by DIANNE FETTERLY
Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne is anxious to get started in her new role as the province’s minister of agriculture.
Speaking to a group of agriculture and rural journalists earlier today, Wynne said that while she’ll be very busy taking on both the premier job and the agriculture portfolio, she’s confident that she is up for the challenge.
“This is not an unprecedented situation. There have been premiers who have done it in the past,” she said.
Wynne explained her own reasons for taking on the dual role. “It is important to have a focus on agriculture and food in the province . . . Agriculture and rural issues are critical to the province.”
Wynne explained she listened to the concerns of rural residents while travelling across Ontario during her leadership campaign. They felt that the government wasn’t listening to them. She wants that to change.
Wynne said she has a lot of respect for farmers, and plans to take on the agriculture portfolio for one year to ensure the focus needed is in place. “I can bring the perspective to cabinet that I am speaking as the agricultural minister as well as the premier.”
Wynne explained that since her short time as Ontario’s Minister of Agriculture and Food, she has started meeting with industry stakeholders and will continue to reach out to other groups as the days go on. She noted that she spoke at the Ontario cattlemen’s association annual meeting recently, also telling them that taking on both roles is not just a symbolic gesture.
According to a press release, Wynne told the crowd of beef producers, in both English and French, “I want you and your members to know how important your work and your families are to our government. I, too, understand how essential your industry is to our economy and our character.”
She also told reporters today that she hopes to set up a meeting with Canadian Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz in the near future and will re-iterate that she is working on behalf of the province’s farmers. Adding, “if government and rural residents work together, we can make a lot of progress.”
On her website, Wynne listed several priorities for agriculture and rural Ontario with the re-introduction of local food legislation topping that list.
“I believe the work done (regarding the proposed Local Food Act) was very important. We want to work to further promote food grown here. I believe people in Ontario, want to buy products grown in Ontario. Local products should be front and centre in the stores,” she explained, adding more work can be done to create further awareness.
Another top priority for Wynne is the streamlining of regulations and creating a single window approach to the government.
“I’d like to continue to work with the industry so accessing government services is easier for farmers,” she said, adding it’s the government’s responsibility to provide easier, more efficient access so farmers will be able to find what they need.
When questioned about the difficulty some eastern Ontario producers are having with paperwork regarding assistance following last year’s drought, Wynne said she has made note of the issue and will discuss the topic during her meeting with the federal agriculture minister. Also, during that meeting she said she wants to make it clear that she is a strong supporter and believer in supply-management.
Ensuring a sustainable Ontario horseracing industry is also on Wynne’s to-do list.
“Horseracing has to play an active role in providing a sustainable industry for itself. . . It will be smaller, but we are committed to making it work.” Funding is already in place to help the industry make the transition and to ensure a 2013 racing season, she added.
Agricultural research is also “very important to agriculture as well as to the economy of Ontario,” said Wynne. Agri-food is one of the largest sectors in the province and research provides producers with support and the ability to innovate.
Other priorities include: developing a regional and community transportation strategy; reviewing small municipalities’ share of provincially-mandated programs; and local control on the siting of green energy infrastructure.
Wynne has split the former Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs into two portfolios. While she will handle the agriculture and the food sector, Peterborough MPP Jeff Leal will be in charge of rural affairs.
Wynne was elected as Ontario Liberal leader at a convention in Toronto last month. She was sworn in as the province’s premier shortly after. BF
Comments
I guess we are in for it now .
" Also , during that meeting she said she wants to make it clear that she is a strong supporter and believer in supply-management ." Now what are we going to do ? Give Stephen , Raube , fresh pizza amkers & their cohorts a one man canoe and half a paddle ? Maybe just a rubber dingy !
Ms. Wynne must not be an economist !
Maybe if Wynne used all her fingers and toes to count she would find out there are more votes to be gained by scrapping GEA than SM.
I suspect Wynnes enthusiastic progress will be measured weekly if not more frequently. There is a big reality difference between managing a ministerial file, and really doing something meaningful.
There might be a good reason that it's rare for a politician or bureaucrat to criticize SM. When you think about it SM farmers no longer represent much political clout. It would have been so easy to throw SM to the will of aggressive trading partners.So why does SM get so much political support?
