by SUSAN MANN
The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission is going ahead with regulatory changes to form Ontario Bean Growers now that farmers have voted in favour of a proposal to have one bean organization representing the province’s producers.
In a Nov. 22 letter to Grant Jones, chair of the Ontario Bean Producers’ Marketing Board, and Dave Woods, chair of the Ontario Coloured Bean Growers’ Association, commission chair Geri Kamenz says with 1,284 voter packages mailed out the vote garnered a 28 per cent participation rate. Seventy-seven per cent of the participants and who represent 81 per cent of the production voted in favour of the proposal.
Kamenz says the results surpassed their guidelines and “very clearly indicate white and coloured bean growers support the creation of a single marketing board for beans.”
The commission’s thresholds are 66 per cent of participants voting ‘yes’ and of those voting yes representing more than 50 per cent of the production.
The question farmers were asked on the mail-in ballot was: ‘Are you in favour of the creation of a single board under the Farm Products Marketing Act for white pea beans and coloured beans described as Ontario Bean Growers in the enclosed information summary?”
Bernadine Wolfe, general manager of the coloured bean growers association, says they’re aiming to have the new organization in place for the 2013 crop year. For growers, nothing changes immediately.
Wolfe says it isn’t clear what the Ontario bean marketing board’s recent formation of the Ontario White Bean Growers’ Association means for the new organization. On November 21, the marketing board, announced that it had transferred about $1 million — $600,000 in surplus reserve funds and the ownership of its building in London — to a new association. “We take our direction from farm products (the commission) so we are waiting to see what farm products decides on this.”
In his letter to Jones and Woods, commission chair Kamenz notes that the proposal producers voted on didn't include any proposed transfer of Ontario Bean Producers' Marketing Board assets, including marketing board funds, to an outside organization and the commission has never suggested this as a possibility.
Kamenz also says in the letter there are limitations on what a marketing board can do with its assets under the Farm Products Marketing Act. Given the information in the marketing board's Nov. 22 news release, the commission has serious concerns about the nature of these transactions and the marketing board's authority under the farm products marketing act to transfer funds to the Ontario White Bean Growers' Association. The commission needs the immediate cooperation of the marketing board's directors to resolve these concerns, he says.
The Ontario bean producers marketing board wasn’t in favour of proceeding with the vote and pulled out in September but the commission opted to hold the vote anyway. BF
Bean board merger archive
Comments
My math may be rusty but a 28 per cent participation rate from 1284 farmers means that approximately 360 farmers voted, of that, 77 per cent were in favour, meaning 277 farmers decided the fate of the two boards respectively. Sounds like federal and provincial politics to me - a reminder that when you sit on your vote, others decide your fate for you.
As voters one could say we are represented by political parties BUT are we really? With so much debate about boards, farm products and government policy it is hard to see advocacy for rural concerns. With no regular audits done, one can only image accountability.
The debacle over GFO accreditation (and board amalgamation) further obscures rural representation when these politically created entities are fighting for their very existence. (read as funding)
The debate over SM is just one small part of rural Ont and rural Ont agriculture at this time. If you took all the members of OFA and or all the combined voting population of SM verses one sector of Toronto, say Mississauga, you would still be outvoted and a host of rural issues would not be heard, represented, addressed or solved.
This debate and banter, while interesting is old, tired and relatively futile. The undieing divisive debate proves the weight of rural representation by an ag minister is sketchy and politically biased at best.... green energy act as an example.
GFOs by government decree are now not accredited. NGO's (often with gov funding) do not represent true rural producer stakeholders concerns, nor their financial viability. The survival of rural Ont is or will soon be influenced by the likes of TPP and associated political bias trade off.
The question remains "who really represents the hearts and concerns of rural Ont"? I challenge you to ask your MP/MPP. Watch for blank looks and stupid stares.
While your perspective is interesting, I think the argument should be fined tuned a tab bit.
How does one define a "rural" person? (had that discussion with Elmer Buchanan and Alan Tonks years ago).
For the most part, farmers are rural residents but their role in society is different from other non-farmers in a rural setting.
Farmers (in a defined area of Ontario) that own land, possess a valid contract with the Crown. These contracts are the farmers' Sovereign production licenses.
