[badsector]

[QUOTE]I SAY AGAIN how the hell can 2% of the population vote any party in?<br /> [/QUOTE]It was funny to see the map on election day. There were red (urban) islands surrounded by a blue (rural) sea. That's a fact. I have rural coworkers and they all voted conservative. Most of my urban cowerkers voted Liberal. The Harris government made this polarization a priority. They worked very hard to turn urban against rural and I guess eventually succeeded. They drew their support from rural areas, also the suburbs.<br /> <br /> By the way, what's your opinion of this article in the Toronto Star?<br /> <a href="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1143718866320&col=968705923364&call_page=TS_Business&call_pageid=968350072197&call_pagepath=Business/News">Canadian farming revenues up 10%<br /> </a><br /> <br /> "Mar. 30, 2006. 09:09 AM<br /> CANADIAN PRESS<br /> <br /> <br /> OTTAWA — Statistics Canada says higher hog and crop revenues offset sharply lower cattle revenues and pushed up the average operating margins for Canadian farms in 2004.<br /> <br /> The agency says taxation records show average operating revenues per farm increased 1.2 per cent in 2004 to $210,184.<br /> <br /> That's a 10.8 per cent increase in current dollars from the five-year average between 1999 and 2003.<br /> <br /> At the same time, average operating expenses dropped 0.4 per cent to $181,400 in 2004 from 2003.<br /> <br /> As a result, operating margins increased 1.4 cents to 13.7 cents per dollar of revenue, slightly under the previous five-year average.<br /> <br /> In 2004, average hog revenues climbed 17.3 per cent, largely due to growth in revenue from domestic slaughter; average hog revenues have almost doubled in the last five years.<br /> <br /> At the same time, average cattle revenues fell 20.1 per cent in 2004, mainly due to the continuing ban on beef trade to the United States which remained in force during all 12 months of the year.<br /> <br /> As a result, livestock revenues declined 3.1 per cent from 2003 to 2004.<br /> <br /> Average total crop revenues rose 3.4 per cent."<br /> <br /> Hey Brent! The farmers are doing more well than the average. I personally don't know anyone whose income grew by such a large percentage during the past few years. You see... farmers are manipulated by no-good politicians who use them for their own agendas. Time to wake up!

[Marcarc]

Revenues are up, but so are operating expenses. <br /> <br /> Also, keep in mind when you see 'averages', they are just that. So a corporate farm can rake in hundreds of millions, which more than makes up for plenty of farms that are doing very poorly. <br /> <br /> That is a statistical method repeated throughout statistics canada. You will notice that NO statistics on families and income earners break it down by numbers earning at various levels. You can find out how many are in poverty from advocate groups and statscan, but you can't tell anything about any other group. So Saint John board of trade brags that family incomes rose sharply, however, since it is an average the fact is that most of the Irvings live in that city so SOME families could be horribly rich, which of course will bring up the average. <br /> <br /> <br /> However, it's doubtful that 'every farm' has a new car. That's just silly and tells us nothing. The urban/rural split is also blown out of proportion a bit. For one thing, obviously there are far more conservatives in urban areas than rural, and also many ridings have both rural and urban voters. There may be a fewer farmers in my city, but the rural area right outside it is largely a suburb with an obviously small population of farmers.<br /> <br /> Of course the other statistic that is often omitted is the simple fact that rural areas have been the hardest hit by liberal policies. You can gripe about Toronto in general, but I've seen areas of Toronto that have FAR more infrastructure than most provinces. If you've ever been to Mount Sanaii then you can see it.<br /> <br /> I live in a city in southern ontario and there is no way you could complain here about liberal policies, they've done nothing but benefit the area. However, every city is different. But if you are in a rural area and the governing party has done nothing but screw you over, then OF COURSE you're going to vote for the other guy. However, to claim that farmers in Alberta have the exact same issues as farmers in southern ontario, or even Manitoba would be a gross generalization.

[badsector]

Marcarc, some farmers do well while other don't. I fail to see how it is different from other industries. There are small businesses that go bankrupt because they can't compete with corporations who produce cheaper in China. I don't see them driving their vans around Queen's Park, demanding a government bailout. They just try something different or get a job at an existing company. Life goes on and everyone struggles. Corporatization is a trademark of the New World Order that was announced by the old Bush, when the Berlin Wall came down. It's the new age. It will fail within a few decades but before it hits rock bottom it will probably destroy the consumer economy that we have enjoyed for about 6 decades. The middle class will be wiped out and unemployment will be catastrophic. When conditions will be bad enough, people get disillusioned and start organizing to change the system, like they did in the early 1900s. The small farmers are just a few of the many victims of globalization. They should do themselves a favour and stop supporting the conservatives.