I would be willing to bet it's because unlike other farm sectors it presents few problems to government. No ugly disaster stories on the 11 oclock news. No begging for taxpayer dollars. Just an industry with problems like all others but one that has the right idea..
Just a thought.
Government simply does not know what to do about some $35 billion, or so, in quota values. There will be many, especially in Quebec, who will demand government completely re-imburse dairy and poultry farmers, while there will also be many, particularly in Southern Ontario, who are, and will be, firmly opposed to giving dairy and poultry farmers penny-one because it will be widely seen, and correctly so, that any sort of quota bailout will allow supply managed farmers to "have their cake and eat it too". That's when you'll see SM on the 11 PM news, every night, especially when the "don't give them a dime" rallies show up on Parliament Hill. So, contrary to what you suggest, supply management presents a huge problem to government, in part because of quota valuations, and in part because too many, like yourself, still believe in the "tooth-fairy" argument that supply management has, or could ever, have the "right idea".
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I agree. This is the reason that many politicians say they support sm in public, but behind closed doors they admit it needs to go. Even if the current estimated value is above 30 billion, the number that truly matters is the total of what existing producers paid for their quota, which will be substantially less. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
So then you would be o.k. with your farm only being worth and valued at what you paid for it . whether it be for the sale of the farm or for an evaluation for your operating loan . I understand completely now .
So there would be a big percentage of hog farmers feeding pigs in old bank barns if what you say is what you believe .
So just which politicians are telling you this ? Behind closed doors of course .
I don't have an operating loan. I would be perfectly OK with the value of my farm rising with a normal inflation rate, not the artificial inflation caused by sm. Aside from the usual tax saving pitch, give me one reason for any politician to support sm. They just don't know how to dismantle it. If we think taking apart the wheat monopoly caused a stir, we ain't seen nothing yet. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
What good and how fair is it to tell some one else that theirs is only worth what they paid and yours should rise with inflation . You have really showed how jealous you are of SM .
All I have shown is that I would like to see a future generation of farmers. When I started farming in the 90's it barely cashflowed, but there was light at the end of the tunnel. Today, the tunnel doesn't even exist. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
Your comment was ; even if the current estimated value is above 30 billion , the number that truly matters is the total of what existing producers paid for their quota , which will be substantially less .
But now you want to have your cake and eat it and steal an extre slice from some one else's plate who paid a whole lot more than you did for their piece of cake when you just cried to gov. for an extra hand out at the expense of the tax payer .
If any producer is paid more than what he/she paid for their quota, than they will be stealing. If they have leveraged themselves with debt against the current quota value, I will have zero sympathy for them or the banks/FCC, in the event of a buyout. Also, the hidden tax they gouge from consumers in the form of legislated price fixing will never be paid back to consumers, likewise for any grains, hog, beef payments in the past, to taxpayers. You seem to forget that you are on the recieving end of government help also. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
SM is a responsible approach to domestic food production. It isn't going away. That's just a notion perpetuated by some media personalities and some jealous farmers who aren't involved in SM. Honestly how many years have you heard this prediction 10, 15, 20? Repetition doesn't make fiction become real.
The more than $30 billion in quota values represents the net-present-value of the EXTRA money farmers expect to gouge from consumers solely because of the protectionism of supply management. Therefore, since in any accounting sense, this money still belongs to consumers until farmers actually earn it, there should be no need to compensate farmers for something they haven't yet earned, but which they only anticpate earning. Or, to look at it another way, this $30 billion was created entirely by farmers because of their own greed, and because of their unreasonable expectation that any unwritten guarantee on the part of government, that (as our first nations people found out the hard way, even with written guarantees) government will support them "forever". Or to look at it even another way, the $30 billion represents the net-present-value of the "bullying-power" supply managed farmers have over non-supply managed farmers. If government finally, and correctly, decides to save consumers this expense, and allows consumers to spend this money on something they want, and something which would produce a positive multiplier effect in the economy, instead of creating "dead-money" hoarded by 15,000 millionaires, then the loss should be, and must be, shouldered by those farmers who created these unreasonable expectations in the first place.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I once talked to a guy who regularly supplies goods to farmers. He said he has higher margins on pig feed and products than for SM farmers to compensate for fact that he has a higher risk of not getting paid with pork producers. This does make some sense and if true, score one point for the efficiency of SM
Some businesses are successful. Let's call them winners.Some are not successful. Let's call them losers.
