Income Supports for

[Michael Hardner]

Borg,

Wal Mart also has bancrupted many companies with their power of purchase and demands that must be met.

This is true.

As for testing, some of what you say is true - however inspection on imports is very insecure. CFIA is basically incapable of doing the job. In fact it is quite common for complete loads of food to enter with nothing more than a rubber stamp. Not enough people to do the job we THINK they are doing.

Then that's a separate issue. Inspections need to be brought up to code.

Your comments on an icy country ring true - I like to use it as an comparison when folks talk about fuel costs. We produce and export fuel to places where the retail cost is higher. However those countries are smaller and have a far better system of transportation. It is very rare for someone in the U.K. to drive for 100 miles to get to work - yet very common in certain parts of this country. It is also very uncommon for a Euro person to have to heat a house for 6 months ofthe year. Yet we pay world price for oil despite being a major exporter. That is just the way it is.

Countries buy from us for many reasons - one of the major factors is the LACK of risk. It is sometimes not the price but the quality that sells. Very often we buy from other countries simply because it provides profit.

Then it's a different type of risk, it seems to me.

I am not an advocate of free trade because I do not see it as being free. Seems to me we are always in court over it - or under attack from various world trade organizations.

No, I have not darkened the doors of a Wal Mart in many years and no one in my faamily will either. There is a very personal reason for that and suffice to say it cost us some big money - and closed down some serious businesses in a town we once dealt with. Their corporate culture is not friendly at all. It is their way or the highway.

I would personally rather pay more than support this outfit.

If WAL MART cannot produce goodwill, then they will lose customers such as yourself.

For similar reasons, I have never set foot in a WAL MART. I just find them to make shopping into a grossy, ugly, Soviet experience.

You do not have to feel sorry - our operation will not close down - despite my love of profit, we have some serious moral and ethical obligations to some locals who have been with us for years and continue to stay on despite offers from elsewhere.

We still profit share at Christmas every year - never missed in a long time.

Trust me - we will survive - and make money doing it.

Borg

Great. Then you don't need subsidies. In middle age, my industry was globalized to reduce costs. My hours of work increased, my quality of life decreased, work environments became nasty, and salaries went down.

I work in high tech, and throughout this period the only news I ever heard about it was that 'Canada needs more high tech workers'.

Now that the auto worker job is in serious peril their various acolytes and advocates appear on the news with grave faces predicting disaster. It's hard for me to feel sorry for them, since I can't even afford the new cars that they produce. But I do.

[Borg]

Then you don't need subsidies.

No I do not. And in fact we have never qualified for subsidies - however there are many that do need them.

I have no problem in the scenario going one of two ways:

1. Subsidize to protect our food source. Food is primary.

2. Subsidize until world trade organizations sort out their mess. We are under constant attack over our food policy - it is seen as unfair by the various nations who want us to buy their product. And it may very well be - but do I want to feed my family with something that has a suspect origin, a weaker herbicide or pesticide policy, or perhaps even one that makes money on a culture of slavery?

We do import from nations that do this.

Otherwise I believe foreign control over our food requirement will raise the price of food and /or create future havoc as we saw with the pet food fiasco.

Thus I am a person who believes ag should not be a "sink or swim" scenario.

Borg

[blueblood]

Why pick on the ethanol industry. There are a pile of jobs that opened up because of it. Ag business companies are also doing well and can expand and provide jobs. Grain guys are doing better now and can spend their money and improve the economy of western Canada.

If there is to be a subsidy paid out to cattle producers, it should be a "set aside" subsidy. If cattle farmers want a subsidy, they should put their bulls away and quit flooding the market with calves. By reducing the cattle sold, it would correct the market. By paying cattle producers government money and them still flooding the market, a subsidy would do nothing. Or if there is another way in which beef can be used that would be profitable, then invest in that.

[jdobbin]

Why pick on the ethanol industry. There are a pile of jobs that opened up because of it. Ag business companies are also doing well and can expand and provide jobs. Grain guys are doing better now and can spend their money and improve the economy of western Canada.

If there is to be a subsidy paid out to cattle producers, it should be a "set aside" subsidy. If cattle farmers want a subsidy, they should put their bulls away and quit flooding the market with calves. By reducing the cattle sold, it would correct the market. By paying cattle producers government money and them still flooding the market, a subsidy would do nothing. Or if there is another way in which beef can be used that would be profitable, then invest in that.

