Agricultural Subsidies in Canada: 1992-2001 Data Summary Tables

Posted on June 13, 2002 by Other News Sources

June 13, 2002

FARM SUBSIDY RATIOS PROVINCIAL COMPARISON 1992-2001
Nfld PEI NS NB QUE ONT MAN SASK ALTA BC CANADA
Adjusted total net income 47828 192144 241412 125465 2210924 1595851 1433489 2817298 3037878 1245057 13007567
Government transfers 228047 457444 728607 561391 10172652 9728424 4061999 9610626 8079097 2254781 45883078
Farm subsidy ratio 4.77 2.38 3.02 4.47 4.60 6.10 2.83 3.41 2.66 1.81 3.53
FARM SUBSIDY RATIOS 1992- 2001: EASTERN CANADA
Nfld PEI NS NB Total
Adjusted total net income 47828 192144 241412 125465 606849
Government transfer 228047 457444 728607 561391 1975489
Farm subsidy ratio 4.77 2.38 3.02 4.47 3.26
FARM SUBSIDY RATIOS 1992-2001: CENTRAL CANADA
QUE ONT Total
Adjusted total net income 2210924 1595851 3806775
Government transfer 10172652 9728424 19901076
Farm subsidy ratio 4.60 6.10 5.23
FARM SUBSIDY RATIOS 1992-2001: WESTERN CANADA
MAN SASK ALTA BC Total
Adjusted total net income 1433489 2817298 3037878 1245057 8533722
Government transfer 4061999 9610626 8079097 2254781 24006503
Farm subsidy ratio 2.83 3.41 2.66 1.81 2.81
Posted in Agriculture (Rural) | Leave a comment

Agricultural Subsidies in Canada 1992-2001

Posted on June 13, 2002 by Other News Sources

Lawrence Solomon and Carrie Elliott

June 13, 2002

In 2001, according to Statistics Canada, total net farm income rose 31.8% to $3.7 billion. Farmers’ earnings, however, were exceeded by direct subsidies. In addition to direct subsidies, Canada provides indirect subsidies to the agriculture sector. Over 10 years, the federal and provincial governments supplied approximately $3.53 in agricultural subsidies for every dollar earned by a Canadian farmer. No province operated a profitable farm economy over the past decade.

These findings come from the Urban Renaissance Institute’s annual report, Agricultural Subsidies in Canada 1992-2001. They follow last year’s Agricultural Subsidies in Canada 1991-2000, which revealed that between 1991 and 2000, Canada’s governments provided an average of $3.76 in subsidies for every dollar earned by a Canadian farmer. Eliminating 1991 data from the study accounts for this difference. Even though farmers in 2001 were heavily subsidized, 1991 was a record year for farm subsidization.

This study highlights the role of agricultural subsidies on Canada’s farm economies. The calculated farm subsidy ratio measures the degree of inefficiency in a farm economy — the higher the subsidy, the greater the degree of inefficiency.

The 2001 provincial subsidy/profit rankings, from most to least subsidized, are as follows: Ontario, Alberta, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Newfoundland, British Columbia. Canada as a whole, as well as Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan all ran negative adjusted net incomes, making a farm subsidy ratio incalculable. Since 1992, Ontario received the most in agricultural subsides, followed by Newfoundland, Quebec, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, and British Columbia. Last year Ontario’s farm sector surpassed Newfoundland’s as the most heavily subsidized over the last decade.

The level of subsidies that we report understates the direct and indirect financial assistance that Canadian farmers receive. Our findings are limited to subsidies that Statistics Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada reports for domestic consumption. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada report a significantly higher level of subsidy for use by international bodies such as the World Trade Organization and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which require that the data conform to an internationally agreed upon format. The international format is used, for example, to help resolve trade disputes.

In addition, our study excludes the subsidy that farmers receive through property tax concessions, which Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada stopped reporting after 1996 due to variances in tax policy among provinces and a controversy over the appropriate method of determining the value of concessions. These unreported concessions are substantial. In October 2000, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada released a report on agricultural property tax concessions that provided estimates of concessions for 1997 ranging from $70 million to nearly $1.1 billion, depending on the assumptions made.
Graph 1: Provincial Comparison

For every dollar that a Canadian farmer earns, federal and provincial governments provide $3.53 in agriculture subsidies. For a second year in the Urban Renaissance Institute study, Ontario’s farm sector is the most heavily subsidized in Canada over the last decade. British Columbia and Prince Edward Island remain the least subsidized, with farm subsidy ratios of approximately two and three respectively.

Graph 2: Regional Comparison
Central Canada has the highest farm subsidy ratio in Canada. Both Eastern and Western Canada are below the national average.

