Tribunal vice-chair dumps on Manitoulin chicken maverick’s ‘manifesto’

© AgMedia Inc.

 ‘I am not convinced that Mr. Black has made an arguable case that the Tribunal committed an error of law’

Comments

THANKS FOR FINELY POSTING WHAT DFO DID TO US AT THE BORDER AND THE FACT THEY HAD TO PAYOUT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN DAMAGES TO US !!THE CRY BABIES DO NOT WANT THE READERS TO KNOW HOW DIRTY DFO IS TO LEGAL EXPORT OF RAW MILK TO THE U.S.A. !WE HAD A U.S. IMPORT PERMIT TO SHIP ALL THE RAW MILK INTO THE U.S.A FOR YEARS . THE DFO STAFF WENT WILD WHEN WE SENT THEM A COPY OF OUR PERMITT ,THEY VOWED TO STOP US AT WHAT EVER COST !!WELL THEY GOT THERE WISH ,MILLIONS OF DOLLARS PAID TO US IN DAMAGES. SAD THING IS THEY JUST CREATED QUOTA ,PUT IT ON THE EXCHANGE ,RAISED THE MONEY FROM THE SHEEP !!THEN AFTER REDUCED THE QUOTA'S TO COVER WHAT THEY SOLD ,NOW TALK ABOUT BREAKING THE LAW OR RULES !! BUT THAT IS OK ,THIS IS A GOVERNMENT AGENCY ,THEY DID NOT WANT TO GO TO COURT AND GET EXPOSED TO THE PUBLIC ,THAT IT IS NOT A FARMER GROUP !! SICK ,BUT THE DFO SHEEP BOUGHT THE WHOLE STORY ,WE GOT MILLIONS IN DAMAGES !!THANKS BETTER FARMING FOR PRINTING THE FACTS FOR THE DFO SHEEP !!BILL DENBY IMPORTER /EXPORTER

Editor's note: Over the past two weeks Mr. Denby has declined our requests to provide any documents or other evidence to substantiate his allegations of a multi-million dollar settlement or of improper conduct on the part of DFO staff. DFO legal counsel says he is unaware of this as well.

Denby's memory seems to be confusing the milk volumes exported under the official Contract Export system and the SINGLE TRUCKLOAD that Denby attempted to run by himself into the US.

Denby's farm at the time had become unlicensed and uninspected so the milk did not meet USDA requirements.

That is why the USDA and US Customs sealed the truck's contents and later ordered him to dump it.

That was Denby's TOTAL independent raw milk export experience.

There was not a penny of damages.

It was all reported in BF and OF.

OUR FARMS WE INSPECTED AND UNDER THE STATE OF WIS. YOU KNOW NOTHING MY FRIEND ONLY WHAT DFO TOLD YOU !! MR SHEEP WHY DON'T YOU PRINT YOUR REAL NAME ??? IT AMUSES ME TO THINK YOU ARE SO STUPID ,AND BELEAVE EVERY THING DFO SAYS !! WE HAD LEGAL IMPORT PERMITTS TO IMPORT TANKER LOADS OF RAW MILK TO THE U.S.A. UNDER STATE AUTHORITY AND FEDERAL LAWS ,INSPECTED BY U.S.A FARM INSPECTORS ,WE WERE LICENCED UNDER THERE JURIDICTION ,PRODUCING RAW MILK IN CANADA !! IT WAS THE FACT THAT D.F.O. CONTACTED THE BORDER ,TOLD THEM THAT WE HAD COCAINE IN OUR MILK THAT STOPPED TO IMPORTS OF OUR MILK ,MR DFO SHEEP MILKER !! THE MILK WAS EVEN BEING HAULED BY A U.S.A. LICENCED TRANSPORTER WHEN THE SECOND LOAD OF MILK IT THE BORDER ,WE WERE U.S.A. PRODUCERS !! PRODUCING RAW MILK IN ONTARIO ,CANADA UNDER USA LAW !!THAT IS WHY THEY PAID US MILLIONS NOT TO GO TO COURT !! MR.DFO SHEEP MILKER ,EVERYTHING WE DID AND HAD IN PLACE WAS LEGAL ,UNTIL D.F.O. CONTACTED THE BORDER !! THEN ALL HELL BROKE !! THESE ARE THE REAL FACTS !! TRUTH HURTS !!BILL DENBY /INTERNATIONAL DAIRY DIRECT /IMPORTER / EXPORTER

Any one who got paid millions would not be on here spouting off . I am sure that there would have been a hush clause that would of had to of been signed before any money changed hands .