Winners usually admire the innovations and successes of fellow winners. They also recognize their own mistakes and fix them quickly. That's how they remain winners.
Losers more often blame others for their problems or ignore their own role in problems altogether. Instead they are more inclined to be jealous of winners and bash them at every opportunity. It's almost like putting someone else down brings them up and somehow makes them seem like winners in their own minds.
Think about the coffee shop discussions you've heard over the years. Not too many winners there eh? Now think about all the comments posted on this discussion and the many similar ones on this forum.
Can you spot the winners and losers?
Some industries are protected by 200% tariff barriers - let's call them bullies. Some industries are not protected by 200% tariff barriers - let's call them the slaves of those who are protected. Can anyone except a supply managed farmer NOT spot the winners and losers?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Winners are the ones who understood reality and voted for a system that assures Canadians of quality food based on cost of production. Winners wisely chose not to chase unrealistic pipe dreams in foreign lands. Winners prospered and suppliers love them.
This is incredible - Every time I think it isn't possible for a supply managed farmer to be even more-dismissive and more-patronizing to non-supply managed farmers, I get proven wrong. What is, or could ever be, loveable about people who willingly gouge consumers and force their neighbours to be second class farmers? When the call comes to get on the bus to go to Ottawa to defend the "winners" in supply management, most non-supply managed farmers will remember that we're not winners, and then we'll stay home. We went once in 1992, and then watched the "winners" walk all over us for the next 20 years - never again. What's worse is that there are those who claim negotiation is the only way to improve things, yet don't understand that for negotiation to work, both sides must be sane and rational, yet when it comes to supply management, that obviously isn't ever going to be the case.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton, ON
Now SM farmers aren't sane or rational according to you Mr. Thompson.
I think it's great that you supported your SM neighbors in 1992. We are all in this together and we will all be better of if we support each other. Sniping at those who are doing better than we are only brings everyone lower but mostly it brings the sniper lower.
Fact: No consumers are "willingly gouged" in the production of these products because Canadian cost of production is the law for SM and SM producers respect the law.
In a recent report done by a sm supporter it was noted that chicken COP is out of date for feed conversion. It has gone from a little over 2:1 to 1.85:1, yet board members(chicken farmers) don't want to update the COP's, and pass the savings on to consumers as they are supposed to do, according to "law"
The two most-difficult things for lay-people to understand about economics are: (A) the multiplier effect, and (B) that the welfare of many is always increased when protectionist privileges are taken away from the favoured few.
Both of these concepts became basic economic principles as a result of the lessons learned during, and after, the repeal of the protectionist Corn Laws in England in the 1840's. English land owners, most of them aristocrats, used exactly the same arguments to defend their entitlement as Canadian dairy and poultry farmers are doing now, yet the repeal of the Corn Laws allowed food, some of it coming from the colony of Canada, to enter England at a price which allowed English workers to save money and allowed them to buy the things English factories were starting to make. Simply stated, the welfare of English workers increased, and the welfare of the country markedly increased, and the same thing will happen in Canada when we get rid of our own protectionist version of the Corn Laws. I would invite the yokel who found "slavery" and "hyperbole" on Google, and everyone else on this site who thinks Canadian dairy farmers invented economics, to Google-"Corn Laws", and then learn about the multiplier effect, why you can (and must) bring people up by bringing others down, and why any form of protectionism, including supply management, is, and always will be, regressive economic and public policy, not to mention economic slavery of the disenfranchised.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Stephen why did you call me a yokel?
"An uneducated and unsophisticated person from the countryside."
I'm speechless. Wait a minute you're not just frustrated because you are losing ground in the SM debate again are you?
Or maybe you are just illustrating what you wrote in the subject line about "Bringing others down" ????