[Marcarc]

Interesting outlook. No surprise if you're not on the farmers organization consulting team. Supporting the party that 's been screwing your over for a decade or the party that has no shot at winning seems spurious political advice, but sent it along to a farming organization and see what they say.<br /> <br /> Companies go out of business sometimes, but more often they simply pack up and move. The small businessman who goes out of business is never heard from simply because they are not part of an organization. Farmers, fishers, miners, teachers, civil servants, are all smart enough to know that you are far better off united, and history has proven that. If you think any of the above groups simply 'lays down for globalization' you haven't been paying attention. And the advice that they SHOULD be just laying down because YOU think certain things are inevitable is why no unions or organizations would ever pay any attention to you.<br /> <br /> Nothing is inevitable, and the mistake is the idea that farmers are blocking traffic to get 'sympathy'. They do stuff like that for the same reason that unions strike-because its a disruption. Governments understand disruption because call them up and tell them to smarten the hell up and settle things so it doesn't happen again. <br /> <br /> As an individual of course you'd just be arrested, which is why small businesspeople are at a severe disadvantage, and why union workers tend to make more money and get more concessions. In unity there is 'some' strength, individually you're just screwed. However, the 'fatal' approach of just accepting whatever comes down the pike might be fine for somebody whose livelihood isn't at issue or who can simply switch jobs, or doesn't mind being homeless, but we shouldn't be surprised when such ideas don't go far at organizational meetings.

[Rural]

It would seem, Mararc, that Badsector is not to be convinced that the suppliers of our food should be treated any difrently from any other industry, or for that matter even protected in any way. To be fair SOME farms may be making a good profit but I suspect that they are the corporate farms and the small family farms that produces QUALITY (not cheap) products are almost 100% loosing money.<br /> <br /> I was interested to see in annother thread http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/ ... 3105536429<br /> this from FDR.....<br /> In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all-regardless of station, race, or creed.<br /> <br /> Among these are:................<br /> <br /> The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;<br /> <br /> The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;<br /> <br /> Written in 1944! The more things change the more theystay the same.<br />

[Marcarc]

That's very true. Of course it comes down to defining 'unfair' trade. Canada is quite lax in that department, yet another department where our government is completely ineffectual at all levels. <br /> <br /> But there is a valid point that the farming industry needs to be looked at critically to find out to what level it IS just like any industry. We've seen the feds change the wheat board legislation to allow farmers to import cheap wheat and sell it. In effect potentially wiping out canada's wheat industry. Farmers then are simply importer-exporters. <br /> <br /> That's why across the board solutions never work, and why 'federal' answers of just handing money to the loudest lobbyists, such as happened during mad cow, is the opposite way to go. That, of course, is the problem with having a central government which holds all the dough and rations it out with little input from canadians.<br /> <br /> I'm not completely on the side of farmers, its not like these people are the 'salt of the earth' as we often hear, they are the same as everybody else. Here in Waterloo a new problem is the region selling human waste to farmers. This added to medical problems in europe and they stopped using it on farmland, here it is getting worse.<br /> <br /> So there IS a point for urban people to be involved, and if you ask most city folk, if they could afford local produce, support local farm industries, then they would do so. Typically, 'people' are on the same side when it comes down to policy specifics, but since canadians have no VOICE, the archaic political system we've inherited primarily serves to keep people divided and arguing generalities, because we aren't involved in making decisions anyway.

[badsector]

Marcarc, I am all for unions. I believe all workers everywhere in the World should be union members and bargain collectively. Those who don't should not have access to this lucrative market. However... back to reality. There is an allout war against unions and the farmers tend to be the first ones to bash them. My farmer body (the one who keeps insulting me for being a city guy) always says bad thing about unions when we sit down for a beer or two or three (or more). After a few drinks he gets really excited and sayd ugly things about liberals, NDP, unions, city people, etc. I am learning to ignore him cause otherwise he is a good guy. Yet, it shows exactly how a typical rural person thinks of us.<br /> <br /> It all comes down to whose party is on power. When it's the tories, cities are pillaged and rural folks have it easy. When it's the liberals' turn, the cities are fixed, proper funding for infrastructure is restored, but the rural folks get it rough. As soon as John Tory wins the election, cities will be in a financial crises again. You live in Waterloo? That's a city (nice one too).

[Marcarc]

Every farmer is different, just get new friends. Under Mulroney rural areas didn't have it 'good', it perhaps wasn't as bad as now. Politically people simply have few options. Farmers ousted the conservatives before, they'll do that again. When the other party doesn't answer them, they start another party (where they have the numbers).

[Rural]