Comment modified by editor

If it got you out of the Dairy Farmers Organization,the millions were well worth it!

Signed the Sheep

HEY MR.SHEEP ,HOPE TO RUN INTO AT THE BIG DFO DRUNK FEAST ON JAN.14/15 ,2015 ,I SENT MY NOTICE TO ATTEND TO THAT NEW KID GRAHAM SOMETHING !!HE KNOWS WHO I AM ,IT IS OPEN TO INTERESTED PARTIES !! WELL I AM ONE ,I WANT TO SHOW EVERYONE MY NEW CUSTOMS RULING ON FINISHED DAIRY PRODUCTS THAT CAN ENTER CANADA FROM THE U.S.A. !! DUTY FREE ,FLUID MILK ,BUTTER ,ICE CREAM ,CHEESE ,PIZZA KITS ,THE ONLY THING WE CAN NOT BRING IN EFFECTIVE APRIL 1 /2015 IS YOGART !! BUT I AND MY ASSOCIATES BELEIVE WE CAN LIVE WITH THAT FOR NOW !! WE HAVE CONTRACTS LINED UP WITH ALL THE MAJOR FOOD CHAINS ,THIS HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR MONTHS !!FINNALY GOT OUR RULING ,YOU NEVER BRING IN ONE KG OF PRODUCT TILL THAT RULING IS APPROVED !!MY GOOD FRIEND MR.TYERS FOUND THAT OUT THE HARD WAY ,DAM PIZZA KITS !! I HOPE TO GRET AND MEET ALL THE SHEEP AT THE MEETING,EVEN MY OLD FRIEND JOHN CORE WILL BE THERE !! I THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE THE BEST NEW YEARS EVER PARTY THE DFO WOULD THROW ON OUR MONEY !! SEE YOU ALL THERE !! BILL DENBY / IMPORTER /EXPORTER LIC. UNDER IDD

There is no way that you are going to have contracts with major food chains,If it was possible they would just bypass you and bring it in themselves.If you are going to show up beprepared to bring your contracts.

In the same way it is sad that a select few oligarch's and governemnt control and impoverish Russian citizens, it is also sad that here in Canada, a country known to be free and opportunistic, maintains its own oligarch system known as the chicken industry, which also, through regressive legislation, forces Canadian consumers to subsidize them.

May 2015 bring big changes.

Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON

What changes in May 2015?

Why & how do you think non-SM farmers & consumers will truly benefit?

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

I HAVE BEEN AT THAT GONG SHOW 7 TO 8 TIMES ,THESE PEOPLE THAT SIT ON THERE ARE MERELY PUPPETS FOR GOVERNMENT RAN CONTROL AGENCIES !! THEY ARE NOT THERE TO BE FAIR TO ANYBODY THAT CHALLANGES THE GOVERNMENTS SAND BOX ,IT IS THERE ONLY TO PROTECT ,PUNISH ANYONE WHO DARE FILE A HEARING !! THESE PEOPLE MOST OF THE TIME ,HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OR CARE WHATS HAPPENING TO THE PRODUCER ON THE FARM !! MY ADVICE IS JUST GO A HEAD AND GROW AS MANY CHICKEN AS YOU WANT ,TELL THEM ALL TO KISS YOUR ASS !! THIS COUNTRY HAS BECOME WORSE THAN LIVING IN CHINA ,AT LEAST CHINA HAS EXCEPTED PEOPLE WILL NOT BE CONTROLLED ANY LONGER !! DO YOU THINK IT IS TIME FOR A REVOLT BY PEOPLE THAT JUST WANT TO GROW FOOD?? MR. BLACK NEEDS TO JUST DO IT AND THE HELL WITH GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED CORRUPT MARKETING SYSTEMS !!! ALL THE FARMERS THAT WANT TO PRODUCE SMALL AMOUNTS OF CHICKEN OVER 3,000 BIRDS PER YEAR ,JUST GROW THEM ,SELL THEM OR TRADE THEM !! THEN WATCH THERE MIGHTY SYSTEM CRUMBLE ,CONSUMERS WANT YOUR PRODUCT !! FILL THE NEED SMALL CHICKEN PRODUCERS ,GET STARTED !! WE GROW OVER THAT LIMIT AND HAVE NO PROBLEM SELLING THEM IN OUR AREA ,JUST SPREAD THEM AROUND AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS !!!! BILL DENBY / GROW THE BLACK MARKET

So Bill are you saying that we should just pick and choose which laws to obey and which ones to break? In to your view when is it ever wrong to break the law?

we have examples of "picking and choosing laws" ...what about raw milk sellers???

barfblog.com has a good article on raw milk.