Graph 3: Canada

In 2001, a negative national adjusted net income accounts for an incalculable farm subsidy ratio. Similarly, the agriculture sector received more funding than income in 1992. This is indicated by the bar running off the graph with an arrow. A national low adjusted net income accounts for the exceptionally high ratio in 2000.

Graph 4: Eastern Canada

Over a 10-year period the eastern provinces have a slightly lower farm subsidy ratio, at 3.26, than Canada’s at 3.53.

Graph 5: Central Canada

The farm sectors in the central provinces are the most heavily subsidized in Canada, with a ratio of 5.23. The figures shown on the graph exclude property tax concessions. Ontario and Quebec obtain almost 75% of property taxes rescinded across Canada.

Graph 6: Western Canada

In this study, heavy subsidization to the prairie provinces both early and late in the decade results in soaring or incalculable farm subsidy ratios from low or negative adjusted net income figures. In eight out of 10 years, British Columbia’s farm sector has been below the national average farm subsidy ratio.

Graph 7: Newfoundland

Newfoundland has the second highest farm subsidy ratio in Canada. From 1991 to 1994, Newfoundland received substantial government transfers, consistently lowering the province’s adjusted net income. Since 1998, however, Newfoundland’s farm subsidy ratio remained below the national average.

Graph 8: Prince Edward Island

In 2001, a 39% decrease in potato production in P.E.I. contributed to a steep drop in the value of inventories. This resulted in a negative adjusted net income for the province. For the past 10 years, however, Prince Edward Island has the country’s second lowest farm subsidy ratio.

Graph 9: Nova Scotia

For the past ten years Nova Scotia farmers have generally received more subsidies than the national average. Since 1999, however farm subsidization has decreased. In 2000-2001, according to Statistics Canada, Nova Scotia recorded the greatest decrease in government transfers ($13 million).

Graph 10: New Brunswick
For the past three years New Brunswick’s farm ratio has been below the national average. Throughout the decade, however, New Brunswick’s farm ratio has often been higher than Canada’s.


Graph 11: Quebec

Quebec has Canada’s third highest subsidy ratio. The year 2000 was a record year for Quebec farm subsidization over the past ten years. Quebec’s farm economy received approximately $11.17 for every dollar earned. Statistics Canada reported that government transfers to Quebec increased $94 million in 2000-2001.

Graph 12: Ontario

Ontario has the highest farm subsidy ratio in Canada. Starting in 1999, subsidies began increasing, reaching record levels in 2000-2001. The province’s low adjusted net income during these years results in soaring farm subsidy ratios.

Graph 13: Manitoba

Manitoba is below Canada’s decade-long farm subsidy ratio average. For the past two years government funding has tapered off from its 1999 high. Manitoba’s farm economy is unprofitable over the 10-year period, but achieved a marginal profit in 1996 with a farm subsidy ratio of .82.

Graph 14: Saskatchewan

Saskatchewan has Canada’s fifth highest farm subsidy ratio over a 10 year period. For the past two years, this study records Saskatchewan’s adjusted net income as the lowest in the country. In 2001, Saskatchewan’s adjusted net income stood at a -$757,109 record low because the province received the largest government transfer in over 10 years.

Graph 15: Alberta

In 2001, Alberta had Canada’s second highest farm subsidy ratio and the greatest increase in government transfers. For the past two years Alberta received substantial program payments and government transfers, resulting in a negative adjusted net income in 2000 (-$299,468), and a modest adjusted net income in 2001 ($47,641). In spite of having a 10-year farm subsidy ratio that makes Alberta’s farm economy a tax burden, it was marginally profitable in 1995 and 1996

Graph 16: British Columbia

British Columbia has Canada’s lowest farm subsidy ratio: less than half the national average. While its 10-year ratio shows it to be an unprofitable farm economy, British Columbia’s farms operated with a marginal profit in 2001 with a ratio of .87, surpassing its previous 1999 ratio of .99.
The data used in this study is drawn exclusively from Statistics Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Data Book. The data has various inconsistencies and omissions. For example, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has never measured the benefits of preferential income tax treatments or subsidized power rates available to farmers. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada provides different sets of subsidy estimates to the OECD, for use in the OECD’s calculation of Producer Subsidy Estimates (PSEs) and Total Subsidy Estimates (TSEs). The OECD’s PSE and TSE estimates are used in trade negotiations, and have greater international acceptance than the figures provided by the Data Book. In 1998, the PSE estimate was $5.3 billion, and the TSE $7.2 billion, compared to $3.7 billion shown in the Data Book. PSE and TSE figures are not available by province. Were they available, the national subsidy would be almost twice as high as that shown by the Data Book. Because the difference between the two estimates derives largely from market price supports provided to the supply managed commodities, and in particular to milk, Quebec and Ontario would be shown by the PSE and TSE measures to be receiving the bulk of the additional subsidies. The PSE includes property tax concessions to farmers but not income tax concessions to farmers.Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s data for its Data Book is reported on an April 1-March 31st fiscal period, its data for the OECD is reported on a “PSE-year” that attempts to accommodate the different characteristics of various programs, and Statistics Canada’s data, which draws upon income tax returns, tracks the calendar year. While some inconsistencies would negate others, the net effect understates the extent of subsidies that Canada’s agricultural sector – and especially Quebec and Ontario’s agricultural sectors – receive.

