by SUSAN MANN
Agriculture is a priority for the Liberal government, says premier designate Kathleen Wynne and that’s why she plans to be agriculture minister for up to a year, along with being premier.
Wynne made the comments during a televised session speaking to reporters at Queen’s Park in Toronto today before going into her first Caucus meeting. They follow up on a promise that she had made early on during the Liberal leadership campaign.
The MPP for Don Valley West in Toronto was elected Ontario Liberal leader at the party’s convention in Toronto Saturday. She takes over from out-going Premier Dalton McGuinty, who resigned last fall.
She couldn’t be reached for comment.
On her campaign website, Wynne lists the re-introduction of local food legislation as a priority for agriculture and rural Ontario.
Other priorities include:
• Streamlining regulation and creating a single window approach to government;
• Developing a regional and community transportation strategy;
• Reviewing small municipalities’ share of provincially-mandated programs; and
• Ensuring “a sustainable Ontario Horse Racing industry and increased municipal autonomy and local control on the siting of green energy infrastructure.”
In an interview Monday, Ontario Agriculture Minister Ted McMeekin says he is prepared to step aside to enable Wynne to take on the agriculture ministry.
Even though that would mean losing a job he loves, McMeekin says he isn’t worried about himself. “I’m worried about the agricultural and agri-food people and rural Ontario. If I’ve got a new premier who wants to take the lead on those files and commit the resources to that and the time and energy, I’ll gladly step out of the way.”
In fact, McMeekin says during the Liberal leadership race he suggested to Wynne she become the agriculture minister after she said she wanted to highlight the whole area and “make some important progress advancing agriculture, food and rural affairs issues.” McMeekin says that’s what Premier McGuinty did when he wanted to highlight research; he also named himself research and innovation minister.
Wynne’s background “is one of bringing people together and doing some creative problem solving. I think she’ll continue to do that and that’s why I supported her (in the leadership campaign),” says McMeekin, the MPP for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough- Westdale.
Farm leaders say it’s a positive development if Wynne becomes agriculture minister along with being premier.
Ontario Federation of Agriculture president Mark Wales says Wynne taking on the agriculture ministry while she’s premier means she’s willing to highlight how important agriculture and rural Ontario are to the economy of Ontario.
Wales says Wynne will obviously have to do a balancing act because she will have a lot on her plate as premier.
The agricultural industry’s challenge will be to ensure Wynne gives the agriculture ministry the attention it deserves. Wynne must ensure she chooses a very strong parliamentary assistant who can be very active getting to know farmers and “who we can work with,” Wales says. “I think the realization is out there that agriculture, agri-food and agri-business are a huge employer in Ontario” responsible for 164,000 direct on-farm jobs and $7 billion in wages.
Lorne Small, Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario president, says Wynne has a reputation of being compassionate and concerned about a broad range of issues. “I think she’s going to be very receptive to the issues facing Ontario agriculture.”
But more importantly he’s delighted the Ontario legislature is being reopened soon and the “legislature can get back to work.” Premier McGuinty prorogued the legislature last fall when he resigned.
Oxford MPP and Progressive Conservative agriculture critic Ernie Hardeman says he congratulates Wynne for winning the Liberal leadership race. But he’s not so hot on the idea of her serving double duty as the province’s agriculture minister.
Hardeman says having the premier also be the agriculture minister means
the industry won’t be well served because the voice of agriculture will be just a small part of the premier’s voice. “I think we need a minister who can talk to the premier and look after the needs of agriculture.”
Hardeman says Wynne is very busy now as she deals with the task of becoming the premier and agriculture is not her number one priority. But “I think we need someone in the position that, in fact, it is their number one priority to do the things that need doing.” BF
Comments
now we have the stage for the perfect storm for screwups in agriculture we will have to wait a year.
I can hardly wait to see the newest manufacturing venture backed by the new Premier
Given yesterday's completely-accurate anti-supply management remarks by Paul Goddard, the CEO of Pizza Pizza, plus the recent report by former MP, Martha Hall-Findlay, detailing how little voter support supply management really has, plus the completely-unprincipled greed of, and the complete lack of concern for consumers by, the entire Canadian dairy industry in the on-going Chobani gong-show, plus the revelation by DFO in late 2010, that Ontario consumers were paying almost 38% more for milk than US consumers, and that the farm gate price of milk in Ontario was within pennies per liter of the US retail price, plus the never-ending, as well as deadly-accurate, media articles, and TV panels, outlining the worthlessness of, and outright harm caused by, supply management, all give the new Premier/Minister of Agriculture the incentive, and opportunity, to win the votes of Ontario's consumers, non-supply managed farmers, the business community, and everyone who ever studied economics, by doing something to start ridding Canada of the albatross of supply management. I mean, really, why would someone from an urban riding, with absolutely no ties to, or experience with, agriculture want to add to the burden of being Premier by also taking on such a cranky, divisive, and greed-driven, portfolio, unless it was to clean up the industry it now so-poorly represents? Supply management supporters will, of course, hate it, but anything supply management supporters hate is, by definition, sound economic policy, and also, as we will hopefully soon see, a no-brainer at the ballot box.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Does the CEO even knows where milk come from or the matter of fact where it comes out of the cow. He wants cheap cheese and all the other things you put on the pizza to make big bucks and on the political front they would say whatever they want to get in and where else is better to say they will lower food price to the urban voters. Tell the MP,S OR MMP,S that they would no longer get the big pension payout and see if they like it and we all pay for that.
Talked to an old school friend who has a relative who has a franchise from PP . He told me that most franchise owners look at the the fact of Paul being on t.v. last night as smoke & mirrors so he can continue to make money off of their backs while really not doing any thing for them .
After a night at the bar I would rather have Mickey D's than Pizza Pizza . It just isn't good pizza . Give me Pizza Delight any day .
Bad examples. You gotta be kidding if you think the CEO's at Mickey D's and Pizza Delight don't agree with Paul Goddard when it comes to prices of sm products. Also, I seem to recall Paul Goddard mentioning that sm affects the profitability of franchise owners. If those franchise owners don't like working for him, they could open their own restaurant, since their is no monopoly for restaurants. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
I never said . I said I would rather eat some where else . Some that is not at all a copy of cardboard frozen pizza . Heck even McD's pizza that they had years ago was better than PP .