Ethanol is subsidized. Because it raises prices on feed, it means the livestock industry is subsidized.

[blueblood]

Ethanol is subsidized. Because it raises prices on feed, it means the livestock industry is subsidized.

No that would mean the packing industry, and it would be a weird way of doing subsidies, still high store prices, farmers getting nothing for cows. Packers are passing the buck. There are still too many cattle in the country that's all.

I don't know why you would be against a town like Minnedosa getting jobs from that large ethanol plant going up and operating the damn thing and local farmers getting over 6 bucks a bushell for their junk wheat?

[jdobbin]

No that would mean the packing industry, and it would be a weird way of doing subsidies, still high store prices, farmers getting nothing for cows. Packers are passing the buck. There are still too many cattle in the country that's all.

I don't know why you would be against a town like Minnedosa getting jobs from that large ethanol plant going up and operating the damn thing and local farmers getting over 6 bucks a bushell for their junk wheat?

I'm against a subsidy and a regulation that forces ethanol on everybody in Manitoba whether they like it or not. I don't think it helps with emissions. I don't think it helps reduce energy needs from oil. I do see it causing hire feed prices and then end result being a subsidy given to another agricultural industry as a result.

[blueblood]

I'm against a subsidy and a regulation that forces ethanol on everybody in Manitoba whether they like it or not. I don't think it helps with emissions. I don't think it helps reduce energy needs from oil. I do see it causing hire feed prices and then end result being a subsidy given to another agricultural industry as a result.

You forgot being a major hindrance to the wheat board and the railways. Approx. 10% of Manitoba grain to be going to Minnedosa by Super B's when the plant is fully operational. I'm pretty sure the wheat board won't like that very much.

In the long term it will reduce emissions and reduce oil usage, and I've already gotten into the logistics of that in another thread.

There were subsidies that forced Alberta's oil on everyone else. Hell Trudeau tried to do it with his NEP. With Subsidies used properly, economic growth can be generated, look at Alberta. The ethanol industry is going to employ a lot of people, keep farmers on the farm, and in the long term compete with cattle producers for acres, which would then raise cattle prices. Having financially secure grain farmers and the spin off ag business jobs and a brand new industry that creates jobs, economic growth and tax dollars is worth the little problem with the cattle industry that can easily be solved by cutting supply numbers. Mark my words in 5-10 years the cattle industry will correct itself.

I don't know why you would be against one of Manitoba's largest industries. Did you like how it was 4 years ago when both grain and cattle farmers were in hot water accepting little government handout cheques? The government is spending its ag money far more constructively and wisely than the old Liberal ag programs. The government is going to get a good return on it's investment in the ethanol industry and that's why they're supporting it full steam. The provinces will get richer as a result of this. Are you against a stronger economy?

[jdobbin]

You forgot being a major hindrance to the wheat board and the railways. Approx. 10% of Manitoba grain to be going to Minnedosa by Super B's when the plant is fully operational. I'm pretty sure the wheat board won't like that very much.

In the long term it will reduce emissions and reduce oil usage, and I've already gotten into the logistics of that in another thread.

There were subsidies that forced Alberta's oil on everyone else. Hell Trudeau tried to do it with his NEP. With Subsidies used properly, economic growth can be generated, look at Alberta. The ethanol industry is going to employ a lot of people, keep farmers on the farm, and in the long term compete with cattle producers for acres, which would then raise cattle prices. Having financially secure grain farmers and the spin off ag business jobs and a brand new industry that creates jobs, economic growth and tax dollars is worth the little problem with the cattle industry that can easily be solved by cutting supply numbers. Mark my words in 5-10 years the cattle industry will correct itself.

I don't know why you would be against one of Manitoba's largest industries. Did you like how it was 4 years ago when both grain and cattle farmers were in hot water accepting little government handout cheques? The government is spending its ag money far more constructively and wisely than the old Liberal ag programs. The government is going to get a good return on it's investment in the ethanol industry and that's why they're supporting it full steam. The provinces will get richer as a result of this. Are you against a stronger economy?

I'm afraid every recent study says it won't reduce emissions or energy needs.

The Wheat Board is able to get higher prices for the sale of grain. Doesn't effect them much except that they pay more and sell for a higher price.

I'm against an endless subsidy. The same type of subsidies exist in the oil industry as well. Our economy would do better not to subsidize any industry.

[blueblood]

I'm afraid every recent study says it won't reduce emissions or energy needs.