Data for government transfers, net payments to producers and total net income is periodically updated by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Statistics Canada. Adjusted total net incomes, transfer payments and income statistics for 2001 and 2002, released since last year’s Agricultural Subsidies in Canada 1991-2000, are used for this report.
Data for government transfers, net payments to producers and total net income is periodically updated by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Statistics Canada. Adjusted total net incomes, transfer payments and income statistics for 2001 and 2002, released since last year’s Agricultural Subsidies in Canada 1990-2000, are used for this report.

Calculations:

Adjusted total income = total net income-net payments to producers

Farm subsidy ratio = government transfer/adjusted total net income

When net payment to producer is greater than the total net income, adjusted total net income is negative. The farm subsidy ratio cannot be calculated using negative values and therefore a “*” is recorded in the table and is represented by a bar running off the margin on the graph.

References:

1. Statistics Canada, Agricultural Economics Statistics, Catalogue 21-603UPE, May 2001

2. Farm Income, Financial Conditions and Government Assistance – Data Book, Table D, March 2001

3. Agricultural property tax concessions and Government Transfers to Agriculture – Executive Summary, Table B, December 2000
Posted in Agriculture (Rural) | Leave a comment

Lecture 5: International Migration

Posted on May 1, 2002 by urbanrenaissanceinst
Brian A’Hearn
Franklin & Marshall College, Department of Economics
May 1/2002
Migration is a topic of clear relevance for contemporary policy debates, at least for the US. There has been a lot of talk, angry talk, about the effect of immigrants on wages and employment for natives in places where immigrants are concentrated.
Posted in Immigration | Leave a comment

‘Pure manure’

Posted on May 1, 2002 by Other News Sources

Readers/Letters to Lawrence Solomon
National Post
May 1, 2002

Re: Bad Rural Medicine, April 25, 2002

The following are Letters to the Editor in response to Urban Renaissance Institute‘s Lawrence Solomon‘s article, “Bad Rural Medicine,” published on April 25, 2002, in the National Post.

To read the article, click here.

I agree with Lawrence Solomon on one point – we should not have to convince people to become doctors. However, the rest of his argument is, if you’ll pardon the expression, pure manure.

Does Mr. Solomon survive from the food grown in his apartment window boxes? He would have rural residents move to the cities. Ridiculous. Of course rural residents deserve the same medical care that is provided in urban areas. Yes, Mr. Solomon, there is a population outside of Toronto.

But Mr. Solomon’s column contains another dangerous precedent. There is no credibility in an argument that has no accreditation for its statistics. I have lived and worked in various parts of Ontario, including rural areas, and I have yet to have any government agency give me a handout because of it. Oh, wait a minute. I did get a free licence sticker when I lived in Mike Harris’s hometown, North Bay. But that is an urban area. On the whole, unaccredited number games are dangerous to the user.

The other huge problem with Mr. Solomon’s argument is that there is a severe doctor shortage in Ontario just outside of greater Toronto.

I live in an urban area, and we do not have a GP available to us. In cities in the Niagara peninsula, health care is only available to many residents through emergency rooms or walk-in clinics. We are actively recruiting doctors, since there are long waiting lists for every doctor in the Niagara Region.

The real issue in this province is not the lack of doctors – it’s tunnel vision. We don’t need more doctors. We need nurses who are trained to diagnose, prescribe and attend to common ailments, thereby leaving the doctors to take care of the serious cases they are supposed to handle. Nurse practitioners for every community – rural or urban – is the order of the day.

Why is it that we North Americans run to the “doctor” for every runny nose or fever? Because of our own arrogance and self-importance, of course. But also because of subtle negative marketing. We have all been led to believe by arrogant medical associations that doctors are the only ones who could possibly solve our every problem. If you’ll pardon another rural expression – that’s utter hogwash.

It’s time to stop propagating this nonsense and have some real common sense leadership in government and in the medical profession.

Do us all a favour, Mr. Solomon. Help convince Torontonians to stand up for increased nurse-practitioner training programs in your urban area – and start justifying the nurse practitioners that already exist. Think-tanks should be about new visions – not recycling the same old ones.

Laura Salverda
Welland, Ont.