Here we go again with the anti Sm bash party weighing in on a post not even mentioning SM . Your needle will soon need replacing .
Nonsense, if it had been Pizza Delight's CEO on Lang and O'leary with the same bit about SM, you would have been just as quick to say that Pizza Pizza is better. Your post is a cheap shot at Pizza Pizza because of anti-sm remarks, no doubt about it. And this story is about sm. Besides, there are so many namelss remarks in support of sm, I don't know who I am replying to, or who will be writing the next post. It's like playing pin the tail on the donkey. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
This story is not about SM . It is about the newly elected leader of the Provincial Liberal party and her also wanting to be the Ag Minister . You have either gotten your stories mixed up that you were posting to or are getting your "mords wixed " . No where in the story in SM refferenced . Not by the leaders of OFA or CFFO who both support SM . Not by Wynne herself , McMeekin or Hardeman .
As for my not liking Pizza Pizza it is the truth and I don't eat there . Have tried it different times and don't like it . I guess I am not allowed to eat what I want or like when it comes to pizza as far as you are concerned .
Do I now have to run to town to buy milk so I can watch it go bad in the fridge ? Do I now have to start drinking milk also ? I have not drank milk in 30 or more years . Turns my guts and I don't like the taste of it either.
Editor's note: Some deletions from this anonymous post.
If it's an anonymous "shoot-the-messenger" posting, it's always from a supply management supporter - anonymous is OK if it's from somebody who actually has something to say, and who would find it politically awkward to reveal his/her identity, but almost all the snarky, and imbecilic, postings are from supply management supporters who don't know what they're talking about and who have nothing to say. Is there really any wonder, therefore, why supply management isn't well liked, and won't be missed?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
My daughter used to manage a fresh pizza store which was part of the New Orleans Pizza network - she had figured out, even by the time she was 16, that dairy farmers are the biggest problem in the entire fresh pizza industry. And O'Leary was completely correct to have noted that cheese is the most expensive ingredient in any pizza, so that the price of cheese is crucial to the sales of, and the well-being of, the entire fresh pizza industry. Once again, dairy farmers, especially on this site, have proven they don't care one iota about anyone but themselves, and will come up with all sorts of irrelevant resons to prove it. And, of course, when it comes to smoke and mirrors, nobody does it more vigorously, and more offensively, than supply management. Finally, it really is time for the dairy and poultry industries to start developing their "Plan B" because there are increasingly fewer places for them to hide, and/or supporters to defend them.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I can't even think that she was in no way influenced by her father who in all things is right even when wrong .
Another snarky comment from the nameless and the brainless. When it comes to supply management, the people who are wrong, own quota - the only thing the entire economics community has consistently mis-judged, is how long government has, or even could, support any economic and public policy this completely-insane.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
No wonder cheese would be the most expensive thing on a pizza , a great pizza has lots of cheese and they never put to many of the other ingredients on them and very little crust.
I guess she hasn't taken your advice yet because she has made the Ontario Horse Racing Industy a priority .
See this article Mr Thompson:
(Reuters) - A deal approved by the U.S. Congress late on Tuesday to avoid the automatic tax hikes and spending cuts known as the "fiscal cliff" also includes measures to avert the "dairy cliff" - a steep increase in milk prices...Without the fix, the farm law would have expired and dairy subsidies would have reverted to 1949 levels, meaning retail milk prices could have doubled to about $7 a gallon in coming weeks or months.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/02/us-usa-fiscal-dairy-idUSBRE900...
This article makes it clear that Congress approved a deal which would prevent these subsidies from happening. This was news for about a minute, about a month ago, in the US nationally, and never did hit the news in US farm country at all. The only people who latched onto this item were Canadian dairy farmers who blew it all out of context, and all out of proportion, in yet-another, and ever increasingly desperate, attempt to justify the job-sucking, and net-negative, system known as supply management.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
The point is the US milk is cheap because dairy farmers are heavily subsidized to keep the price down for their consumers. In Canada our dairy products are affordable, safe and hormone free without subsidies. From 1995-2011 the US subsidy to their dairy farmers was nearly $5 Billion.
Let me see if I've got this straight - $5 billion in subsidies when spread over 300 million people(plus or minus) in the US, comes to just under $16.67 per person, which when applied over the 16 year period, comes to slightly over $1.04 per person per year, which is, when compared to the almost 38% more Ontario consumers pay for milk 365 days per year, an absurd comparison. Thank you!
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
5 billion over 16 years? That seems low, but I'll go with it. Let's do some math. U.S workforce-over 140,000,000 Canada workforce-over 15,000,000 US dairy subsidy per year, less than $
333million per year(according to a recent post). So divide U.S workforce by subsidy total per year and we have about $2.40 per person. So, in Canada, if we were to subsidize dairy the same amount per year, take Canada workforce pop and multiply by $2.4, and we have $33.6million. I have not even included corporate taxes, which are the lion's share. So what are we waiting for? Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
Even though I demolished the arithmetic of the "heavily subsidized" argument in another posting, I should also point out that, if my understanding is correct, BST isn't used in Michigan, and even where it is used, US packaging laws require manufacturers to label which containers have BST-milk, and which do not. Furthermore, when it comes to "affordable", it is ludicrous for dairy farmers to ignore, as Mr. Twynstra points out, that our cheese is among the most expensive in the world, making it, by definition, anything but "affordable". In addition, it is simply amazing that dairy farmers continue to ignore DFO's own affordability numbers issued in late 2010 which showed that Ontario consumers were paying almost 38% more for milk than US consumers. Even more galling is the constant suggestion by supply managed farmers that any dairy or poultry product not produced by supply management is somehow unfit for human consumption. Therefore, if the best argument supply management supporters can proffer is the same old dogma about "affordable, safe, hormone free, and without subsidies", supply management is, as the saying goes, - "toast".