The Wheat Board is able to get higher prices for the sale of grain. Doesn't effect them much except that they pay more and sell for a higher price.

I'm against an endless subsidy. The same type of subsidies exist in the oil industry as well. Our economy would do better not to subsidize any industry.

Simple logic would dictate the ethanol industry would reduce emissions and oil needs.

The Wheat Board won't have the volume it needs though. Supporters of the wheat board say that without volume, the wheat board is toast. They say the board wouldn't be able to survive with marketing choice. The ethanol industry is in a way marketing choice and you yourself have just said that the board would survive. (I support the board because it is an accountable export marketing alternative, but should have competition) 10% of Manitoba's grain that would have been sold through the board is a lot of grain.

Are you considering a tax break a subsidy? Lower taxes help stimulate industry and investment and help the economy more. I'm pretty sure the governments aren't handing cheques out to oil companies out in Alberta these days.

[jdobbin]

Simple logic would dictate the ethanol industry would reduce emissions and oil needs.

The Wheat Board won't have the volume it needs though. Supporters of the wheat board say that without volume, the wheat board is toast. They say the board wouldn't be able to survive with marketing choice. The ethanol industry is in a way marketing choice and you yourself have just said that the board would survive. (I support the board because it is an accountable export marketing alternative, but should have competition) 10% of Manitoba's grain that would have been sold through the board is a lot of grain.

Are you considering a tax break a subsidy? Lower taxes help stimulate industry and investment and help the economy more. I'm pretty sure the governments aren't handing cheques out to oil companies out in Alberta these days.

I'm afraid that logic appears faulty. The evidence on emissions and oil needs is why there is controversy on ethanol.

Citation for your Wheat Board claim?

We have gone through this debate before. The Wheat Board cannot operate unless it has a monopoly. As a state enterprise, once competition is allowed for grain destined for food, it is subject to countervailing duties from other countries.

I consider a tax break for industry as a subsidy. Alberta oil companies receive huge subsidies to work the tar sands.

[blueblood]

I'm afraid that logic appears faulty. The evidence on emissions and oil needs is why there is controversy on ethanol.

Citation for your Wheat Board claim?

We have gone through this debate before. The Wheat Board cannot operate unless it has a monopoly. As a state enterprise, once competition is allowed for grain destined for food, it is subject to countervailing duties from other countries.

I consider a tax break for industry as a subsidy. Alberta oil companies receive huge subsidies to work the tar sands.

Yah but there's always going to be crops grown regardless.

My wheat board claim was logic, and just read a western producer or Manitoba cooperater, there's always a few characters who claim the board needs all the grain in Western Canada to survive. In an export market that agency is needed for accountability. In a domestic market the wheat board would be foolish which is why there is no wheat board for oilseeds and other crops.

You know that companies don't like being taxed. You and I both know that if companies are being taxed to heavily, they will say screw it and move elsewhere where it doesn't cost them as much to operate. A subsidy like that helps out the economy greatly.

[jdobbin]

Yah but there's always going to be crops grown regardless.

My wheat board claim was logic, and just read a western producer or Manitoba cooperater, there's always a few characters who claim the board needs all the grain in Western Canada to survive. In an export market that agency is needed for accountability. In a domestic market the wheat board would be foolish which is why there is no wheat board for oilseeds and other crops.

You know that companies don't like being taxed. You and I both know that if companies are being taxed to heavily, they will say screw it and move elsewhere where it doesn't cost them as much to operate. A subsidy like that helps out the economy greatly.

Growing the crops, yes. Turning them into ethanol, no. It is the energy costs for producing ethanol that changes the figure.

http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Biomass/Cost.shtml

The cost of producing ethanol varies with the cost of the feedstock used and the scale of production. Approximately 85 percent of ethanol production capacity in the United States relies on corn feedstock. The cost of producing ethanol from corn is estimated to be about $1.10 per gallon. Although there is currently no commercial production of ethanol from cellulosic feedstocks such as agricultural wastes, grasses and wood, the estimated production cost using these feedstocks is $1.15 to $1.43 per gallon.

Because a gallon of ethanol contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline, the production cost of ethanol must be multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to make an energy-cost comparison with gasoline. This means that if ethanol costs $1.10 per gallon to produce, then the effective cost per gallon to equal the energy contained in a gallon of gasoline is $1.65. In contrast, the current wholesale price of gasoline is about 90 cents per gallon.