It seems like our Federal Government agrees with Badsector , the following just in from the CFO. Last night on the news one farming representative said that 40% of the CAIS program (which is not popular in the first place) was eaten up by the government, $1 in, 60cents out, sounds normal!<br /> <br /> Where you are competitive, go for it. Where you are not—- get out. Government programs should not mask market signals. Farm programs should support commercial farming. Help for small, lifestyle and hobby farmers should come from social programs.<br /> <br /> Last week, I learned that these are the foundational principles of Canada’s farm policy, dubbed the Agricultural Policy Framework. This APF, Agricultural Policy Framework, the comprehensive five-year strategy signed by our federal, provincial and territorial Ministers of Agriculture, is touted on Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Web site as an agricultural policy for the 21st century . It was developed, according to the Web site, to help farming chart a course to continued prosperity and profitability. This very same strategy already has our newly elected Conservative government back pedalling on a major plank from its election platform. The Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program, CAIS, was to be replaced by separate stabilization and disaster programs. But, not one province is willing to undertake such a drastic change in mid-stream. The APF agreement runs until March 2008. In addition, few farm leaders are willing to abandon CAIS without a clear indication of just what the so-called separate programs would do better. Let’s put that bluntly: “without clear details of just how much more money separate programs will deliver to shore up the farm economy.”<br /> <br /> This learning happened at the Provincial Council meeting of the Christian Farmers Federation. The Council, which is made up of family farmers representing CFFO’s Districts around the province, had invited senior staff from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to stimulate the process of thinking about long-term farm policy—about APF II. What comes after March 2008? How do farmers get ready for consultations expected to start this fall. Council members raised typical family farm questions. Isn’t food security important? Why can’t we have a level playing field for imports produced with pesticides and hormones not approved for use inside Canada? Why can’t you see that money for agriculture keeps the rural economy going? Why are we putting ourselves at the mercy of the multinationals?<br /> <br /> OMAFRA’s representative responded to these expressions of frustration by directing our attention to the principles that politicians have given to the civil service. Where you are competitive, go for it. Where you are not -- get out. Government programs should not mask market signals. The role of the civil servant is to design programs that deliver on the principles adopted by politicians.<br /> <br /> There’s a joker in this deck of principles. There’s no mention of fairness or equity. There’s no commitment to food security. The APF’s so-called principles have trumped justice for Canadian farm families.<br /> __________<br /> Elbert van Donkersgoed P. Ag. (Hon.) is the Strategic Policy Advisor of the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, Canada. Corner Post is heard weekly on CFCO Chatham, CKNX Wingham and CHOK Sarnia, Ontario. Corner Post has a complimentary email subscriber list of more than 3,750 and is archived on the CFFO website: www.christianfarmers.org/index.html. CFFO is supported by 4,300 family farmers across Ontario.<br /> <br />

[badsector]

[QUOTE]What comes after March 2008?[/QUOTE]<br /> Well, I already started a thread about the gloabalization of farming but got few responses. According to the recently signed Doha agreement, Thir World countries such as Brazil get unlimited access to Western markets starting in 2008. Meanwhile, subsidies for Western farmers are phased out by 2012. This is what's happening. The Doha agreement is a death sentence to farming and an endorsement of the corporatization of agriculture. Who are responsible? Well, of course corporations, but also the parties who cater to them, namely the conservatives and the liberals. Still, the average farmer votes conservative... It's like voting for your own bankrupcy.<br /> <br /> This is almost spooky but this ongoing globalization is reminiscent of the forced cooperatives in the early days of communism. The family farms were wiped out and the farmers were forced to work at the cooperatives. I guess the "New World Order" is just the next totalitarian system.

[Marcarc]

Good post, but again, the conservatives have just gotten into power. So telling farmers to vote NDP is still akin to throwing a vote away, particularly when many farmers are still in a riding with many urban votes. <br /> <br /> The other option is to again, start a party. Unfortunately, THAT was tried before as well and we saw what happened. This is where too much internet and newspaper reading is detrimental because there is the 'chattering class' that makes you think conservatives are all alike. <br /> <br /> However, realistically, how does a farmer oppose a national policy like Doha. Somebody should actually post that, I"m going to do a search because I can guarantee that most people don't even KNOW about it. I didn't, and I spend far more time researching stuff than most. <br /> <br /> It's interesting to juxtapose that with the other thread on here about the municipality in Maine that has banned GM foods. In Canada of course our entire food supply system comes from two companies, so such ideas are outlandish. Regions, even PROVINCES don't have the power to opt out. <br /> <br /> To me, THAT"S what needs to be changed. It's called 'democracy', but we still haven't seen it yet in this country. Who knows what it could do?

[Marcarc]

I did a search and from my understanding there hasn't been a set 'Doha Agreement'. They are meeting again this year but nothing has been finalized.<br /> <br /> It is true that is where we are headed, however, it is clear our own government is the danger, not the WTO. There are many many loopholes. I have heard that dairy farmers are concerned over the tories views of supply side management. However, there are SOME trade issues that the feds cannot combat since they are provincial jurisdiction, like alcohol and gambling, etc.

[Brent Swain]

It can be argued that the real welfare bums are those benefitting from virtual slave labour of farmers.<br /> Brent

[badsector]

[QUOTE]It can be argued that the real welfare bums are those benefitting from virtual slave labour of farmers.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> This is true for all other occupations as well. Everywhere, the middle class is under attack. Income taxes are cut and the tax burden is shifted to property taxes. Millions of jobs are offshored to China, India. Well paying jobs are scarce. Benefits are disappearing. Pensions are cancelled. The West is in turmoil. Western governments are hijacked by a small group of influential fascists who are building a new totalitarian rule. Farmers suffer too, like all of us. On the other hand it's a little ironic that you talk about slave labour, yet farmers employ Mexican slave labourers...

[Brent Swain]

Where do I find the fod inspection agency on the internet. I rarely see country of origin info on bulk produce shelves, and it's either hard or impossible to find out.<br /> Brent