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
So what do you 3 stand to gain from this SM bashing, have your name down in history , plans on becoming a dairy , egg or feather producer. Let the people in on yours plans so we can all decide if its for the good of the people or just for yourselves.
In my case, as an economist, it is my professional obligation to expose the false half of half-truths, and, therefore, it means exposing the fact that supply management, by definition, is, and can only be, net-negative for jobs and for economic activity. In my role as a farmer, it is my obligation to speak for those non-supply managed farmers under the age of 40 who, thanks to the bullies in supply management, have no voice. In my role as a consumer, it is my obligation to speak out for the poor who are patronized, robbed, and even lied to, at every turn, by the self-serving BS coming from greedy, quota-owning, millionaires and the farm organizations which pander to them. I'm too old to either benefit from, or care about, the immediate demise of supply management, yet, I don't want anyone else to have to endure, for as long as I have, the falsehoods, fabrications, distortions, and self-serving drivel, all of which contradict even the most-basic economic principles, and coming from people who embarass/infuriate me when they say they're proud to be farmers, or that we're all in it together. I do believe in the adage - "Evil prevails when good men do nothing" - and that's why I am driven to do what I do.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I think the word professional is being used loosely here . It may well be that you feel the need but it is the how and unprofessional abuse tactics , demeaning and belittling words that likely get under many readers skin . If that is how a professional is to represent his larger group of professional economist's that he is part of and that he represents then have at . I think that any one who took an economic course at school could now self proclaim that they are an economist .
Really does not matter to me . I am here on this site more as a sport than any thing .
Shits and giggles !!
Don't much care that some readers can't distinguish between style and substance - economists tend, as a rule, to be dull, but I believe, especially with supply managed farmers, the only thing that gets their attention is when they're hit over the head, and even then, it's doubtful whether they pay attention, and based on the responses on this site, they don't. My message is one which anyone who's taken even one economics course will validate. Furthermore, the two things which really horrify me about farmers is not only how few of them know anything about basic economics at all, but it's also how many seem to be proud of it. The second horrifying thing is that so few farmers care about anybody but themselves, as almost every anonymous posting demonstrates, time and time again.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Well if I spent my life getting a high education on economics I would likely not been farming full time all these years maybe hobby and with benefits. Why do I read that I or a bunch of farmers should work for next too nothing or nothing so they can give their products away. Look around and see how the real world run and its tough being a farmer just surviving on just farming with no other income. Your well educated guess should be in politics not preaching farming ethics.
It doesn't take an advanced education to know something's wrong with a system that pits a small number of farmers against consumers and other farmers - the only thing an advanced education does is provide an understanding of why it is wrong.
If you deem to have a "professional" obligation of exposing half truths, then it begs to question why you have never mentioned (to my knowledge) that the agricultural boards, as legal corporate entities formed through legislation are in reality Public Trusts?
Oversight on your part per chance?
joann
Nobody, in any sphere of economic pursuit, has any idea what you are talking about, in any zodiac, in any dimension, and/or any time-warp. One of less-enjoyable things about being an economist is having to suffer fools gladly, and being on this site, and being willing to sign my name, seems to make untold numbers of fools (most, but not all, of them quota owners) want to come out of the woodwork to prove they are, indeed, fools.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Their ages are 18, 16, 14, 4 and 3. If any of them decides they would want to pursue a career in agriculture, I will do what ever I can to help. That includes pointing out the income distortion powers of sm, the borrowing security distortions of sm and the real estate value distortions of sm. And I won't tell them they have to move away to farm. Even if they choose not to farm, I would like for them, as consumers, to pay fair prices for those products in stores, as all of us currently do for virtually every other food. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
I have a five letter reason to stand behind SM, money I paid for my quota and I would like to see money for it in the end. There is more than just greedy SM farmers look at the cash croppers that will stop at nothing to get 1,000,s of acres or the machine dealers that charge out of this world prices on parts and labour and buy land like crazy, or the other people who do not depends on agriculture and buy land for big bucks. There is always a reason that people buy or could afford to pay high prices and its not just being an SM farmer. And the people who buys whatever food they want in the store is up to them to chose what they can afford, I don,t go in the store and buy a cart load of premade food we make and cook a lot at home and very seldom eat out yet we are a SM farmer.
You obviously don't care about consumers, and you obviously don't care about other farmers, especially non-supply managed farmers under the age of 40. All you seem to be able to do to justify your arrogance is to try to shift the blame, in a "But Mom, everybody else is doing it" format, to others, and the only thing you care about is the money which you have amassed at the legislated expense of others. I don't feel sorry for you at all, because, in your greed, and your lack of consideration for others, you have demonstrated exactly why supply management isn't well liked, and will not be missed.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Is the purpose of a business not to make money . You make it sound like profit is a dirty word . You are o.k. with subsidies to make greedy companies rich but then are against the horse racing industry to get a subsidy which it was not . It was a shared funding agreement . You keep on about the poorest group of consumers . Do the rich not drink milk ? Consumers can drink cheaper skim milk made from skim milk powder . Neighbour across the road many times said the easiest money she saved was on the cheaper milk . You don't drive a caddy on vw wages .
I sure hope you don't charge for your advice .
So rather than get a subsidy and getting COP you think all businesses should get a subsidy on top of their greedy profits and they will be seen as being caring of the consumer who pays taxes that are the dollrs that are used to pay subsidies that are used to support more rich companies getting more subsidies while getting gov contracts while billing the gov for work not being done and hours not accounted for tell their other buddy who is looking for a gov contract to get paid for doing not much but needs an in so he chums up with the local MP or MPP of the current gov and gets a contract and gives a kickback ....
I would hope you could figure the rest out . As for some on here there is no hope .
How much do you charges an hour , if its more than min. wage you are taken the money out of the pockets of the consumers . So I make more on some things that others do and a lot less by far than other people does that make it a crime. I chose what I wanted to do because we do have a choice its freedom in Canada and you can still get into milking cows ,its still not a closed door READ. I would have liked to have went to your school so I could have learned to call people names and have no respect for anyone that doesn't do what you do. Treat people with a lot less name calling and maybe you may get more people that will at least listen.