HOW ARE YOU MIKE ,I HAVE NOT HAD GOOD MILK SINCE I WAS IN NEW YORK LAST WEEK !! I HAVE JUST BOUGHT ANOTHER RETIRED DAIRY FARM ,I AMM THINKING OF MILKING COWS AGAIN !!
NOW I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU TO CALL SO WE CAN GET THE RAW MILK MARKET FILLED WITH NON -TRANSFAT RAW MILK ,WE CAN MARKET IT AS A HEALTH FOOD , BE SURE AND GIVE ME A CALL ,WE CAN MILK UP TO 100 COWS ,THE PLACE JUST SOLD THERE QUOTA AND I BOUGHT THE FARM !! THANKS MIKE !! BILL DENBY / RAW MILK HEATH FOOD PRODUCER AND FRESH CHICKENS FREE RANGE !

Post modified by editor in accordance with our guidelines.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM WHEN SOMEONE CHALLANGES THE DFO OR THERE CRY BABIES EVERYONE COMES TO THERE AID !!NO ONE WANTS THE TRUTH TO COME OUT THAT WE WERE PAID ALOT OF MONEY BY THEM ^[MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ,NOT TO TAKE THEM TO COURT ¨] FOR CONTACTING U.S.A. BORDER PEOPLE !!TELLING THEM WE WERE SMUGGLING COCAINE IN OUR RAW MILK EXPORTS !! THE TRUTH MAKES DFO SHEEP MADE AS HELL BECAUSE THEY PAID US MILLIONS TO SELL OUR QUOTA ,ALL OF IT 56 KG NO REDUCTION ,THAT THEY TOLD EVERYBODY !! WHAT A JOKE THEY PLAYED ON ALL THE SHEEP ,THAT IS WHY ,MR. RAW MILK MAN IS STILL MILKING AND DELIVERING HIS MILK !!THEY HAVE NO POWER ONCE YOU GET THEM IN A REAL COURT !! SUCK IT UP DFO SUPPORTERS !!! TRUTH HURTS !! BILL DENBY / IMPORTER / EXPORTER

Science based food regulation and enforcement has helped save lives wold wide. Fortunately most consumers understand and support this. Resorting to name calling when referring to those involved in food safety undermines your credibility.

Unfortunately it is hard to respond to "no name " defender of science based food safety.
Read the barfblog and tell me who is calling names.
Science claims the authority from our creator but is unfortunately paid and sponsored by the industry most interested in specific results.
Nothing new I guess.
There are still a few credible scientists but many who sell their soul to Government and corporate interests.
So please do not overrate science as a current measure of progress. At least not today.
Yes ,indeed my name is
Michael Schmidt.
There are not many who have the guts to stand by what they are writing.
I do not know mr. Thompson but I really appreciate his determination to point out the lack of integrity of countless and faceless writers on this site.

There is no singular name when it comes to Government laws and regulations,nor is there a single person responsible for health and medical science overviews.
You seem disappointed by this?

US Centers for Disease Control reports 79% of milk illnesses caused by raw milk. Majority affect those under 20. Incidence greater in states that allow raw milk sales than in those that ban it like Ontario does. For every such case reported there are many that aren't. There are no scientifically verified benefits from raw milk.
This info is all on CDC website.
So Michael can you answer the question that Bill Denby didn't? Namely which laws do you disobey or disobey? Are there any laws you think everyone in this country including you should obey?

Yes I will answer to anybody who has the honesty and integrity to give their name when demanding answers from me.
Anybody who has studied history knows that some of the biggest liars are those who get paid by Government.
If CDC says that farmers eat little children would you believe that????
The worst thing you can do is quote Government statistics. Give me your name I will give you the facts.

Happy new Year.
Michael Schmidt
In Grey County

Editor: Deletions have been made to the above comment.

Even more surprised Better Farming would legally join in the libel by posting it.
I have a screen capture I will forward to Walker.
Good thing Schmidt has integrity and will stand by his accusation.