Farmers holding Sovereign production licenses have duties and obligations to the domestic population first and foremost before export. (Its an old law, ask Mr. McGuinty)
The question that should be: Who is truly representing the public's concerns in regards to the Sovereign production licenses farmers own?
Where is the accountability to ensure our constitutionally protected domestic supply of agricultural goods is met... will be met in a time of need?
Who represents the farmers that possess Sovereign production licenses that protect the public's interests?
joann vergeer
This is 2012, not 1712, which is when the credibility of your ideas expired. There is absolutely NO constitutionally protected domestic supply requirement for agricultural goods, and never has been. Get over it, and get out of the 18th century before you become a laughing stock with no credibility whatsoever.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
It is interesting to witness
Unsigned comment removed by editor in accordance with our guidelines.
If you can show us when the Royal Proclamation that entrenches food supply rights have been revoked, when agricultural supply and pricing setting rights were revoked..... please tell us all.
Our rights in Canada exist because of pre-existing laws.
I would like to see the dates of the rescission of those Royal Proclamations as you so boldly state.
Again... ask Mr. McGuinty yourself.
joann vergeeer
Try doing a post that focuses only on the future. Stop focusing so much on history, nobody cares what happened hundreds of years ago. Are you suggesting that there will come a day when Canada will not be able to produce enough food for its own population? Get a grip, there are worldwide markets that farmers are keen to fill as they can easily fill the ones here. Times have changed, sometimes legislation that is introduced decades ago doesn't work anymore in the future, like sm for example. As for McGuinty, he will soon be in the history books and may be replaced by Martha Hall-Findlay, someone who has a vision for the future for the better of 100% of consumers and 90% of farmers. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
The relevancy of any Board in a post-CWB world, is not just suspect, but virtually zero. Nobody cares about any sort of single-desk selling system, except for old relics, the perpetually-paranoid at the NFU, and the pampered, and molly-coddled millionaires in supply management, and, if the truth be known, nobody cares about any of them. Nobody cares any more about the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board, or the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board, nor should they. Let's just abolish them all, particularly the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission, and get on with dealing directly with our buyers, the way most of us already do, like doing, want to keep doing, and can't imagine not doing.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Stephen .... It is likely that more said it won't matter as Gov will do what they want to get ride of the little guy and help the big get bigger and for many the information was not correct . I had heard from many who said they got a package with incorrect information stating they had grown beans that they never had . Some have gone as far as asking when thier cheque for the crop should be arriving .
Further what else can you expect other than a low voter turn out when you ask a farmer to vote during a busy time of year .
As far as your rant against SM and single desk selling I will disagree with you . The hog industry has over the years helped many a small and beginning new start up farmer get his feet underneath him . He had a market to go to with his hogs . Now with out what new farmer can compete against the huge and greedy " I want to raise them all " farmers of today . There are still opportunities that could be had under SM if they ( SM ) would wake up and smell the coffee for them to change things and allow a smaller new farmers to enter into that market . How can you expect a new farmer to compete with the likes of some who market not just hundreds of hogs but tens of thousands a year or more . Same goes for SM . The new guy is sunk before he starts because the big guy will just keep doing it for less and raising more to keep his profit the same . Was talking to a guy the other day who told me layer quota is at 300 . It would take 30 years to pay it back .
If the only thing left for a young farmer is a niche market he may as well go and work in the city unless he does not mind farming as a hobby after work hours at night and weekends . It is called a niche because that is what it is . It can be here today and gone tomorrow .
You can ramble all you want about the wheat board but here in Ontario we still have the option of marketing wheat through the pool which GFO runs .
Farmers of this province unless they are of a real big size are not considered to be worth keeping by gov .
Joe Vermunt
If farmers of any size, or of any age, truly cared, there would have been more than a 28% participation rate in this vote, period. You can disagree with me all you like, but 72% of farmers would obviously seem to agree with me. It's now high-time for all farm marketing pools and Boards to realize they are irrelevant, and to make graceful exits before they become even more irrelevant, and/or even greater laughing stocks than they already are.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
You are right Stephen .Marketing boards are not needed ,get with times.