Not once in your posting did you show any consideration for either consumers, or non-supply managed farmers - and as far as I'm concerned, anyone who cares that little about the injury his/her legislated entitlement causes to others, doesn't deserve to be treated with any respect at all. Sadly, the anger, the greed, and the "shoot-the-messenger" tactics demonstrated in your posting, perfectly illustrates why non-supply managed farmers under the age of 40, detest supply management with an ever-increasing passion.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
You keep wanting to blame some one else . All of Agriculture has legislated entitlements as Joann has pointed out but you refuse to acknowledge .
Nobody but dairy and poultry farmers enjoys the legislated entitlement of 200% tariff barriers, and with the notable, and relatively-recent, exception of ethanol, no sector of agriculture, other than dairy and poultry farming, is enabled, by legislated entitlement, to have an absolute income and purchasing power advantage over any other sector. I wouldn't keep blaming supply management for the obvious harm it causes consumers and other farmers, if supply management supporters didn't go to such bizarre lengths to not only deny it, but to also deny that the possibility even existed.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Given the demands and problems we are facing I would think being Premier and Ag Minister and having a riding to look after , would be too big a task for one person . I would think that she would be better to concentrate on the job of Premier because as Premier she will have her fingers in Ag also .
Mr. McGuinty controlled agriculture while he presided as Premier. While we may have had appointed ministers, Mr. McGuinty pulled the puppet strings all along.
In my personal view, the McGuinty government showed nothing short of contempt towards agriculture. By agriculture, I am referring the correct definition of a "class of people tilling the soil a/o raising stock". A "person" (farmer) working in conjunction with natural resources.
While Mr. McGuinty appeared to protect natural resources, he showed total disregard to the actual person... the "farmer", hence his contempt towards agriculture.
If our new in-coming Premier chooses to take on the most important ministry in our Province along with trying to steer our Province out of our financial Greek-style deficit, then I would suggest we will continue to be spectators to the same circus but with different clowns.
Will we witness a new Premier that follows the out-going Premier that talked the talked but failed miserably at walking the walk?
joann
I am very concerned how a lady from downtown TO is going to:
1. Get up to speed in regards to being premier.
2. Get up to speed on the ministry of agriculture.
3. Look after her own constituents.
AND do a good job on all of the above mentioned tasks. I don't have much faith that agriculture will be any better off than under Mcmeekin's ministry. Ag. will be shorted yet again.
To think that our new Ag Minister will have any better understanding of ag relative to the past 3 puppets is extreme wishful thinking at best. About the only positive (albeit brief) item is that at least it will be in the open who will be responsible for misguided, ineffective policies, unlike teflon McGuinty who always new to put a peon Minister, Report, or Committee in between him and the actual actions taken. I am afraid we will still have the same ignorant and myopic downtown TO brainset making decisions for us. Steve Twynstra, Ailsa Craig
PS: Anyone who honestly believes that our globe leading cost of pizza cheese isn't a most regressive "tax" on pizza entrepreneurs and the poorest of our society clearly doesn't understand the basics of economics....
Steve
I can't say that I agree with you . I think Carol had the makings of a good minister if she would have had more time . Yes I know I can be viewed as prejudice because she was from my riding and I did know Carol better than any others . Any groups I have heard from say she was good to work with .
As for McMeekin I did not get to know him at all so I really can't comment .
I hear that Helen Johns was one of the recent best but at that time I had my head down farming and was not involved in any thing political .
Joe Vermunt
From the 4 main points of focus mentioned in the BF story
1 rural Ont will only have one window
2 we would get some regional roads (roads might be rural but not necessarily agriculture)
3 see how much of the provincially funded programs rural Ont gets
4 deal with the SM part of horse racing
These items may have a connection to rural activities but studying just these things might not fix rural problems which in turn could never guarantee rural votes.
Farmers tend to live by some very basic principals.
If its broke fix it
if it breaks too many times at the wrong time of year ...trade it
if its not producing offspring shoot it of fatten it to sell it.
I don't think this minister brings the right things to the table, and has too much to learn in too short a time to be a fit for the job.
The first point is that there is a "new broom" in action, while the second point is that the somewhat-inexplicable opting for the agriculture portfolio, either sooner, or later, would seem to make it abundantly clear Wynne believes some high-level "sweeping" is needed in agriculture. The third point is that whoever occupies the ag portfolio will have the Premier looking over his/her shoulder in a way previous Ag Ministers never did, while the fourth point is that the status quo of sloth, complacency, and double-standards, all-too pervasive in Ontario agriculture, has been put on notice. In other words, farmers, and farm groups, if you don't know what you are talking about, have nothing to say, and/or are just going to repeat what you said the last time, (and especially if you're going to claim that the highest cheese prices in the world are "affordable"), don't bother wasting the time of either the Ag Minister, or the Premier.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
My first reaction to the new premier/ag minister was similar to Mr. Twynstra's. However, on reading this previous post, maybe there is reason for hope...maybe a fresh face with no preconceived notions about entitlement and "this is the way we've always done it", would be exactly what this province needs. Maybe less pandering to certain ag groups and less trying to keep everybody happy and a little more of what is best to make us (and any future farmers that ever get a chance) more competitive...leaner and meaner and less pampered. I like the sounds of it...time will tell.
Dave Linton
Well said Mr. Linton. Personally, I would like to see every ag sector with the same goal(producing food)in mind, fall under a progressive system as it is in other sectors in this country and virtually the rest of the planet. We can't over subsidize although, and should not always subsidize(ethanol). Some will fail, like in any other business, agriculture or not. The "leaner and meaner" will survive. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
I am all for new . I do how ever still go back to our new Fed. support system that was to be new and was only the renaming of the old .
If you change the name of a biting dog do you still not have a biting dog ?
I think it is a tall task for any one just to be premier at this time with all the scandals and lack of accountability on spending and wasting of tax payer dollars .