Anonymous comment modified by editor

Anonymous posters are basically fake characters. Therefore, we could be reading the writings of Peter Griffin, Fred Flinstone or Sponge Bob Square pants, as they also are fake characters.
If anonymous posters wanted to come across with any hint of credibility, they could possibly come up with monikers such as anonymous the high school diploma, anonymous the doctor, or anonymous the librarian.

Nah....how about the just put their name on it.

Raube Beuerman

A lecture from M. Schmidt on honesty and integrity?
I guess he has owned up and paid his overdue fines!!

Yes, follow the money, good advice to Revenue Canada, thank you!

I recall, Mr. Schmidt that you had gotten 100 supporters to contribute $1,000 each for your legal war chest. The list of names was published on your website. A lawyer then represented you pro bono. So, where did that $100,000 go? Was this fund ever audited?

What about your milk income? The simple math is that with 35 cows giving easily 4,000 litres each equals 140,000 litres at $2 a litre is $280,000 annually. Recent stories have said your herd and production have doubled! That would be at least $500,000. I am sure you have receipts for all the cash sales.

Yet, you have yet to man up and pay your fines.

I try to live my life obeying the laws ......and I would pay any taxes or fines due
Please tell us how you are able to "get away" without paying
Then we will listen and maybe eventually learn to respect your opinions

Stan Holmes

You are right. You dont seem to be able to understand the numbers.
And even cannot remember your name.
Michael Schmidt

Considering that this fellow repeatedly did something the tribunal instructed him not to and considering the fact that he requested costs if he won I think it's only fair that the taxpayers of Ontario should have received money from him as compensation.
Why was he treated so leniently?

Quoting Dickens clearly does not make you the Illuminati.

For a little context....Mr. Bumble, is a fictional character in the novel Oliver Twist. Mr. Bumble is the cruel, pompous beadle of the poorhouse where the orphaned Oliver is raised. Bumble characterizes the meddlesome self-importance of the petty bureaucrat.

Mr. Bumble marries the poorhouse matron, Mrs. Corney, a tyrannical woman who completely dominates him. In response to learning that a husband bears legal responsibility for his wife’s actions, Mr. Bumble utters the celebrated line “If the law supposes that—the law is a ass.” The Bumbles become paupers in the same poorhouse where they once inflicted such damage and unhappiness.

Often taken out of context, this quote proves nothing in the context you are discussing.

It's always sad to read the ramblings of anonymous twits on this site, especially when the ramblings happen to be, as in the posting above, pedantic, dismissive and irrelevant.

The operative point I made is that "the law is a ass" because of the simple truth that the "personal political agenda" of quota-owning poultry farmers happens to be the law and that when Mr. Black took issue with the inherent unfairness of a law which enshrines the personal political agenda of quota owners, instead of having the adjudicator find fault with quota owners for defending, as a group, a "personal political agenda" Mr. Black is judged to be guilty of advancing a "personal political agenda" of his own.

I, quite-properly, outlined where the quote came from, and also quite-properly indicated that since the line was penned by Charles Dickins, this sentiment about law has been around since at least his time - yet, trust some anonymous, pompous twit to miss the point completely and go off on a tangent in an attempt to shoot the messenger rather than accept the basic truth of the message.

I could just have easily employed the adage that the law, in this case, is "the pot calling the kettle black" because of the way that the "personal political agenda" description applies equally to both sides of the issue, yet one side has the benefit of being supported by law, and one doesn't.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I was not even debating your argument, I was simply pointing out that you, like countless others, misuse and misinterpret the Dicken's quote. As an aside, the "ass" in the quote refers to a donkey. 

The "pot calling the kettle black" works better in this context, for sure. Even better would be  Martin Luther King, Jr.'s comment in his famous letter from Birmingham Jail: "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." 

Except that all you have demonstrated is that you think the quota system is unfair to those who don't own quota. It is not demonstrably unjust in law.  Patiently awaiting your next rant.....

Anonymous, pedantic, and pompous twits seem to be all the same, especially on this site. What they lack in ability, they make up for in irrelevance.

Somebody had to point out, as I did, the essential contradiction in the adjudicator's determination that Mr. Black was wrong to adopt a "personal political agenda" in order to take issue with an even bigger "personal political agenda" which happens to have the benefit of law.