Hog,cattle ,Crop Farmer
Is this the view of all OFA directors?
As a retired OFA Director, Mr. Vermunt is free to express whatever opinion he feels approrpiate to express - even when he disagrees with me.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I am no longer an OFA provincial director .
What OFA's view of this is I have no idea and nor do I care .
I can say that I no longer feel like a mushroom .
If you want to know what OFA thinks on this you will have to ask them . I know you will likely be told that it is a commoditty specific issue so they will not get involved .
Joe Vermunt
With all due respect Mr. Vermunt, I am a small new farmer who would not have succeeded if I was not part of a hog loop which markets tens of thousands hogs a year. In the past 10-20 years, many new and existing younger farmers such as myself entered into these loops as nursuries, finishers and some sow units, because it was possibly one of the few enterable livestock operations that would cashflow. It hasn't worked out for everybody that tried, but has worked well for most and I feel confident in saying I may have lost the barn and land it sits on if I wasn't part of a loop. It is my understanding that marketing boards are of little benefit to large loops, as many deal directly with packers and end users. I do echo your statements regarding sm needing to "wake up and smell the coffee", but we all know that won't happen and with a huge world of global markets knocking on our door(TPP), the government will have to bring in a program to phase it out. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
If you don't own the crop yourself or the hogs in your barn you would think or feel there is a need for marketing boards because you have no skin in the game . Basically you are an employee .
Just think back to years ago and who got all of the gov. support money when beef prices tanked . It was not the farmer if he didn't own the cattle . The lions share went where ?
The bean industry is headed down the same road . There will be many fields that will be seen to be owned by the farmer when they will be owned by the dealers with farmers doing the work . I would hazard a guess that this has already been happening for years but no one has kown about it . Soon most will only be custom workers operators and not farmers .
So question is ... Do you own the hogs in your barn ?
When I raised hogs I had ownership .
Joe Vermunt
Nor do I want to. As far as being "basically an employee", with the majority of the working world being employee's, I am perfectly OK with that. Also, as an employee, if I am not satisfied with my employer, I can shop around for contracts or rent the barn out, since my contract comes up for renewal every so many years. Hog prices also have "tanked" in the past, yet the owner of the pigs in my barn kept sending the cheques, so in my opinion he/she should get the lions share. Also, I never said "no" marketing boards were needed at all, at this time, but I do question their relevance in the future as so much has changed since marketing boards were first developed. "Ontario goat", recently held a vote on setting up a marketing board and it was voted down. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
Not a marketing board for Ontario Goat. It was only to be a recognized organization to be paid for by the producers.
google "overview of ontario goat for proposal of marketing board status".(under the farm products marketing act) BTW, Ontario Goat is a good organization and it is my understanding that they are supported currently by membership fees which my wife has been a payee of in the past Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
Yes, I am sure the $35 membership fee went a long way in paying rent, wages, salaries, etc. It is also voluntary. There was to have been NO marketing powers under the proposal.
What is with the crap of almost every story better farming has online that someone has to make a potshot at SM.IT is comical that you think that A TPP agreement is signed that will bring a flood of opportunity to the dairy industry.Why has the amount of cattle and hogs exported not increased but magically if a TPP agreement was signed cattle hog and dairy will flourish.,What a pipedream. You should ask the owner of your loop how many millions of consumer tax dollars he was able to get through the programs available while new and begginning farmers have so far been shafted because they never got the support yet through the OCHHP program.Oh but supply management according to you should be done away with to allow new and begginning farmers a better chance at making it in the dairy industry.Show me a positive cash flow statement where you can make money in the dairy business in Ontario where you may be paid 40 cent a litre for milk & do not factor in any subsidy of any kind.