The federal motor fuel excise tax on gasohol, a blended fuel of 10-percent ethanol and 90-percent gasoline, is 5.4 cents less per gallon than the tax on straight gasoline. In other words, the federal subsidy is 54 cents per gallon of ethanol when the ethanol is blended with gasoline. The subsidy makes ethanol-blended fuel competitive in the marketplace and stimulates the growth of an ethanol production and distribution infrastructure.

Moreover, the deal doesn't work unless you force gas companies to blend in ethanol. What a racket!

I believe that one industry shouldn't be subsidized over another industry like it is with ethanol.

[blueblood]

Growing the crops, yes. Turning them into ethanol, no. It is the energy costs for producing ethanol that changes the figure.

http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Biomass/Cost.shtml

Moreover, the deal doesn't work unless you force gas companies to blend in ethanol. What a racket!

I believe that one industry shouldn't be subsidized over another industry like it is with ethanol.

That's short term. They made it work in Brazil with sugar cane. I imagine oil was ridiculously expensive to refine when it was first being used, by that logic they should have stuck to coal and whale oil. Let the ethanol industry go and the costs will come down.

Your not addressing the jobs created and the fact that the rural economy is strenghthened, are you against that too? Would you rather have those workers at the plants unemployed? Would you not want the tax collected from property taxes, GST, income taxes, corporate taxes, come on your a Liberal now?

[jdobbin]

That's short term. They made it work in Brazil with sugar cane. I imagine oil was ridiculously expensive to refine when it was first being used, by that logic they should have stuck to coal and whale oil. Let the ethanol industry go and the costs will come down.

Your not addressing the jobs created and the fact that the rural economy is strenghthened, are you against that too? Would you rather have those workers at the plants unemployed? Would you not want the tax collected from property taxes, GST, income taxes, corporate taxes, come on your a Liberal now?

I'm afraid there is no comparison. Sugar cane production is far more efficient than maize and grain. It costs about 30% more to do it in North America and is unlikely that it will ever be as cost effective as sugar cane. The costs of production of sugar cane are lower because of labour costs and guaranteed purchases by the state oil company.

The rural economy is asking for increasing subsidies because of the subsidy of one industry over the other. It taps the taxpayers constantly. Are you not a Conservative?

[blueblood]

I'm afraid there is no comparison. Sugar cane production is far more efficient than maize and grain. It costs about 30% more to do it in North America and is unlikely that it will ever be as cost effective as sugar cane. The costs of production of sugar cane are lower because of labour costs and guaranteed purchases by the state oil company.

The rural economy is asking for increasing subsidies because of the subsidy of one industry over the other. It taps the taxpayers constantly. Are you not a Conservative?

They are still forcing ethanol. Still cheaper to import oil then by your thinking.

The ethanol industry is going to pay for itself in time and in turn make the government money, why else would a Conservative government fund such a thing. It's a far smarter investment than writing out cheques and giving them out to farmers like welfare cheques and hoping the problem goes away, as was done in the prev. Liberal government; policy like that just about collapsed the grain industry. We should not be writing cattle producers cheques unless they keep their bulls at home and kill off the overflooded livestock market and put it back in balance. I think there is a way to make bio-diesel out of animal fat, I might be wrong on that.

If taxbreaks are a subsidy, then how does it tap a taxpayer???? He's not paying for anything.

[jdobbin]

These were some of the concerns of ethanol in the U.S.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-07-...nol-study_x.htm

Ethanol is far from a cure-all for the nation's energy problems. It's not as environmentally friendly as some supporters claim and would supply only 12% of U.S. motoring fuel — even if every acre of corn were used.

A number of researchers, the latest in a report Monday, are warning about exaggerated expectations that ethanol could dramatically change America's dependence on foreign oil by shifting motorists away from gasoline.

As far as alternative fuels are concerned, biodiesel from soybeans is the better choice compared with corn-produced ethanol, University of Minnesota researchers concluded in an analysis Monday.

But "neither can replace much petroleum without impacting food supplies," the researchers concluded in the paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

I really have a problem with food for fuel especially at taxpayers expense.

Edited December 18, 2007 by jdobbin

[blueblood]

These were some of the concerns of ethanol in the U.S.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-07-...nol-study_x.htm

I really have a problem with food for fuel especially at taxpayers expense.

I have a problem with a cheap food policy that encourages "dumping" policies that are damaging to the economy and make everyone poorer at taxpayers expense.