I happened to use the statement - "The law is a ass" to illustrate the essential contradiction of the issue at hand. I mis-used nothing and I mis-interpreted nothing. I cited my references and was careful to take nothing out of context. That Dickins had Mr. Bumble utter this statment for Bumble's own "personal political agenda" is irrelevant to the point which is that because "the law is a ass", bad laws make for "shoot-the-messenger" judgements being imposed on those who, like Mr. Black, would try to point out the "badness" of these laws.

Therefore, I refuse to be berated by any anonymous jerk who knows so little about literary responsibility that he/she can't either dignify or legitimize his/her opinions by publishing his/her name.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Thompson again responds to fair, thoughtful comments and ideas with yet more cheap shots and negativity. Please follow the posting guidelines and drop his crap.

All in favour?

Mr. Thompson's comments are very much appreciated and lend some much needed credibilty to a never ending conversation.

I haven't read any responses from comsumers on this site complaining about the price of chicken so it would seem mr black is trying to advance his own personal political agenda.

In response to "I haven't read any responses" http://betterfarming.com/comment/15162#comment-15162

I agree, there seems to be few consumers (other than farmers) who frequent here. With few consumers visiting, it is understandable why few consumer comments are received.

In my experience, few consumers understand that Supply Management exists, and even fewer understand how it works. These sad facts tend to limit consumer comments too.

However, other than vegans, consumers are well aware of the skyrocketing price of meat. Consumers well understand that chicken, eggs, and dairy are not very affordable, and are rapidly getting worse all the time.

For example, from 1995 to 2005, the affordability of chicken by someone earning Minimum Wage in Ontario dropped by 31.7%. OUCH! That wicked trend has continued through 2014.

Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") don't directly set retail consumer pricing of chicken, but they have full regulatory power over who gets chicken, how much, when, how, and where. They could assign extra processing allotment to high efficiency processors and further processors who sell for less, helping to lower retail pricing. Unfortunately, CFO gives the extra chicken away to their friends, their friends help CFO in return, and the consumers are gouged again and again.

Soon, the consumer will have tolerated enough, and are no longer able to easily substitute to a cheaper commodity, or make due by waiting till it goes on sale.

Once that fine day arrives, consumers will start asking how and why. It is then that the bad management, mediocrity, and price gouging by Supply Management will be exposed. That is when the tide will suddenly turn against Supply Management.

Until then, we advocates and activists for consumers and non-SM farmers will watch, observe, take notes, and record the unfair and harmful acts committed by SM again and again.

When the time is right, and the consumers are ready to learn, we will testify and share to all our documented evidence of wrong-doing by SM.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Yes, "consumers are well aware of the skyrocketing price of meat" - especially beef and pork.
Milk and eggs are sold almost always close to cost in Canada - margins can be lower because of farm level price stability and predictability. Retailers will tell you they love these categories for these reasons.
While you focus on the theory you dislike, you miss the market reality.

In response to "Strangely, consumers see retail prices that you ignore" http://betterfarming.com/comment/15168#comment-15168

You said "Milk and eggs are sold almost always close to cost in Canada".

I assume you mean that many retail grocery stores sometimes use milk and eggs as "lost leaders" (ie. popular items put on sale at or below cost, so as to entice shoppers into their store).

If that is what you meant, I agree. If you meant something else, please explain more fully.

Price gouging by SM raises the wholesale commodity prices presented to grocery stores. The low markup margins charged by retailers on some items does not erase the price gouging that has occured upstream on the supply chain.

Whatever retailers do, provided it is legal and fair to consumers, is their business.

Unfortunately, SM plays by different rules. It seems that some SM people think that because they are the "SM Chosen People", they have no constraints; neither legal nor fair.

Contrary to what you say, SM is far more than a theory. SM has been (and still is), the unfortunate, sad fate of Canadians for the last 50 years.

If you feel I am missing some "market reality" due to my SM-induced angst, please explain in great detail what that missing reality is as you know it, so I can learn about it too.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Most people don't understand the grocery business. The correct term is loss leader, and no, that is not what I meant.

Milk and eggs are very seldom actually sold at a loss, although that is a common myth.
I wrote what I meant - Milk and eggs are sold close to cost in Canada - margins can be lower because of farm level price stability and predictability. Retailers and consumers like price stability and consumers remember milk and eggs prices much more that other products, so grocers are mindful of that fact. They match each other's prices on four staples. They know people don't focus on prices of coffee, cookie and dog food etc.

