, the payoff resulting from investment is significant.

Note: Data for this article are from the 2006 Farm Financial Survey, which collected financial data on Canadian farms up to the end of 2005. Information was reported by a representative sample of farms operators at the time of the survey. Where comparisons of financial values are made between years, values for all years have been expressed in equivalent 2005 dollars.

The July 2008 issue of Vista on the Agri-food Industry and the Farm Community (21-004-XWE, free) is now available from the Publications module of our website.

For more information, or to enquire about the concepts, methods or data quality of this release, contact Bishnu Saha (613-951-8718; bishnu.saha@statcan.ca), Agriculture Division."

Parsley

[parsley]

Crushing statistics
June 2008


Oilseed processors crushed 337 149 metric tonnes of canola in June, while oil production totalled 140 895 tonnes and meal production amounted to 203 731 tonnes.

[parsley]

"Canadian agriculture and food on the move

More and more, consumers seem to be keeping tabs on where the food they eat is grown. A new study, published today in the online version of Canadian Agriculture at a Glance, examines the source of several agricultural products commonly consumed by Canadians.

Many factors play a role in whether the product in supermarkets is grown locally, or in the same province, or whether it originates in another country. They include the limitations of climate, and such economic factors as government support programs and farm labour prices.

These same factors also influence what local products are featured in neighbourhood farmers' markets, or are exported to Canada's trading partners.

Canadians can get an idea of what is being grown or raised in their local municipalities by accessing Statistics Canada's 2006 Agriculture Community Profiles database. This module on our website provides community-level information from the 2006 Census of Agriculture."

Parsley

[parsley]

The Government is busy branding food as "Canadian"

http://www.ats.agr.gc.ca/brandingcanada/toolbox/subcategories_e.htm#specialtycrops

I noted you have to be incorporated to register.

I also noted:

" products that were originally grown or harvested in Canada,

or

products produced elsewhere using Canadian input.

are considered elegible for the "Canadian" brand.

So we grow a crop, sell it to China and they manufacture thingamabobs, and it's Canadian?

Hmmm.


Parsley

[parsley]

That should be "out-source it to China", not sell it.

Parsley

[parsley]

JEFFREY SIMPSON

Globe and Mail
July 30, 2008

Canada's governments have done something really stupid in subsidizing
corn-based ethanol, and requiring its increased use, but apparently
cannot correct their mistake.

As a policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, corn-based ethanol is a
poor option; as a farm subsidy program, it's also a poor bet. Making
matters worse, corn-based ethanol takes corn-for-food out of production,
and moves land from other kinds of production into corn, thereby adding
to what are already rising food prices.

Governments, here and in the U.S., thought they were doing great things
for the environment and helping farmers, too. Ethanol policy was, to
quote the Harper government, a "win-win." Actually, it was a lose-lose
policy for all but corn producers, who, naturally enough, have rallied
furiously to protect their good fortune.

Many researchers have exposed the follies of subsidizing corn-based
ethanol production, the latest being Douglas Auld, in an extremely
well-documented paper for the C.D. Howe Institute.

Mr. Auld has surveyed the research literature about the putatively
beneficial effects of corn-based ethanol on replacing gasoline. The
theory is that such ethanol produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions than
gasoline from a vehicle engine.

Indeed, it does, but that simple statement ignores what energy is
required to produce a litre of ethanol. When the so-called "lifecycle"
of ethanol production is counted, Mr. Auld concludes (as have many
others) that ethanol doesn't lower GHG outputs. Remember, too, that
ethanol delivers less energy per litre than gasoline, so more litres of
production are required to move a vehicle a certain distance.

Mr. Auld, therefore, correctly concludes, "It is clear from the evidence
to date that there is no consensus regarding the efficacy of corn-based
ethanol either to reduce GHGs or reduce overall energy demands."

But we aren't dealing with "evidence," rather with political optics from
governments wanting to look "green" and from a desire to help farmers.

And so, the Harper government replaced the previous special tax
exemption for ethanol to a producer credit that will cost the country
about $1.5-billion. To this sum were added loans, biofuel research
grants plus mandatory ethanol content requirements. In other words, the
government pushed up the supply of corn-based ethanol through subsidies,
then pushed up the demand through regulation.

Provinces got in on the act, offering producer credits and mandatory
ethanol content requirements. Putting the provincial and federal
policies together produced whopping advantages for ethanol of about
$400-million a year.

For such money, Canadians might expect at least some decline in
greenhouse gas emissions. They will be disappointed. There will be few
reductions, and Mr. Auld estimates that these might cost $368 a tonne -
way, way higher than other per-tonne costs for eliminating carbon
dioxide, the main climate-warming gas.

By contrast, one part of the Harper government's proposed climate-change
policy would see big companies that do not meet their intensity-based
reduction targets paying $15 a tonne into a technology fund. World
prices for carbon offsetting these days are about $30 a tonne.

However, even if this form of ethanol is a climate-change bust, at least
it's great for farmers. Not so fast. It's a boon to the corn producers,
but to supply all the additional demand for ethanol, up to half the
current farmland for corn will be used. As more land is diverted to corn
for ethanol, there will be less corn for human and animal consumption.

So whereas corn producers will gain, livestock producers will suffer. As
their costs rise, so will the price of their products to consumers.

It's wrong to blame the rush to ethanol for rising food prices here and
abroad. Let's just say the rush contributes to the problem. Mr. Auld
estimates that if you take the direct subsidies for ethanol production
of $400-million a year, and add the costs of higher food to consumers,
the wealth transfer to corn-based farmers could soon be about
$800-million.

It's the classic case of subsidies distorting markets: One group gains
and mobilizes all of its resources to protect its gains, insisting these
gains reflect the public good; whereas in reality almost everyone else
loses but doesn't complain.

So we have a silly policy with hundreds of millions of dollars going
down the policy drain, achieving none of the objectives the politicians
claimed.