Well that isn't "bringing me down". Hyperbole like "extortion" slavery" and "yokel" won't be ""bringing down"" SM either.
Yokel
Editor's note: This post is heading off topic.
In my world, any anonymous poster is a yokel, but I digress. The Corn Laws states my case, can be understood by anyone, and perfectly illustrates how little Canadian farmers have learned about basic economics in the last 175 years, and that's especially troubling since Canadian farmers were among the major beneficiaries of the repeal of the Corn Laws.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Corn laws should never be confused with SM which assures a stable supply at cost of production.
The common theme for postings heading off topic is one of the three stooges calling other posters names and also going of topic them selves .
If you are going to edit then name calling and demeaning comments should not be aloud because there is a name at the bottom and not aloud if there isn't .
Print them all or edit them all .
I agree it is time the editors started treating all comments equally. The constant bashing and put downs for non supply management supporters is getting out of hand, but then editing comments that don't have signature. I would never sign my name on any comment with the kind of things that are being written about others and their industry.
I have spent my time raising my kids telling them that is not how to deal with people and problems. If this was a school yard there would be consequences, even the schools have zero tolerance for bullying.
I am a hog farmer and I had my chance for supply management and I voted against it, there have been times since that I have wondered if I voted right or not. The fact is there has been a lot of financial hurt in the hog industry over the last 25 years, I don't know if there has been the same in supply management, but I'm guessing not. We don't have a vibrant hog industry that we used to, it has shrunk tremendously and that is a fact.
Maybe the George Morris centre needs to do a study to put this all to an end and figure out if the subsidy's the hog industry have got over the last 25 years are really any different than what the supply management has got above the US price. Maybe in the end the tax payer is out nothing either way.
Right on about the hog industry and about the importance of avoiding bullying! I'm not sure George Morriss could answer this. Food production worldwide has mostly been about politics. The challenge is how can you build a livestock business around constantly changing political decisions?
The second sentence should have been 'from non supply management supporters' rather than 'for non supply management supporters'.
On re reading the story I do not find any reference to SM anywhere except when Mr Thompson again steers the subject that way. His resort to name calling and racial references should earn him demerit points in this debate.
Now at the risk of being edited for being off subject I would like to ask Mr Thompson why when he was in a leadership position of Huron OFA he did not bring resolutions forward about the atrocities of SM? If Mr Thompson feels so strongly about the demise of SM please bring forward the resolutions from the ground up Huron OFA during his presidency. During the most recent PAC committee that Mr Thompson participates in, or any time recently was the SM issues discussed or resolution created?
Could it be he was actively leading in the same way as the politicians saying “SM has to go” in the back rooms while campaigning or towing party or OFA lines to defend SM in public, as government does during trade talks?
The mandate of OFA and FPMC both encourage ground up direction and input. Is it so hard to be as blunt and forthright with local SM friends and neighbors face to face as it is to belittle on a public forum?
Leadership seems to have its price and short comings everywhere
Every member of the Board of Directors of our organization has strong opinions about something which clashes with the opinions of others. For example we have Directors who represent grains farmers sitting at the same table as representatives from hog producers and livestock producers, and who, therefore, represent completely-different sides of the ethanol debate. We know, therefore, to avoid trying to pass any resolutions about ethanol. We have Directors who are strongly opposed to wind turbines and we have Directors who are strongly in favour, and therefore, we try, as much as possible to avoid trying to pass any resolution about wind energy. We have young non-supply managed farmers sitting at the same table as older supply managed farmers, and therefore, we know enough to avoid resolutions about supply management. The trick is to know which issues we can resolve, and which issues we cannot resolve and which, therefore, are best left to other forums, and to then stick to the issues we can resolve. It works - it's a Huron County thing not many people from outside the county can appreciate, or even understand. It's been long known that if there are going to be two strongly-opposing sides to any issue, both sides will come from Huron and both sides will likely be well-represented on our Board. We'll beat each other over the head when we are outside the Boardroom, and representing our separate constituencies, but on those things about which we will never agree, we leave them outside the door.