If you look at farm prices plus processing cost and wholesale margins (about 13 cents per litre of milk and about 18 or 19 cents per dozen eggs) you will see that they are indeed sold at a profit.  A lot of nice, steady profit.

Remember that the profit margin in Canadian supermarkets runs at only about 7 to 8 % across all food items.

You are indeed missing a lot because of your SM-induced angst, your next reply will tell me if you really wanted to learn.

This sort of well-meaning, but perpetually-anonymous, as well as factually-questionable gibberish misses the point, as electronic scribblings of support for supply management on this site always do.

The above poster conveniently ingnores, as well as adamantly refuses to learn from, data published by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario in late 2010, and which noted that Ontario consumers were paying almost 38% more for milk than US consumers and that the Ontario farm gate price of milk was within pennies per liter of the US retail price. Therefore, nobody needs to know anything about the food processing, distributing and retailing sectors to know that supply management is robbing Canadian consumers blind.

In addition, any claim that farmers sell milk at some function of "cost" is the epitome of a half truth because the cost of production under supply management is an artificially-bloated and inflated price which bears only a superficial and highly-tenuous link to reality.

In addition, I suggest the above poster needs to review his/her figures to see if 7 to 8% isn't the return on equity for grocery stores instead of the profit as a percentage of sales which I suggest, is typically a lot lower than 7 to 8% and may even be closer to 1%. I can see 7 to 8% profit as a percentage of sales happening on dairy and poultry farms thanks to the ability of supply management to gouge these type of profits for quota owners, but in food retailing, not-so-much

Therefore, once again, and as always, the "angst" appears to be on the side of supply management supporters as they continue to proffer these type of "any port in a storm" and factually-questionable arguments in an increasingly-futile attempt to defend the indefensible.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Some people l guess are more prone to rumination than others.However, to say that consumers are still upset or being taken advantage of back in 2010 is like drivers still harbouring ill will at gas prices this past summer over $135/L.Most of us move on!
Ask consumers what they are unhappy with now and the overwhelming response would be the escalated price of red meat.

I checked their website and DFC tracks US and EU milk prices on an ongoing basis and posts the results. The US and EU prices cycle widely and Canada's are very stable. The US retail milk prices were cheaper for only ONE year in the last eight! Of course, that is the only year Mr. Thompson quotes at every opportunity while ignoring the seven years that destroy his argument. Hard to believe an "economist" would misuse data in such an obvious way. Funny, eh?

I keep coming back to why DFO and/or DFC stopped doing cross border retail price equivalency studies, and then boasting about the results, because somebody has to keep reminding people how slippery, how duplicitous and how conniving supply management really is.

In spite of the truism that in the same way water doesn't run uphill, an artificial farm gate price increase simply cannot, and does not, somehow magically disappear by the time the product is sold to consumers, during the 40 year time period leading up to late 2010, there was an endless series of DFO and/or DFC "studies", all purporting to show cross-border retail price equivalency for milk and dairy products.

In 2010, that all disappeared permanently because nobody has any reason to believe anything DFO ever again says about cross-border retail price equivalency. If DFO was to ever again produce a study claiming retail price equivalency, all anyone would need to do to deflate DFO's arguments would be to point out that the Ontario price could just as easily have been almost 38% higher than the US price six months before the study was done, and/or could just as easily be almost 38% more than the US price six months after the study ended.

I cite this reference at every possible opportunity because it proves, especially to the anonymous twits who continually defend supply management on this site, that supply management did, and will, use every half-truth in the book, and then some, to defend their odious cause.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

For other Forum readers, the point of the post was that the price surveys continue, are public and posted on the web, and that US milk prices were only lower briefly when their market tanked in 09–10. The price surveys for the US and the EU show higher results for every other survey since Jan 2007.

You can bet the farm that you will get some sorry excuse . Nothing to do with exchange on the money or the higher cost of doing business in Canada . About the same as trying to compare prices for farm equipment and parts .
Sighhhh !

Nobody with an IQ bigger than a worm believes (unless they own milk quota) that when, as it was in late 2010, the Ontario farm gate price of milk was within pennies per liter of the US retail price, that any influence our artificially and unconscionably-high farm gate price for milk has on the marketing channel just somehow magically disappears by the time milk gets to the retail level.