John Van Dyk
Why, in the minds of only a few thousand dairy farmers, does the negative cash flow on the part of millions of Ontario consumers who are forced to pay almost 38% more for milk than US consumers, just not matter? Why, in the minds of dairy farmers, is it perfectly OK for them to have an absolute advantage over every other farmer when it comes to incomes and purchasing power? Why, in the minds of dairy farmers, given the absolute advantage they have over consumers and other farmers, shouldn't EVERYONE be taking well-deserved pot-shots at supply management? Get with the 21st century, my friend, it you're not prepared to produce something for what the market is willing to pay, move aside and let somebody else do it.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
consumer's and taxpayer's are not the same person. Most of those millions of dollars you refer to most likely came from corporations as they are signifigant taxpayers, and corporations are not consumers. Also, Kevin O'Leary, the "capitolist" as you put it, that I think you don't like, has likely paid ALOT of taxes, so what do you care? Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
Almost anybody could make money in dairying if dairy and poultry farmers hadn't driven the price of land into the stratosphere. Mr. Van Dyk is effectively claiming we need to keep supply management because of the problems created by supply management, and that is, of course, circular reasoning. He is also ignoring the plight of livestock farmers who have to produce a positive cash flow when trying to compete with supply managed farmers who have the gravy train of cost-of-production models. Even if I could understand his argument, it still wouldn't make any sense because he's still trying to have everything both ways.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Today i had a call from the largest Tv station in Japan calling to talk about the TPP and chicken, they couldn't understand why Canadian SM farmers think there markets are going to continue to be protected once the TPP rolls out in full force over time, They said ever chicken farmer they called said supply managment was here to stay end of story, thanks for calling, WAKE UP CALLL
Sean McGivern
PFO
Oh really a Tv station in Japan knows the outcome of Canada's entering the TPP negotiations.Did you get all the details or just what you wanted to hear.Maybe I should ask CBC news what they think the outcome will be.Just like I have always stated PFO stands for Progressive Fearmongers Of Ontario
John Van Dyk
Two can play this game, Mr. Van Dyk - since you seem to want to persist in casting aspersions on Mr. McGivern and his organization, and since you seem to have nothing to offer except snarky, and demeaning rhetoric, why don't you do us all a favour and admit that supply management has nothing to offer anyone except the continued domination of both consumers, and other farmers? More to the point, snarky, "shoot the messenger" comments by supply managed farmers speak volumes about why supply management is not well-liked, and will not be missed. As for farm organizations, I suggest the CFFO would have no reason to exist without supply management to defend. Finally, when it comes to fear-mongering, nobody does it better, and of course, more offensively, than supply management - when you call the kettle black, Mr. Van Dyk, you should first check the colour of your own pot.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Mr.Thompson and Mr.Mcgivern you are entitled to free speech but so am I and what I have seen on this website is accurate of both of you.The tactics that you use may work for some and I will stick with the truth .The mechanism of Supply Management works plain and simple and so many comments you write are simply off the wall and nothing but full of anger.If it makes you feel better keep them up.
John Van Dyk
I will debate you in any public format any time,
Sean McGivern
PFO
Like a broken record, Mr. Van Dyk keeps claiming supply management works - but does it work for poor consumers who are forced to pay almost 38% more for milk than US consumers? - does it work for non-supply managed farmers who are forced to compete with farmers who benefit from 200% tariff barriers? - does it work for young farmers who want to get into dairy farming but who don't have rich uncles who can buy "lock, stock, and barrel" dairy farms with quota valued at $35,000 per kilo? All-too-sadly, Mr. Van Dyk refuses to accept the reality that supply management works only for those lucky few, who like him, already have quota, and nobody else. Angry dairy farmers with quota have long been the least rational people anywhere, and Mr. Van Dyk's comments on this site are more than ample evidence of that hypothesis. Come on, really, Mr. Van Dyk, this is 2012, and in spite of what you obviously seem to think, dairy farmers aren't the only people in Canada who matter.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
tHE both of you have so much hatred for SM and you keep trying to intimidate with propaganda that fits your tactics.You do not answer the questions I have posted on this site I guess because you do not have a good rebuttal.How many members does PFO have ?What a joke .LOL. For those of you who want a productive discussion on Supply Management just so happens CFFO will be having some meetings this winter on Jim Wheelers newly released document on Supply Management.Hope to see people there who truly want to move Supply Management forward in a positive direction.