In my case, as an economist, I have an obligation to expose the economic half-truths proffered by each side in any debate - each side usually appreciates some of my efforts and disdains the rest. The truly tragic thing, as any ag economist knows all too well, is that in both supply management and ethanol, the half truths come 100% of the time from the promoters, particularly since both, by definition, are, and will always be, net-negative for jobs and economic activity. Sorry non-economists, but to us, that's as basic as water not running uphill, or a car not being able to run on three wheels. At the present time, given the preponderance of grey hair at both our Board, and the OFA Board, any resolution to support supply management is undoubtably going to pass, but a resolution of that type at the 2011 OFA annual meeting was a lot closer than what I had expected - it will, however, because of nothing more than demographics, be only a matter of time until some supply management supporter demands a similar vote, and loses. The more-likely scenario in the short term, however, will be some sort of "shock" which galvanizes SM into action to call for a rally which will, because of the "never-again" syndrome, result in largely-empty buses. Then, and only then, will supply management supporters begin to realize the way they see themselves isn't the way they are seen by others. The formation of Mr. McGivern's organization should have prompted some introspection on the part of supply managed farmers, and the farm organizations which pander to them, but all are, at present, and as is typical for grey-haired organizaions, sitting in "comfortable pews" and ignoring all the warning signs of impending disaster, especially when delivered by the next generation. For my part, I really don't have to do anything, or call for any resolutions, at all - it's already happening. Supply management is on the wrong side of economics, the wrong side of consumers, the wrong side of other farmers, and on the wrong side of demographics. It's a slow train-wreck, but a train-wreck just the same.
And, finally, when I referred to an anonymous poster as a yokel, I was, given his/her woefully-absymal lack of knowledge of basic economics, and his/her proclivity to be a "smart-ass" rather than to offer any intelligence, 100% technically correct in my assessment, and since the poster is anonymous, without either name or picture, how could I possibly be either a name-caller, or the author of racist slurs? Methinks the yokel doth protest too much.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Are you saying personal attacks, diversionary tactics, truth twisting, hyperbole, are obligations of an economist? Whatever happened to straightforward facts?
Canadian farmers have done a good job with supply management. They are honest, hardworking farmers. Successful people become targets.
It seems most readers here know what is worth responding to. Then every now and again someone, maybe a new reader rises to the bait and the supply management game back is on.
Regardless of the manner of the presentation, the basic, and completely-undeniable fact remains that supply management is, and always will be, net-negative and harmful, to both consumers and other farmers. When presented with the truth of that basic economic principle, supply managed farmers have, as we've amply seen on this site, simply continued their forty-year tradition of diversionary tactics, truth-twisting, and hyperbole, and if it takes fire to fight fire, and if it means giving people a taste of their own medicine to get their attention, so be it. Supply management proponents have never resorted to straightforward facts, because if they did, they would have to admit supply management is net-negative, and we've seen on this site the absolute firestorm, the diversionary tactics, the hyperbole, shooting the messenger, and every other aspect of the worst in human nature being evoked for entirely selfish reasons, rather than admit one of the most basic, and most universal, economic truths. Successful people don't become targets - people who enjoy legislated advantage over others become targets, particularly when they don't appreciate the fact that their success has more to do with legislative entitlement than either hard work or honesty. I really don't care if supply managed farmers don't like either me, or my message, because there's an entire generation of non-supply managed farmers waiting in the wings who think I'm not hard-hitting enough - they're your problem, they won't be patronized, they aren't going to go away, and they're certainly never going to get on a bus to support supply management.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
So now we have an admission from a poster of some pretty reprehensible behavior during a discussion on this forum.
The poster says it's justified. He's "giving people a taste of their own medicine". Seems to me I've heard bullies use this excuse.
How about it editors? Is it justified?
People turn to name calling and trying to belittle someone when the are back into a corner and sees no way out. Just because a person has a degree or sat on a board does not mean they are above or knows more than everyone else. You make your choices as you go through life and if you wanted to go into SM farming you made a great choice and had some great luck.
A simple no "I did not bring any SM resolutions forward" in my local either at the board or to the PAC would have sufficed.
Unsigned comment modified by editor.
Fact: I know what I believe and you don't Stephen.
Fact: I don't as you claim believe in the tooth fairy.