Secondly, no Canadian consumer within shopping distance of the US border, including my son who lived for a while in Sarnia, would ever believe any trumped-up DFO "survey" claiming cross-border retail price equivalency for dairy products - anyone believing that kind of nonsense would also believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny.

More to the point, DFO's 40-year stretch of unending boasting about cross-border retail price equivalency forever came to an end in 2010. Furthermore, I suggest the only reason DFO "fessed-up" at all to even the almost 38% figure was because:

(A) it was a lot higher than 38% only several months earlier
(B) they believed it would be a lot higher than 38% several months hence and they were trying to paint the "least-worst" picture they could at the time.
(C) both of the above

This means that DFO can publish all the numbers they want to publish but once the precedent was set and it was, DFO can't ever boast again, and they haven't.

In addition, this experience exposes the belief that retail milk prices wouldn't decline in the absence of supply management to be as much of a fallacy as everything else anonymous supply management supporters on this site proffer as a reason for keeping it.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

You talk like someone needs a special permit to do a price survey?I am surprised tabloids like the globe and mail are not doing US/CAN dairy comparisons every week.One has the wonder why they are not?

Both occasional and frequent visitors to this forum have to find it hilarious how someone over the years has virtually disagreed with everyone,every topic,every headline,everything remotely linked to Supply Management and yet repeatedly hangs his hat on a supposedly indirect quote in a paper he is unsure of, does it get anymore rediculous!

The reason tabloids don't do cross-border price comparisons is because the results which continually damn supply management are old news, especially in BC where consumers cross the border in such large numbers that at least one US grocery store reserves a checkout line just for Canadian money transactions, thereby prompting BC quota owners to take out their own ads in newspapers trying, by the use of among other things, food safety fearmongering, to try to get their customers back.

Any quota owner who finds anything hilarious about that, or even the purchase of US eggs by the BC egg marketing board in order to resell them at higher Canadian prices, deserves to go spectacularly bankrupt, and the sooner the better.

In addition, a few weeks ago I saw an interview with Perrin Beatty who is now, I believe, the CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, commenting on the recently-released report on cross-border pricing prepared by, gasp, the federal government.

Beatty, of course, mentioned what I recall to be "the chronic dairy and poultry price imbalances caused by our legislation".

I mean, really, nobody needs to do any more surveys except, it seems, quota owners who desperately want to prove that common sense and Canadian cross-berder shoppers, are both wrong.

Get over it anonymous straw-graspers - anyone with a bit of time on their hands could go to a library and easily find the newspaper in question. Better yet, ask DFO about it - they paid for it!

Finally, since the above anonymous poster seems to be in the mood for colour-based descriptors, I suggest anyone supporting supply management, especially the dairy sector, is being "white-diculous".

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

The figures I quote were from what I recall was a full-page "advertorial" authored by DFO employee, Bill Mitchell, and published on the back page of one section of either the Globe and Mail or National Post in late November or early December of 2010.

Mitchell published what the DFO calculated to be the actual retail price of milk in Ontario and in the US in an attempt to show only a small monetary difference, but did so not expecting anyone to show, as I did, that the apparently small monetary difference translated into an almost 38 percentage difference.

Simply stated, when I disclosed the percentage difference between the Ontario and US retail price, Mitchell and the DFO were "hoisted on their own petard", and remain there to this day.

I've had so much fun with this I wish I had kept a copy of the newspaper - I did, however, write down the numbers and checked them many times because they were, and obviously still are, so completely-damaging to the DFO propaganda machine.

Not surprisingly, DFO to my knowledge, never again publicly disclosed these numbers - once was more than enough to sink their propaganda "battleship".

Stephen Thompson, Clinton, ON

Once you recognize what he is, you can just ignore him like most people on this site.

All of the anonymous supply management-supporting warblers on this site ignore one critically-important truth which is that they are wrong, wrong, wrong.

The simply can't deny that supply management screws consumers and pits farmers against each other along both sectoral and age lines.

They simply can't deny that the dairy industry has, by freezing quota prices and limiting sales, painted itself into a "no-growth" corner which will, by definition, eventually cause it to die, or at least cause it to become a modern-day primogeniture.

Yet, in spite of the fact that the evidence against supply management is fundamentally-obvious and completely-damning, here we are in 2015 with all sorts of people without any common sense at all, as well as without the ability to remember their own names continually leaping to support it!