John Van Dyk
The worst hypocrites when it comes to supply management can be found at the CFFO. By endorsing policies which deliberately and disproportionately overburden the poorest group of consumers, they are being "Christians by convenience" instead of "Christians by conscience" - or, in other words, not Christians at all. In addition, relying on the CFFO to have a "productive discussion" to improve supply management, is like relying on a group of foxes to have a "productive discussion" about improved security at the chicken house. The CFFO's exercise will be completely futile unless, and/or until, they accept 150 years of basic and undeniable economic truth which is that protectionism, in this case, supply management, is always net-negative - and the chances of that, are exactly zero.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I purchased all my quota since 1995.If you were to buy a ongoing dairy operation the opportunity to make money the honest way(hardwork) exists compared to the U.S. model which will never be economically viable in Ontario.
John Van Dyk
Comment modified by editor in accordance with our guidelines
You got lucky, period. In addition, I pointed out an article from a US-based magazine not long ago, wherein the (hardworking) owner of a New York State, 35 cow dairy farm, claimed to be making money - not only that, he's been at it, if my memory is correct, for less than 15 years, and he started with nothing. Would you like to retract your statement? Furthermore, I defy you to show me any dairy farmer in Ontario who, like this fellow in New York State, started with nothing 15 years ago. Come on, really, Mr. Van Dyk, where do you, in the murky depths of your soul, come up with the justification for always shooting the messenger, and your personal attacks on the bearers of the unwelcome truth underpinning 150 years of basic economic reality about the evils, and net-negative status, of protectionism? What is it about the hypocrisy of forcing poor consumers to pay almost 38% more than they should to buy milk, that you can't understand? What is it about the hypocrisy of forcing fresh pizza makers to pay 30% more for their cheese than frozen pizza makers have to pay, that you can't understand? What is it about other farmers, particularly younger farmers, getting resentful about the long-term, and absolute, advantage dairy and poultry farmers have over everybody else that you can't understand? What is it about the hypocrisy of the CFFO supporting "the money changers in the temple", instead of the worshippers therein, that you can't understand? What is it that compels you to follow blind faith instead of economic reality? What is it that compels you to place your own, and completely-selfish, self-interests above the interests of absolutely everyone else? Why can't you see that your argument about economic viability is exactly the same argument used by the Confederate States during the US civil war, when they argued that freeing slaves would "never be economically viable" in the US south, and thereby placing their narrow, and self-centred, version of economic viability above the fact that they were ignoring every other consideration? Why can't you see that supply management makes economic slaves out of consumers and, in our society, that should always over-rule your selfish version of economic viability? Finally, what is it about taking advantage of consumers in the way supply management takes advantage of consumers, that you can ever possibly see to be making money the "honest" way?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I borrowed the whole amount of what the farm and quota was worth in 1995.I am very fortunate that my DAD signed for the loan at the bank and I worked on the farm for 10 years to make the down payment. I did start with nothing,l,the mechanism of SM is a good one.You keep babbling that I am shooting the messenger, who is your message from????? I know where CFFO's message comes from.
John Van Dyk
Comment modified by editor in accordance with our guidelines
you need to study and research your views better. Todays farm policy and operation has many flaws but dont let lack of experience with only theory make it worse
There's absolutely nothing wrong with either Mr. McGivern's views or his research. He's absolutely right to object to supply management because anyone with any exposure to economics, even a teenager who subscribes to the Economist magazine, knows that for over 150 years, basic economic principles have dictated that protectionism, in this case supply management, is always net negative. This principle is to economics, what water not running uphill, is to physics. Therefore, someone with all the experience in the world, but who claims supply management is net-positive, is always wrong, while someone with no experience, but who claims supply management is net-negative, is always right. The only thing worse than old people who are wrong, is old people who are both wrong AND patronizing to young people, and when it comes to supply management, and the way old people on this site treat Mr. McGivern, that would appear to be every old coot on this site (except me, and I'm 62).
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I like the way you put it about the people who think they can say what they want and nobody else can a thing and if they do they don,t get it. SM is a good thing but it has its faults and it has to solve them so more people can get in it and not be controled by the big few. Some people think they can intimidate them and hope they don,t write in to voice their concerns without name calling,fine people you would like to have running a group.