If Wynne does also take the role of Ag minister I truely hope that she is willing and has the time to give Ag the respect it deserves as the #1 econimic driver of this province . A driver that is here to stay and not packing up to move to an other country after getting gov hand outs and bail outs . You can move a business out of the country but you can't move farm land . This country was built on the fact that we had land and resources .
maybe the SM bashers here and the ever all knowing economist should sit down with the 5 children they so love and explain the costs of US health care and its effects if these wonderful children were ever to be sick and then explain the health system here in good old canada and maybe just maybe the stupid price of milk (which these people comparing to the US is like apples and oranges) argument will not seem so bad perhaps ?? or maybe you could explain also to these fine children the right to bear arms in the US and to wear bullet proof jackets to go to primary school or better yet maybe get drafted in the US army one day for some unknown uncaring war being waged for oil in some remote hole of a country and die there.....YA boys SM is the real big issue.
This poster, like all supply management supporters, is still in adamant denial and, of course, grasping at straws. The issue is, and always has been, the evil of protectionism, and because supply management pits farmers against one another, supply management is pure evil. Ironically, the poster's comparison of supply management to being drafted into the US army, is extremely valid because the draft, like supply management, disproportionately affected poor people who were drafted because they were unable to afford education deferments. It's too bad the poster didn't realize there has been no draft in the US for decades, because he/she has now given supply management opponents the ability to claim that supply management effectively "drafts" poor Canadian consumers - economists use the term "enslave", but being "drafted" works just as well, and, in many ways, is even-more appropriate. That supply managment supporters are always so unable to think, and/or be able to use any sort of deductive logic, would be almost funny, if it wasn't so completely-tragic, and if they weren't always so completely-selfish, and always so-ready to "enslave/draft" consumers and other farmers.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Corporations think PROFIT & profit only.
Corporations are not concerned about social, environmental or moral costs to the commons or community. Syngenta, Monsanto, Bayer are only a few examples of how corporations operate.
Supply Management Systems, far from perfect, tend to be more beneficial to the community at large. SMS is locally owned therefor more community minded than a distant corporation plus more of the profits are spent locally--not in Switzerland, USA or other far away corporate
centre.
John Flys, Schomberg, Ontario
Corporations do think about profit, but they also pay a tremendous amount of taxes, vital to the well being of Canada. Free markets in ag such as beef, pork or grains, do sometimes rely on taxpayer support, but they also bring alot of money from export sales to other countries such as Japan and China, just to mention a couple. Supply mangement, for the most part, only moves money around within Canada, mostly from urban to rural, and anyone rural who consumes their products. And the urbanites would be OK with it, except that it is an amount that does not sit well with most of them who understand that prices are higher than they should be, or need be.
So what is the correct price for SM products ? Just asking .
I take it you are not opposed to the system just the pricing ?
The correct price for any product, including sm products, is what the market is willing to pay.
Pricing fairness or "correctness" is dependent on having an open exchange economy which, in this case, means a system not dependent on tariffs, or in the case of ethanol, not dependent on mandates. In addition, it is somewhat odd, in economics, to talk about the "correct" price because, in an economy without tariffs or mandates, "the" price is always the "correct" price because that level of price determination, such as that established by the Chicago futures markets, serves to match supply with demand. The poster is, nonetheless, entirely correct in his/her assertion but should also have added -"in an open exchange economy" because supply management supporters could twist the poster's definition to claim that because Ontario consumers are "willing" to pay almost 38% more for milk than US consumers, then that is the "correct" price, which is, of course, given the artificial shortages imposed by supply management, complete, and utter, nonsense.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Hog farmers will immediately, and quite-correctly, point out that, because of legislated mandates for the use of ethanol, "the" price of corn established by the Chicago market, is not the "correct" price of corn because the North American marketplace for corn has been overly-influenced(high-jacked) by these ethanol mandates. Sometimes, by trying to make things simple to understand, some things get omitted - it wasn't done deliberately!
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
affects both sides of the border so at least we can compete on a level playing field . We are still cheaper here than south of the border so the advantage goes to the feed market here and punishes the grain farmer here when it comes to grain price .
The gist of your argument seems to be that ethanol mandates somehow punish Ontario grain farmers - that would come as a complete surprise to every hog farmer I know.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Corn feed cost advantage is approx. $.80 to $1:00 lees here in Ontario compared to Iowa or Illinois. It has been this way for about two years now. Probably explains why some rather monster hog buildings are being constructed here in Ontario. George Morris center will have to recant their usual " but corn is cheaper in in the U.S. and we can't afford to build hog barns anymore!"
Wait a minute here - you're falling into the adjusted basis fallacy which ethanol supporters tried to use to claim that since the adjusted basis of corn hadn't changed in Ontario after the ethanol industry began, then ethanol hadn't harmed hog producers, all the while neatly ignoring the fact that the same argument could be used to prove ethanol hadn't helped corn producers. In addition, you are conveniently ignoring the other half of the equation which is what the basis is for Ontario hogs compared to, let's say, hogs in Illinois or Iowa. In addition, you have conveniently ignored the fact that hog producers in Ontario have to compete with supply managed farmers for land, a land "basis" factor simply not present in the US. In short, any hog person whose opinion I respect, would point out that new hog barns in Ontario are being built by parties who don't understand, don't want to understand, and/or don't want to believe in, the concept of transfer pricing.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Did you forget that there is ethanol in the US also . Level field hog for hog right !
Non-tariff differences in price between different geographic locations are a signal for business to trade, or perhaps a long-term signal for business to move to the location with the comparative advantage. It's just another way of saying that hogs and livestock tend to move to where the corn comes from, and not the other way around. It's when government intervenes and, in effect, tries to make water run uphill, that things go screwy. For example, ethanol mandates created a user tax on the whole food system and caused an industry-wide dislocation throughout all of (at least) North America. It is, therefore, somewhat, but not-entirely, moot to talk about comparative advantages of one hog producing region or another, when the real problem has to do with the ethanol-induced costs of producing hogs anywhere. Distortions of reality become even worse when, as in Canada's case with supply management, a rather-small country decides the rest of the world effectively just doesn't exist, thereby creating long-term problems for everybody including, eventually, the pampered few who initially benefit from this isolationism. The most problematic issue with this isolationism is that it allows the isolated to develop horribly-flawed conceptions of reality, like, for example, even after DFO revealed in late 2010, that the Ontario farm gate price of milk was within pennies per liter of the US retail price, Canadian dairy farmers still boast that dairy products are "affordable" in Canada.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
More denial. What part of corn being $1/bu. cheaper in Ontario don't you understand. The GMC has whined and pleaded for decades that the main problem for livestock was competing with cheap U.S. corn. Seems that argument has reversed, yet the GMC isn't complaining when the tables are turned, why not? I used to believe the GMC represented all of agriculture but their appears to be a lot of bias. Furthermore, if times are so tough why are multi million dollar hog barns being constructed in Ontario? Even the politicians would look at these new mega barns and say it is obvious "your dog don't hunt".