Fact: The Canadian taxpayer acts like a tooth fairy to way too many foreign consumers whenever they bail out industries that overproduce, below cost of production, in the pursuit of export markets.
SM farmers produce a stable supply at cost of production. Canadians can choose to pay cost of production or not.
Non-supply managed producers have taken money from unwilling taxpayers so they can sell to foreign consumers at a loss. That's wrong.
The ongoing tragedy of supply management is that so many farmers still believe supply management doesn't adversely affect either consumers or other farmers. Supply managed farmers take money from unwilling consumers so that they can bully non-supply managed farmers. That's wrong, and if you don't believe me, ask any non-supply managed farmer, especially one under the age of 40 - I dare you.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
SM farmers don't bully anyone. If you want to use that kind of rhetoric then how about: non SM farmers too frequently use the media and lobbying to bully government for taxpayer's money to keep unsustainable practices going.
Supply managed farmers are able to bully other farmers because of the income and purchasing power available only to supply management. Some absolutely do bully, and some don't, but nobody can deny that supply managed farmers have a legislated, and absolute, advantage over everyone else, and that's not just wrong, but it is also eventually going to cause substantial strife in the farm community. I do agree that the ethanol lobby uses a whole range of quite-unsavoury tactics and arguments to bully government into passing legislation which favours them. But, as I have pointed out before, two wrongs don't make a right, and never will. Both supply management and ethanol are, by the first principles of economics, unsustainable, a drag on the economy, a blight on public policy, confrontational, and just plain wrong. Agriculture would, as Mr. Linton quite-correctly points out, be far-better off without either, yet farmers seem to be protectionists from birth, and too-few ever seem to "see the light".
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I,m with you 100% . When you buy SM products you pay the extra not everyone that live and work in Canada. I hate my taxes going to help someone that is handed money to do or produce something that I wouldn,t eat or use .
All I can say the three can donate their income to the companies that collect money from the government then head to another country to set up shop, and its no different than the people who don,t eat beef having their money go to help them. Nobody is forced to buy or eat SM products.
If there were 200% import tariffs on petroleum products, resulting in the Canadian price of gasoline being almost 38% more than in the US, and some yokel pointed out that you weren't "forced" to buy, or use, gasoline or diesel fuel, dairy and poultry farmers would be the first to scream blue murder. Come on now, really, the smugness, and the lack of consideration for anyone but yourself, in your last sentence demonstrates just exactly why supply management isn't well-liked, and won't be missed.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
So there is no difference in the price we pay for gas here and the price they pay for in the States? When it comes to the price of fuel I do scream and then I cut back on what I do and the way I do it. Its no different than going to the store for my food buy what you can afford and every once in a while buy something that you would really like. I work for my money 7 days a week and if you think its smugness , well I would hate to be in your shoes. Life is what you make of it and there is no where on this earth that any place you go where everyone has the same life, pay, and has the right to every kind of food they want and for a cheap price or free and if there is Please by aal means tell the readers where and we will all go and enjoy.
Many consumers work, and often not by choice, 7 days a week - why should they be penalized by 15,000 millionaires who seem to believe they are the only people in Canada who matter?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton, ON
"Hyperboles are exaggerations to create emphasis or effect. As a literary device, hyperbole is often used in poetry" - Wikipedia.
Most financial planners say most Canadians are going to need a million dollars to retire. As an accountant or economist I'm sure you know that and hopefully you have at least that amount in mind for yourself Stephen. It would seem SM farmers are doing something right then.
Your use of the term millionaire in this context is therefore bizarre.
As for your assertion about the belief of SM farmers please see Wikipedia definition above
Do you have a point- how many people are out there working 7 days a week I ask? I ask do the rest of the workers in Canada that is not a public servant deserves to be penalized because they don,t have that kind of job and has to do without benefits and their high pay and months off a year with pay. Tell me how much you make off farm and say well I should only get min. wage and try to make ends meet. Try and handle the truth and get the smugness off because its very tiring to read how 3 people in Canada thinks that they are the brains of this country.