Supply management is nothing but a tax on food which is disproportionately paid by the poorest group of consumers for the sole benefit of the richest group of farmers. - that's not anger, it's undisputable economic truth. If you can't handle the truth, too bad. Mr. McGivern speaks for an entire generation of farmers under the age of 40, and I speak on behalf of 150 years of undisputable economic truth - we'll match, and better, anything supply management can offer, which, so far, is nothing but fear-mongering, and imbecilic nonsense.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Mr Van.D,
The Tv station from Japan, said that farmers in Japan see an end to the protection they have on their rice under the TPP and can't understand why Supply Managed farmers in Canada, don't see any erosion or an opening up of their markets or the end of Sm by the TPP>
Lets keep in mind it was the liberals who brought supply management into place and its two liberal party candidates who are now advocating to end it.
Most Ontario farmers are to busy voting for the Conservative Party, because they think that is the party of rural Ontario, I have yet to see one legacy that they have created for rural Ontario.
Liberals Fed- Pro
Green Energy act like or dislike Liberals
BRM Programs Liberals
Supply Management Liberals
Conservative Governments,Fed - Pro
Ended Wheat CWB
Crow Rate
Supply Management Next ? likely
The Liberals will gain power again after a rebuild and supply management will be gone. It might take an election or two, but they will be back in power again.
Supply managed farmers have shrunk from Over 150,000 dairy farmers in Canada in 1970 when Canada was half the population it is today to less then 12,000 dairy farmers in all of Caanda, today they are not a voting block that makes any political party fear full who are you people kidding ???
you've gotten greedy and today's society of have nots don't like greedy people regardless of how hard you work your not going to convince any one in this country that the retail price for a cartoon of milk is worth a single penny more then in the USA or that our cheese is worth several dollars per kg more, consumers don't care they only see that there cost of living is rising and they are forced to pay more for your products at the expense of the consumer and every other non supply managed farmer.
Sean McGivern
PFO
In her recent report, Former Liberal MP, Martha Hall-Findlay, indicated that, as a federal voting bloc, there were only about eight seats in all of Canada where supply management might make a difference. In addition, I seem to recall she noted that even in those 8 ridings, there could easily be more people in favour of getting rid of supply management, than who wanted to keep it - meaning that getting rid of supply management would not only gain the votes of poor consumers in urban ridings, it could easily gain more votes, even in so-called dairy and poultry ridings, for any government which abolished it. That's the political reality dairy and poultry farmers, and the farm organizations which pander to them, continue to ignore.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Sean
The federal liberals were not always friendly . They cut farm support to half or less ,
they brought in the failed and now scraped gun registry to name a few . Conservatives are also cutting farm support programs .
On the provincial side there has not been a prefect track record either from any party . It does not seem to matter any more because there are times that things gov does at any level just seems to be a real bonehead move .
No Gov is perfect .
The federal liberals I think have a real up hill battle on thier hands . The only real hope I hear in the country side for them to get back into power is if Justin wins the leadership and every woman in the country votes and no men vote at all . Just go to an event that Justin is at . Stand back and listen . You will understand very quickly . Don't forget that they are not even the opposition party at this time . One thing that might help the liberals is the fact that the NDP does not have Jack Layton to lead them any more .
It is really too bad that Jack Layton passed away . No I am not a flag waving NDP'er but I really think he had some thing to offer as a leader . He is one of the few leaders that I have met and talked to that I liked and felt he was honest and very down to earth .
Joe Vermunt
I would like to know where you get your information Mr. McGivern.
The Liberals brought in supply management? Could you please quantify your statement?
How do you explain that under Legislation (Ontario Statutes 1914) the province allowed the continued existence of agricultural boards (legal corporate entities formed through legislation) such as the Corn Growers, Vegetable Growers, Ontario Poultry, Fruit Growers, Bee Keepers, Cattle Breeders, etc....
How do you explain the agricultural boards that were formed through legislation in 1842 in Ontario?..... When a member of the Reform Party was ruling Canada West.?????????????????
Please do not cherry pick your information.... explain to us ....really.... where did supply management originate, by whom and more importantly... WHY was supply management created?
joann vergeer
I would agree that the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission needs a major tune up but that is as far it goes. To suggest most of Ontario's farmers can go it entirely on their own in the so called "free trade" world marketplace is not reality. Newsflash, believing that "fair trade" equals absolute "free trade" is akin to believing in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy at the same time. Even the BTO's should know that even they need help with the world of bullies in the world marketplace at times.