Meantime, you have ignored all of the inter-jurisdictional costs and revenues affecting to hog farmers. Corn could easily be $5 per bushel less in Canada, yet hog farmers, because of hog pricing basis issues, could possibly still make less money than their US counterparts. In addition, you are ignoring the fact that ethanol is like a rising tide which lifts the boats of all corn growers, but which works equally-well to sink the boats of hog feeders in every jurisdiction in North America
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
The rising tide effect is not just for corn, I often read market commentary and listen to market analysts and most agree that when one crop rises in value it pulls the other 2 along with it. Therefore, thanks to ethanol, livestock feeders are paying more for soymeal and wheat also. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
At least you didn't blame Bio Diesel or soy oil .
It might well be that you need to get more from the by products made from your hogs .
Corn and wheat have fallen lately but soys have stayed steady . Kind of goes against your theory . Ending stocks and use has an effect also .
Keep grasping at straws .
Next !!
Anytime there are mandates like ethanol or biodiesel they have an adverse effect on livestock producers bottom line except for the fantasy world of supply management with their outdated COP's. Likewise, even if there was no ethanol, only soy oil or biodiesel, soy prices would rise from increased demand and pull corn and wheat along. I think my theory is bang-on. With ethanol about 40% of the corn use, competition for acres becomes stronger, so it strengthens all crops. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
What a cop out keep on telling people they don,t understand. Well I don,t understand why you don,t understand.
Quote " In short, any hog person whose opinion I respect, would point out that new hog barns in Ontario are being built by parties who don't understand, don't want to understand, and/or don't want to believe in, the concept of transfer pricing."
Unfortunately, the parties you claim don't understand have some pretty high priced lawyers, accountants and managers at the helm. I suspect they most likely know something you don't. I further suspect the politicians would say "your dog don't hunt" because corn is about $1 cheaper in Ontario than in Iowa. Ps. your tired old GMC argument that corn was cheaper in Iowa no longer is valid which ever way anyone looks at it.
Maybe I should point out that Big Sky and Puratone had all the lawyers etc. you refer to on their side too...well at least until they were bought out of receivership for a fraction of their investment. They (the experts) all told us the land based farrow to finish operation was history. I guess we get the last laugh on that one.
However, the business model didn't work for Big Sky and it likely won't work in the long term for anyone else.
Mr. Thompson is exactly right about transfer pricing and if a land based hog farmer wants to take less in returns and feed his crop through hogs and the banks let them, then that's one thing...but to build a new barn in todays government legislated/mandated environment just doesn't make sense.
Having said that, a lot of things that don't make sense seem to work in the short term such as hog loops, pigeon kings, ethanol mandates, supply management, rising land values etc. etc.
Dave Linton
A hog loop which was started in southern Ontario in 1996, which became the biggest before its demise, was also run by so called "experts". In fact the person behind that loop was the youngest branch manger ever for a major Canadian bank. He based the success of that operation on the dollar never going to par with the U.S dollar. Need I say more? Also, most lawyers know little about basic economics, simply put, it isn't what they went to school for.
Most lawyers take at least one course in undergraduate economics, while those who practise corporate and/or commercial law often have undergraduate degrees in economics, plus either an MBA or a Chartered Accountancy designation. Furthermore, even those lawyers who have taken only one course in economics, by definition, know more about economics than most farmers, and sadly for agriculture, far-more than most dairy or poultry farmers. In addition, one of the truly-unfortunate things about providing professional services is that the client can, and often does, over-rule the advice he/she receives - therefore, blaming lawyers and "experts" for decisions farmers made to go against the advice they received, is just another way for farmers to "shoot-the-messenger".
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Things that don't make sense, but which seem to work in the short-term, are, in addition to being the basis of most farmer-approved agricultural policies such as supply management and ethanol, exactly like when cartoon character, Wile. E. Coyote, runs off the edge of a cliff, and is momentarily suspended in mid-air before, of course, falling 1,000 feet, often onto an anvil.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
You have to acknowledge the fact of who is buying them and that they will now own the system from full farm production to retail . These two milked the system and it will likely continue . Also have been told of new regulations coming down the pipe that likely they will be pushing for to help force other producers likely here in ontario out of business . Kind of like SM with out the legislation !!
Has been many a farmer wait to buy out the neighbour for fraction on the dollar . It is just good business . Don't laugh too loud yet .
That they do have choices . They can drink goat milk , sheep milk or soy .
I get cranky when dairy farmers claim they have the "freedom" to produce milk, yet can't/won't see that their "freedom" comes because of the 200% tariff barriers which, in turn, deny "freedom" to the consumers of dairy products. In any other sphere of business, the goal is to get consumers to buy more, yet, your argument is just another example showing that dairy farmers, by adopting the "take-it-or-leave-it" attitude so well-demonstrated in your posting, simply don't care about consumers, which, in turn, has prompted non-supply managed farmers under the age of 40, as well as increasing numbers of consumers, as well as the business community, to have good reason to detest supply management, and the "we don't care about anybody but ourselves" mentality of those who defend it.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
pointed out the choices but did leave it open for you to add or go south of the border .
I did not say I supported one way or the other . I just stated that there are other choices .
Why is gas/fuel here not priced the same as in the US ? You never seem to say how that hurts the poorest group of consumers .
