Loading...
The Rural Voice, 1987-09, Page 78PERTH COUNTY Pork Producers NEWSLETTER Clare Schlegel, R. R. 4, Stratford, 655-2750 ALL -CANDIDATES QUESTIONNAIRE: The three provincial candidates were asked to make theirr responses as brief and com- prehensive as possible. Our request should be taken into consideration. We promised to leave their answers unedited. 1. ROP and A1: Ontario pork producers have achieved a competitive advantage through the testing of breeding stock in the ROP program and the dissemination of supe- rior genetics by Al. How do you foresee the Ontario government's continued role in maintaining these two services? CHRISTIE: Al in the hog industry can't be viable at present without government sup- port. The advantage is that genetics are more mobile and can be introduced into a herd without the risk of disease by introducing a new boar. EDIGHOFFER: The Liberal government will continue to support research regarding artificial insemination in swine, as it does for cattle and sheep, because there are still many technological problems to resolve. Since swine Al is in its infancy, there could well be continued direct government support for up to 15 years; certainly to the end of the On- tario Pork Industry Improvement Plan, which is March 1991. It is the government's intention to study having ROP privatized within three years. However, we anticipate a continuing grant to a private organization will be needed. This money would be in payment for records from pork producers, for use in research, educa- tion and extension, and should not be consid- ered a subsidy. HAM: We have arrived at this level of com- petitiveness because of the experimental funding that was made available at first. Now we have not only a good export prod- uct, but technology systems and ideas to sell as well, as is evidenced by the number of foreign governments monitoring our pro- grams. If we are to seek markets beyond our traditional base, which may or may not be in jeopardy from protectionism, ROP and Al must be continued and monitored as to their funding needs and goals. Privatization of the ROP program in New Dundee is fine as long as the per head subsidy is maintained to allow meaningful research. 2. Stabilization: At the present time, livestock and poultry producers are disad- vantaged by not receiving stabilization on grains grown and fed on the farm. For example, in hog production the difference between the cost of growing feed and the cost of buying it is $6.30 per hog. Also the tri- partite stabilization formula for hogs uses the market cost of grain, not the cost of growing it, in determining the level of sup- port. Do you favour the Ontario government assisting livestock and poultry producers in 76 THE RURAL VOICE obtaining stabilization of fed grains? EDIGHOFFER: Stabilization payments are intended to assist producers only after they have suffered a loss in the marketplace. Since stabilization programs cover both grain and livestock, both these sectors re- ceive the benefits of stabilization. The issue of stabilizing fed grain must be evaluated in terms of: program cost, qualifi- cation criteria, creation of artificial incen- tives to produce grain or hogs, and program administration. Agriculture ministers from across Can- ada have directed a task force to review current stabilization programs and report on their effectiveness this summer. The Minis- ter of Agriculture, Jack Riddell, has asked his staff to look at different ways grain is fed to animals and identify where payments might be allowed. The minister wants to consider this forthcoming information be- fore making any decisions. HAM: The current approach is inadequate. Deficiency payments are based on averaging of historical prices. When prices fall over a period of time, support drops. When prices rise, many farmers do not qualify. This is not help, but willful blindness. First a floor on support prices is needed to insulate farmers from international trade wars, and then return to them their produc- tion cost. If the past and present govern- ments are as serious as they say they are about land-based family farms that grow their own feed, they must go beyond these deficiency payments which are only after the fact, and a response to a given drop in prices. If a measure of insulation is to come, and income stability is to arrive, crops grown and fed on the farm must be encouraged by lifting the present restrictions. New Democrats will be pressing the government to bring more commodities un- der marketing boards, whether the mecha- nism is established price, negotiated prices, or regulated supply. It will allow farmers to keep pace with the cost of production and ensure a decent rate of return on investment and labour. CHRISTIE: Livestock and poultry pro- ducers deserve to be protected in their own stabilization programs from taking losses on crop production. It must be stressed that livestock producers do not incur the costs of drying, shrink, trucking, and marketing (at least 40 cents/bushel) and stabilization pay- ments to them must reflect that difference. 3. Freer Trade: Last year Canada ex- ported 30 per cent of its pork production, of which 80 to 90 percent went to the U.S. This trade is being threatened by growing protec- tionism in the U.S. The best way to preserve our access to the American market is by some form of free trade agreement? HAM: Definitely not! Questions 1, 2, and 4 deal with govern- ment support of the pork industry specifi- cally and agriculture in general. Given the present level of support by the U.S. government to their farmers and their intense mania for "a level playing field" in a free trade agreement, all Ontario and federal government programs would come under scrutiny as to whether they are unfair sub- sidization. Protectionism has historically been a losing proposition for those jurisdic- tions which have employed it. For us to align ourselves with an economy that is trying to shut itself out from the world could be folly. If the same intensity were to be applied to finding markets in Third World countries emerging from their economic slump, as well as working to quell trade disputes that have been worked out in the past, we would be able to stand on our own and work from a position of strength rather than react to the whims of another jurisdiction. CHRISTIE: The only sensible option we have is to attempt to negotiate an improved trading environment with the U.S. EDIGHOFFER: The idea of access to the large American market may seem attractive to Ontario farmers, but an agreement is not going to give Ontario producers wide-rang- ing access without giving American produc- ers similar access to Candian markets. Pre- mier Peterson has said that we must be con- cerned about some of the negative impacts a free trade deal would have on our agricul- tural industry. To quote the premier, "Some suggested that Canada's marketing boards restrain competition. There can be no free trade if it requires us to change that policy, while the U.S. government is providing $70 billion in farm support payments over the next three years. As far as Ontario is concemed, there can be no free trade deal if it prevents us from creating made -in -Canada solutions to Cana- dian problems. The second largest employer in Ontario is the agriculture and food industry. But according to a study prepared by the Minis- try of Agriculture, many family -run opera- tions would be replaced by large, vertically integrated operations. Under a free trade agreement, net farm income would decline by up to 50 per cent. At the same time, my party has recog- nized the threats of U.S. protectionist ac- tions. This is why Premier Peterson has also maintained that any free trade deal must include agreement on a dispute settlement mechanism to protect our industries from unfair harassment. It is hard to pronounce judgement on the free trade negotiations when we don't yet know what the package may, or may not, (cont'd)