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I think the original poster was looking at the price value difference between chicken and pork or beef . Chicken is still the better value and plentiful so consumers are not complaining .
Further I am not sure that saying SM is "wrong doing " will gain you any support . Unless your support is from other "twits" so bent out of shape against Supply Management !

The negative small people are every one in your social group that doesn't own quota have u noticed that there isn't as many non sm farmers hanging with you anymore appartide in Ontario sm farming or that filthy free market farming

In response to "Time & Price" http://betterfarming.com/comment/15167#comment-15167

It is true that chicken is cheaper than beef and pork, as it should always be. FCR (Feed Conversion Ratio) is the main factor in the long term average retail pricing of meat. Chicken genetics cause chickens to have the lowest (best) FCR, so it should be the cheapest meat.

When you look at the relative differences in FCR for beef, pork, turkey, and chicken, there is a skewing of the retail prices away from the corresponding FCR data. I assume this is due to marketing efforts, and market manipulation by those that control the pricing in retail stores for Supply Management ("SM") products (eggs, chicken, and turkey).

Canada used to be a world leader in chicken farming and bird genetics. Today in Ontario, our FCR is 1.72 while New Zealand has 1.38 (ie. New Zealand is 24.6% better than Ontario). That is what we get from 50 years of SM; a slow shriveling away from world class, towards mediocrity or worse.

Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") knew, or ought to have known that the FCR of 2.0 that they used to determine live farm gate chicken prices for 10 years was bogus and inflated by as much as 16.3%, resulting in price gouging of chicken producers, who in turn passed the damage onto consumers. To me, that is a very clear case of "wrong doing".

Unfortunately, it isn't the only example of SM's "wrong doing". All of the examples of "wrong doing" that I have discovered, including the bogus FCR discussed above, with objective evidence to substantiate the "wrong doing", are fully detailed on our Blog at http://canadiansmallflockers.blogspot.ca/

As it says on our Blog's masthead, "Small Flockers are on the side of justice & truth, and against privilege & power."

If telling the truth loses me your support, that is unfortunate, but I am willing to live with that consequence.

From our very beginning (Feb.28, 2013), Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada ("SFPFC") have had the following Principles:

11. If Supply Management ("SM") is the most effective means to serve the public, then we believe in and support SM.

12. If SM isn't today, but could become the most effective means to serve the public, and SM is willing and able to make the necessary changes in a timely and effective manner, then we believe in and support SM as long as those necessary changes are proceeding as planned.

Neither I nor SFPFC are "dyed in the wool" against SM. However, SM has significant problems, and needs to change. If SM is unwilling or unable to change for the better, then I, and many others, are (or soon will be) against SM.

Eventually, SM will have one of the following two choices imposed on it:

A) Change for the better, or

B) Die.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Even though I may not agree with Mr. Black on how he has gone about trying to change things , I do give him credit for his work in at least trying to bring change .

Supply Management as we know it needs an overhaul . If there are not changes then we might as well scrap the whole thing . First and foremost we are an export nation and need to be exporting more farm products . For SM to be limiting the production of to a Canadian use product only is very short sighted by our Governments and those who sit on SM boards .

Simple and clear to most of us - "I find that to be not only an abuse of the process of the Tribunal but to be in bad faith."
Perhaps it is perplexing to you simply because you disagree.

Paradoxically, the "personal political agenda" of the owners of chicken quota happens to be the law which, rightly, wrongly, or otherwise must be defended regardless of any inherent unfairness in that law, a contradiction Mr. Walker seems to have neatly-avoided mentioning or even recognizing.

To that end, English author, Charles Dickins, seems to have had laws of this sort figured out long ago when, in Oliver Twist, he penned - "If the law supposes that" said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass - a idiot"

On the other hand, in this matter Mr. Black would seem to be playing the role of Oliver Twist when he had the temerity to say to Bumble, in this case played by the Ontario chicken industry and/or possibly by the Tribunal's Mr. Walker, "Please sir, I want some more".

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
We welcome thoughtful comments and ideas. Comments must be on topic. Cheap shots, unsubstantiated allegations, anonymous attacks or negativity directed against people and organizations will not be published. Comments are modified or deleted at the discretion of the editors. If you wish to be identified by name, which will give your opinion far more weight and provide a far greater chance of being published, leave a telephone number so that identity can be confirmed. The number will not be published.

© AgMedia Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.