On A serious note . Why is 40 the age cut off that is affected ? If you wait till your 40 to start you are limiting the good years you have left to pay for it . So many will go into retirement if they ever do get to with a mortgage . I know different farmers who are under the age of 40 who are not in SM who are farming and doing quite well . It may be that there needs to be a change in the mindset of those who say they can't . If your attitude is already one of failure you will fail for sure . I know you will twist this around that I am blaming the victim but I hear many young people say they can't start and watch farmers of all stripes buy more land , buy new equipment , build new barns all while complaining they aren't making money . I know I went through much the same with my father and if I had listened to him I wouldn't be farming today either . It was not easy to get to where I am in life today and I am still cash poor but I do have assets that are worth more than we paid for them . We still live a modest life style in an older home and get three square meals a day and have our health . My wants far exceed my needs but until and if I get to where I think I can pay for all the extras not really needed in life I will be thankful for what we have . Yes there were sacrifices along the way and likely more down the road . The day a farmer buys a farm he will tell you he paid too much . Five years later he will say he should have bought more when he bought the last one . Young people hear that also and only get more confused .
Dairy and poultry farmers, as well as those who believe in protectionism, seem to desperately want to ignore the fact that the only food products facing any sort of Canadian import tariffs at all, are dairy and poultry products. These same people also seem to desperately want to prove that slight cross-border price differentials in the price of "non-sin-tax" items can, in any way, justify a tariff on any basic food product at all, let alone a 200% tariff on only dairy and poultry products which results in an almost 38% higher price in Canada, thereby adversely affecting consumers and other farmers - in short, these people want to prove that, in effect, two wrongs make a right, when, in fact, two wrongs always create even bigger wrongs.
On another matter, the poorest group of consumers doesn't drive, and therefore the price of gas doesn't directly affect them at all - however, since Canada is a net exporter of energy, we should be at a comparative advantage, nationally, when it comes to energy issues.
I picked 40 because that's sort of the cut-off age for people to get either really serious about farming, or face the decision to either move to where supply management isn't such a threat, or to enhance their off-farm employment interests. I've come across a good number of 50-year-olds who were just as furious about the bullying effect of supply management as people half that age, but the under-40 descriptor is just another way of saying either "younger farmers", or the "next-generation" of farm leaders. It doesn't really matter what age limit I used, the message is that younger farmers aren't happy about the prospect of being forced, by legislation, to spend their entire lives as second-class citizens and second class farmers, and really, given the fierce determination shown by supply management supporters on this site to never consider the plight of anyone but themselves, who could blame these younger farmers for, quite-correctly, seeing supply management as the "enemy"?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Saying that the poorest group of consumer does not drive is an excuse and false . I know many who are on welfare who drive newer and better cars and SUV's than others who work their tails off to make ends meet . Also the price of gas affects every thing that the consumer buys because if you got it a truck brought it . Also public transit and taxi cabs I don't think run on air . I do happen to know people who live in the city and choose not to own a car because they live close to work , walk , bike or use the public transit and feel that they are cheaper to rent a car when needed for a trip home to visit family rather than pay car payments and insurance or even take the train or greyhound bus . Parking in the city is also an other cost and some housing does not have parking . Even those who sniff gas to get high should be affected .
I was wondering if 40 was the new 20 . Think there are more things in play when it comes to a decision as to farm or not to farm . Time spent in education being one and the fact that many can't decide what they want to do in life so they procrastinate , take time to find them selves and life moves on . Also I think the transfer of or the sharing of power and decisions between fathers and sons comes into play here more than is known or people are willing to admit .
As per usual you just can't seem to answer a question with out taking time out to dig at SM . It would have been a pleasure to have a supposed professional as you should be see the bigger picture of how many things and not just one affect the world of agriculture . I expected as much and you came true to form . Did you get teased by some SM persons child as a kid ? The only thing you missed was how SM affects the price of gas and fuel . It might be time better spent to see if milk can be used to fuel our cars . It might be a new non SM market that all of those anti SM wanna be dairy farmers could break into and fight to see who is willing to be the biggest low cost ready to lose money producer . Problem is that other places in the world would displace and subsidize the hell out of their producers to get the market . They would call it green and price it higher than gas and every one would love it .
Even if gasoline, and every other non-dairy and non-poultry consumer item, was exactly the same price in Ontario as it is in the US, the point remains that 30 million Canadian consumers and non-supply managed farmers would STILL be adversely affected by 200% tariff barriers which benefit only some 15,000 dairy and poultry farmers. Since you seem to be fixated on gasoline, let's assume gasoline, rather than milk, costs almost 38% more in Ontario than in the US, and if there were 200% tariffs on the imports of gasoline, and if there were quotas restricting the amount of gasoline which could be produced in Canada, and if we effectively prohibited the export of gasoline, and if the benefits of these 200% tariffs on oil allowed oil companies to bully everyone, including the government, and if every farmer except chicken and poultry farmers was allowed an exemption from this tariff (exactly like forcing fresh pizza makers to use high price domestic cheese, but allowing frozen pizza makers to use cheaper imported cheese), then not only would every dairy and poultry farmer scream blue murder because they would, for the first time ever, be at a disadvantage to non-supply managed farmers, but you might have a point, yet you don't.
The issue is still about double-standards, and the pain these double-standards cause to everyone but the elite few dairy and poultry farmers who appear to be willing to fight to the death to preserve their ability to take advantage of everyone.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Gas in the US is cheaper than here . The same gas that we export the crude for to the USA at that . So many things even Canadian made products are cheaper in the US than here . It does affect every consumer . You seem to have forgotten when gas prices went up the retailers and the oil companies tried to blame it on the increase in farm gate prices . We got blamed as the cause and were the victim of oil companies greed . That cost got passed on to every consumer . The farmers share is pennies on many items .
NEXT !!
Trying to persuade supply managed farmers that they are not the only famers in Canada, and/or not the only people in Canada, is like trying to discuss evolution with a fundamentalist preacher. The constant denials of reality, and/or even common sense, on the part of supply managed farmers, means the only way we are going to ever get rid of the protectionist evils of supply management, is by force. It will be too bad for the 15,000 quota-owning millionaires, but 30 million Canadians, and the entire farm community, will be, in the end, as basic economic principles have demonstrated time, and time again, far-better for it.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Its hard to believe that a few voices can speak for many ,without anyone else saying a word. If so many people are against the SM way of life where are all the protests going on?