I have lived in two rural areas in eastern Ontario and it was IMPOSSIBLE to get a family doctor, or for that matter switch doctors. Subsidies may not be the way, but to say that there is not a lack of doctors in rural Ontario, especially small towns and cities, is ridiculous. I have had no problem getting a doctor or specialist in Toronto.

Dan MacFadyen
Toronto

Mr. Solomon suggests “. . . the cause stems not from two few rural physicians but too many rural residents.

Mr. Solomon should take a hike – from Torbay to Victoria – and discover that there’s more to Canada than the few square miles of concrete and asphalt that has embalmed western Lake Ontario.

In our area, the exodus of retired people is from the cities, not into them.

H.E. King
Belleville, Ont.

Posted in Causes, Sprawl | Leave a comment

Visionary architects versus the bureaucrats

Posted on April 9, 2002 by Other News Sources

Lawrence Solomon
National Post
April 9, 2002

William Thorsell, CEO of the Royal Ontario Museum, doesn’t need to fuss much about staying this side of the law. Yes, his museum’s wildly unorthodox, $200-million glass-sheathed expansion will stretch – if not break – a dumpster-load of bylaws, planning codes and other rules governing Toronto developments. But in the end, Toronto’s government will generally look the other way when it can and change the law when it can’t.

Building laws – these govern everything from the shape of buildings to the size of windows – are made for less prominent men. For Mr. Thorsell, such laws can be changed. Especially when the laws threaten to compromise a design from one of the world’s pre-eminent architects, Germany’s Daniel Libeskind.

“The bylaws are a living document,” explained Paul Gogan of Bregman + Hamann Architects, a Toronto firm hired, in part, to help steer the project through the city’s bureaucracy. Translation: With enough pull and enough time – and with enough money to hire firms such as Mr. Gogan’s – rigid building-related bylaws can morph into something more pleasing to the eye.

Mr. Thorsell is not alone in obtaining special treatment. The bylaws will also morph for Robert Birgeneau, president of the University of Toronto, which last week announced that Britain’s Lord Norman Foster, another celebrity architect, will be designing a landmark building for its pharmacy school. And for Allan Gotlieb, the chair of the Art Gallery of Ontario, which has hired Los Angeles superstar Frank Gehry. These showcase projects among others have given rise to “Toronto’s Architectural Renaissance,” as the celebrity projects are known.

The renaissance is much needed. Toronto’s architecture stands out for its drabness among North America’s major cities, a condition abetted by laws that discourage innovation and dictate the status quo. Mr. Thorsell and his highbrow peers, in taking on the status quo, are thus performing a public service.

But the public service, and the renaissance, should not be limited to a handful of high-profile projects. The rules stifle almost all projects, almost all the time. Knowing they’re in for a fight whenever they step outside the box, architects will avoid controversy whenever possible to spare themselves and their clients grief. A case in point. Toronto bylaws limit the overhang on roofs to 500 millimetres, a distance that effectively rules out, for example, the Arts and Crafts architecture made famous by the likes of Charles Rennie Macintosh and the early Frank Lloyd Wright. While Arts and Crafts homes are common in older Toronto districts, they’re all but impossible to find in many newer ones. Not because they would be more expensive to build. Not because the city would refuse to grant an exemption to the inexplicable 500-millimetre limit. New homes influenced by Arts and Crafts homes are often difficult to find in Toronto because obtaining permission for that roof overhang can delay a project by 90 days and, if the permission is denied, add thousands of dollars to the budget in architectural and hearings expenses. Much easier for the architect to show the client a risk-free design.

Laws like these institutionalize mediocrity. While they doubtless do some good in some places at some times, and while some architects may work brilliantly under their constraints, the laws more often dampen the inspiration of architects and deaden the urban landscape. “Rules are based on protecting what’s already there instead of having a vision of what could be there,” explains Stephen Teeple, a Toronto architect involved in an earlier foreign-celebrity-designed, rule-breaking University of Toronto building – this one featuring an oversized cornice, six storeys up, that extends half-way across a road.

“Planning is too often negative, protectionist, preventing one from doing his very best,” adds Mr. Teeple. Ironically, planning attempts to protect the districts that were created prior to the existence of the rules that planners now deem so necessary.

While celebrity architects from away have more leeway to avoid rules than the local architects designing conventional buildings for average customers, celebrity architects, too, are held back. Mr. Libeskind’s design for the Royal Ontario Museum has already seen compromises in the arduous process required to bring any project to fruition – Mr. Thorsell has been negotiating with the city for months to keep objections at bay, and soon will be revisiting city officials to protect his project.

Projects that don’t have a William Thorsell, a Robert Birgeneau or an Allan Gotlieb behind them will not fare as well, not until we see a loosening of needlessly rigid rules, or a system of governance that doesn’t provide one set of rules for the powerful and another for the rest.

Posted in Regulation | Leave a comment