It would be a good start if we got rid of the supply management bullies in our own back yard - with them out of the way, most of us wouldn't be worried at all about the bullies elsewhere.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
There is one thing you forgot Stephen,,,,,,,,,, GM, John Deere, Monsanto,Potash CANADA, ALL BUSINESS SETS THE PRICE FOR THEiR PRODUCTS ,,,,,we farmers are price takers not price setters , but then again if you look at our orgs it is hard to see much benifit other that providing work for office staff and pensions
The only price fixing at the retail level allowed in Canada is, if I remember correctly, in Quebec where the retail price of milk is fixed by law - and if it isn't fixed any more, it's only been recently changed. Nobody else is allowed to set fixed retail prices for anything, period. The only people allowed to set fixed wholesale prices by law, are agricultural supply management Boards. Yessiree, Bob, the only legalized price fixing in Canada is in agriculture, yet farmers completely overlook that fact in a mistaken rush to falsely accuse others. If John Deere was the only tractor maker, and if there wasn't any sort of used tractor market, and if imports of US tractors faced a 200% tariff barrier, and if there was only one John Deere dealer allowed to operate in Ontario, your argument that business sets the price for their products might have some validity - but we do have a variety of tractor makers, herbicide manufacturers, and even income tax preparers - it's only in what agriculture sells where variety and consumer choice are denied, and gouging consumers on price, is the law of the land.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Reality is that 96-98% of producers have 'voted' with their wallets to not be part of any single white bean selling desk over the past 5 years. if that is not a clear mandate of the irrelevance of a pool for this industry please enlighten me. Times have changed but unfortunately the current directors of the OWBPMB haven't been willing to acknowledge or accept this. Sadly they will be on the wrong side of history when this final chapter of this sad and childish adventure on their part is played out.
Steve , the reality of what the growers wanted at the meeting I was at was that yes many but not all want thier money all in one lump sum in the fall which does not always happen depending on the contract but the other huge thing you seem to have missed is the fact that most growers wanted the board to be the police or watchdog over the dealers to make sure that farmers were not getting screwed . You maybe need to check back as to why the board was started in the first place . The things that the farmers want policed are the pick , drying charges/schedules and all discounts . You just have to go back to last year and all the fuss raised over anthracnose and how the board stood up for the producers on their behalf . Crop Insurance is also an other place where the board speaks on behalf of all producers .
To say that producers voted with their wallets is not accurate and is painting all with one brush . I have seen it in other crops where it was stated by a producer that he did not want to market through the board but wanted those who did to pay for the cost of policing the whole system . That just is not fair to put on the backs of those who support the right to have a choice for all growers .
If the good is for all then all have to pay the cost .
Joe Vermunt
Joe, you must appreciate that when FPMC put out the voter package they had very limited data on bean production, particularly with coloured beans. That is partly why growers were asked to confirm their production on the ballot. I feel the FPMC did a great job under the circumstances.
Also, point #8 in the voter package very clearly outlined that surplus white bean funds were to be transferred into the new Ontario Bean Board and "segregated into a fund or funds for purpose(s) consistent with the Farm Products Marketing Act and for benefit of white bean producers." This is what bean growers voted on. Not to create a separate unaccountable, legal entity and office to administer the surplus funds.
Steve Twynstra
Ailsa Craig, ON
PS: Very sorry for omitting my signature on my earlier post!
A 500 kg herd can pay 10 times the price for a 100 acres of land as a 50 kg herd and be on a level field. They get 3 days of incentive and have 1500 kg verses 150 kg which is really out of whack and that is how the big farmer rolls over the small guy besides getting the things needed to farm by buying huge amounts at way lower price than the small guy. The sm is not fair even in the circle of the sm farmers but who,s got the biggest say not the small farmers or the new small young farmers they let in, its a big show they like to show people they have a heart.
I challenged everyone with a valid opinion on the newly formed bean association to come out on Nov. 29/12 at 7:30 p.m. at the Seaforth Curling Club. The voice of the producers, not just a self-appointed few, need to be heard. This is your opportunity to be take control of the industyr future.
Post new comment