[jdobbin]

I have a problem with a cheap food policy that encourages "dumping" policies that are damaging to the economy and make everyone poorer at taxpayers expense.

The cattlemen would probably tell you to stop growing so much grain.

[blueblood]

The cattlemen would probably tell you to stop growing so much grain.

And people didn't, lots of land got seeded to grass, or just went to waste. Europe has a land set aside program, and if Canada didn't have the ethanol industry, I'd be wanting a land set aside program to compete with Europe.

[jdobbin]

And people didn't, lots of land got seeded to grass, or just went to waste. Europe has a land set aside program, and if Canada didn't have the ethanol industry, I'd be wanting a land set aside program to compete with Europe.

I'd have no problem with that type of program versus a growing food for fuel industry.

[margrace]

There are three things you can't live without, Air to breath, Food to eat and Water to drink. By the type of posts considered discussing on here you would think these things are not anymore important than the sometimes unimportant things discussed.

[jdobbin]

There are three things you can't live without, Air to breath, Food to eat and Water to drink. By the type of posts considered discussing on here you would think these things are not anymore important than the sometimes unimportant things discussed.

I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm concerned with turning food into fuel and using subsidies to do it. Moreover, the argument that it reduces emissions is turning out to be less true than was advertised.

Edited December 19, 2007 by jdobbin

[blueblood]

I'd have no problem with that type of program versus a growing food for fuel industry.

Neither would I, the main thin is, the industry had to get corrected, and it did, but in the way you didn't like. Ethanol won't make much of a difference in emissions, I'd be a fool not to see that. But the rural economy needed a shot in the arm. It was unfortunate that the federal Liberals didn't take the steps that the Tories did to correct it. If the federal Liberals enacted a Land set aside program in the first place, we wouldn't be in this mess. They missed the boat and are paying for it and are going to have a hard time winning rural votes when the tories are in power and the farmer is getting over nine bucks a bushell for wheat.

But a cattle set aside program is desperately needed, there are way too much cows in the country. I don't like the gov't writing cheques for bad business practises.

[jdobbin]

Neither would I, the main thin is, the industry had to get corrected, and it did, but in the way you didn't like. Ethanol won't make much of a difference in emissions, I'd be a fool not to see that. But the rural economy needed a shot in the arm. It was unfortunate that the federal Liberals didn't take the steps that the Tories did to correct it. If the federal Liberals enacted a Land set aside program in the first place, we wouldn't be in this mess. They missed the boat and are paying for it and are going to have a hard time winning rural votes when the tories are in power and the farmer is getting over nine bucks a bushell for wheat.

But a cattle set aside program is desperately needed, there are way too much cows in the country. I don't like the gov't writing cheques for bad business practises.

The Liberals did blow it on a land set aside program. It was a mistake.

I worry that if we continue the food for fuel push, we could have even last bit of grain going into the fuel industry. That is going to end up hurting a lot more people in the end.

No grain farmer will be interested in a land set aside policy now if they can make money selling to refiners.

We need a cattle policy that works for Canada. The market has been desperate for the U.S. market to open up. The problem is that when another mad cow episode happens like it seems to have again this week, it affects the overall demand even if the border is open.

[blueblood]

The Liberals did blow it on a land set aside program. It was a mistake.

I worry that if we continue the food for fuel push, we could have even last bit of grain going into the fuel industry. That is going to end up hurting a lot more people in the end.

No grain farmer will be interested in a land set aside policy now if they can make money selling to refiners.

We need a cattle policy that works for Canada. The market has been desperate for the U.S. market to open up. The problem is that when another mad cow episode happens like it seems to have again this week, it affects the overall demand even if the border is open.

The government wouldn't let all of our grain go into the ethanol industry, they'd get voted out of office, I can see the cellulose thing taking off though. That's why they only settled on 5%. I think they know what they are doing as far as energy needs and keeping our economy going goes. I bet when oil runs out, nuclear fusion will conveniently become availible.

First and foremost the U.S. packing industry is why the border is open. R-Calf doesn't have anywhere near the lobbying power say Tyson foods has. This mad cow showing up is meaningless as it is 13 yrs. old, the Americans realize these things will pop up. Right now it is boom times in the American packing industry. An overflooded cheap Candian beef supply and sky high American demand. A cattle set aside program is desperately needed to correct this problem. We're getting robbed.