One of the biggest mistakes people make, especially people with legislated priveleges, is believing that silence equals consent - it doesn't.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Almost all non supply management farmers agree with mr Thompson they have just got used to not talking about farming in front of supply management people all they can talk about is I'm going to sell when it gets to this price or I can't buy enough quota and then the classic must be nice to farm the mailbox
the irony of your post is that if it were true, there would be no dairy lobby-but there is. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
So since there are protests against wind turbines , gas plants and greedy energy , the last protest at the Liberal leadership convention , it should then be taken that gov. should stop their bullying tactics on the residents of rural Ont. and put thse things in the cities since they are so safe and is where the power is needed with out exspensive grid upgrades . After all if we out in rural are against some thing we are called nimbys by gov but if the urbans make a fuse gov then says we better cancel and move it so we can get re-elected no matter what the cost .
Thanks for saying that there is more than just dairy milk and milk products that is not sm , that people could buy. I thought that dairy cows were the only thing that produce milk, at least that what some people say. I started farming at 21 years of age and there likely no way I,ve would have waited till I was 40 to start out on my own, life is too short to wait that late in life. I worked a lot harder than other people I seen at my age and I have no regret in doing so ,and we went without plenty of things and times without some of the more expensive kinds of food but we survived . My father when we were small use to tell us that hard work never killed anyone and I live by that all my life and then learned you have to enjoy yourself sometimes to.
If I remember correctly there is more goat milk consumed in the world than cows milk .
Yes hard work and sacrifices' do pay off . Good on you .
Supply management systems are "beneficial to the community at large" only if you assume consumers don't exist - and that is not only an illogical assumption, it is an entirely-incorrect assumption. In addition, you have completely ignored two important points about locally-spent profits.
(1) supply managed farmers take money out of the system, by turning it into "dead money" in the form of quota
(2) the multiplier effect on the local economy resulting from consumers being able to save 38% on milk, far outweighs the multiplier effect, if any, of the dead money dairy farmers are stashing in quota.
Furthermore, your point about big corporations doesn't make any sense whatsoever because, dairy farmers, by not caring in the least about either consumers or other farmers, are far worse offenders to the community, and to society, than those who you try to villianize.
The flaws in your logic are basic, and very-obvious - if big companies didn't exist on either side of the Canada/US border, OUR consumers would still be harmed by OUR 200% tariff barriers, and OUR non-supply managed farmers would still be harmed by OUR dairy and poultry farmers. Big companies aren't the issue
Protectionism, and the net-negative effect it has on every aspect of the economy, is still the issue. Just as a final note, instead of bashing big companies, you should be thankful for the research they do, and the markets they provide, because without them, and the money their products generates for you, we'd all be in a sadder state of affairs than anything generated by the wretchedness of supply management.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Our health care system in Canada, is funded by the taxpayer, so it has similarities to the way food is subsidized, when needed to be, by the taxpayer, the way it should be. The top 1 percent of Canadians, who make over $200,000, also pay 20% of the total taxes in Canada. Corporations would pay a large share also. It is time dairy and poultry got on board with the rest of the world, on a progressive system, for affordable food. Go ahead, post your brains out, I'm not buying your pro-Canada, Anti-USA pitch as a means to justify the out dated sm system. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
Is what I think the poster was trying to get across . So if all things are not the same you can & should expect other things to be diferent also . Apples and Oranges are fruit but not the same .
So why then is the health care system allowed to run rampant and rough shod over the people wasting tax dollars ( e health and ornge ) but as farmers when we need support we have to beg for it and wait years to get it ?
Or are you saying that many who are getting farm support dollars are not in need of it and just think they are deserving of it ? Would you be in favor of caps for farmers ?
Don't forget that we must pay yet another tax to even be allowed to use our health care system . Why do some spend hours in emerg waiting to be seen for simple procedures that are simple easy fixes ? Yes I know that there can and will be more urgent cases coming in but for some of these like one I was told of earlier today a couple minutes ( 5 max ) would have solved/fixed the problem .
It wasn't that long ago that pork farmers were running rough shod buying every farm they could get their hands on and driving up the price of land for new young farmers . Now it is some one elses turn and you cry wolf . Do as I say and not as I do comes to mind .
I remember being told a story once of a farmer who said if I could just buy the nieghbours farm I would be happy . So he bought it . Then he said if I could just buy the nieghbours farm I would be happy . So he bought it too . Then he said if I could just buy the nieghbours farm I would be happy . So he bought yet another . Do you think the whole time that this hog farmer was ever going to be happy ? I did hear once that he eventually said the last farm he bought was beacuse he need the space for NM and he wished he had never bought it .
The state of affairs in our health system, either on its own, or when compared to the system(s) in other jurisdictions, is irrelevant. Even if the US and Canada had identical health care systems, or gun control laws, or anything else, OUR 200% tariff barriers force OUR consumers to pay more than they need to pay for milk and dairy products, and OUR 200% tariff barriers are harmful to OUR non-supply managed farmers. The problems, and the solutions, are all "made-in-Canada", and nowhere else. Furthermore, your argument(?) about Canadian hog farmers makes no sense because you are blaming the victims. It they were the only farmers to benefit from 200% tariff barriers, then they would, quite-rightly, be on the receiving end of things, but they are not - if anything, they are the victims of both supply management and the mandates propping up ethanol.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Young farmers are victims of all agriculture , all farmers who started before they did because as we have seen before you need a track record ( living or dead ) to get gov help in times of need as done with the OCHHP payments . Also any and all know that the ability to buy farms gets easier after you pay for the first one . They are also victims of those who retire with huge pensions from jobs and decide to buy a retirement property/acreage farm out in the country which also drives up the price . And further from older farmers who don't want to pay taxes who buy farms rather than pay tax . There is also a real surge in business owners buying farms at extremely high prices who are not paying for those farms by farming them .
Editor's note: Off topic
Post new comment