I've been listening most of my life to dairy farmers claim they are entitled to this, that, or the other, only because they "word 7 days a week". The truth is that their fathers got lucky in the tariff lottery, and we've now got some dairy farmers who don't work at all, yet still believe they are entitled to gouge consumers and run rough-shod over other farmers. The 7 days a week thing is just another meaningless "flag-waver" dairy farmers use to persuade themselves they're somehow better than other farmers and consumers.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton
Fact: there has never been a "tariff lottery" as you claim.
Farmers voted for SM. Those farmers respect the laws of supply management. They respect other farmers.
Demonizing SM farmers, attacking those who disagree with you, twisting facts, using hyperbole does not help anyone nor change the facts.
SM generally works for those who chose that option. It needs fixing. So do the other systems that non SM farmers chose for themselves.
The big difference is that SM farmers don't do the begging thing for taxpayer's dollars that others do from time to time.
There seems to be something about "never again" that supply managed farmers just don't understand, and won't understand, even when the buses are almost empty on the next supply management rally in Ottawa. I've too many farmers tell me, and not just young ones, over the last 20 years that "never again" would they go to a rally to support supply management, because once supply management was secure in 1992, supply managed farmers went right back to bullying everyone in their path. It's a bitter memory which is going to go to follow many non-supply managed farmers right to the grave. Ironically, nobody demonizes their critics more than supply management supporters, nobody twists facts better than supply management supporters, and nobody uses hyperbole quite like supply management's poster-boy, Wayne Easter. And when it comes to respect, supply managed farmers have no respect for consumers, or for the farmers they bully with the incomes and purchasing power available only to them. Call me all the names you want, and demonize me all you want - I can't thank you enough for helping me so-completely expose supply management supporters for the hypocritical, and anonymous, bullies that they are, as well as further stiffen the resolve of non-supply managed farmers to get rid of something they've long-regretted having supported in 1992.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Raw Raw ... lets take the equity in quota away without compensation. Or maybe just pay some pro rated value based on some trade formula. Give Quebec full value as a distinct society albeit milking french cows especially after the decades of CDC adjustments favoring Quebec.
Yes those southern Ont guys ... just take their quota the way their land was devalued for future urban projects (407 corridor later sold to foreign interests or hydro) after paying some of the highest realty taxes to produce food with no cost line for land value.
Just call it mmmm "quota green" something. Sounds better than genocide. If green is in it, all is fair.
non sm farmer
Maybe you are a little premature in your mocking tone. You better read this weeks edition of Ont Farmer first. "There is going to be some fallout for the dairy industry after these EU talks". If that one isn't enough to remove your smugness then how about "sooner or later Canada's supply management system will be on the table as negotiations go forward on the TPP".
Mr. Thompson is right, and most of us can see it comming.
Dave Linton
Maybe if we step back and look at the bigger picture both sides of the sm debate are really pointing to the same conclusion.
Pork and Beef production in Ontario have been in serious decline for a long time. Producers and their families have suffered as have those they owed money to. That trend is undeniable. Beef especially is part time or a hobby for most.
If you accept those facts and if you insist those industries must avoid supply management then it's unlikely those industries (though not as hobbies) will survive. Nothing wrong with that as long as we agree that's the best outcome for Ontario and Canada.
Is that the best outcome? That's where opinion, emotion and politics enter the picture.
You're predicting pork and beef production will become a hobby? You're misinformed. We've been in pork production for close to four decades and have never lost money in any of those years. You may be correct in assuming we would make more money if we were protected by 200% to 300% tarrifs, but suggesting pork is not a thriving industry is wrong.
There have been some big mistakes made by segments of the industry...Big Sky, the loops, etc. but all the while many families have been making a living and carrying a large infrastructure of the industry with them. Be carefull about making judgement on things you may not understand...next time you step back and look at the big picture..
Dave Linton
Fair enough Dave. We could argue the definition of hobby. Maybe that's not the best word. Could we agree on something like-- an activity that is done for other reasons than maximizing return on investment?
Numbers of pork producers have dropped from 10s of thousands to maybe a couple of thousand. Pork meat output has dropped. Not only Big sky is gone. Take a look around Ontario at the number of efficient operations that shut down just in the past few years.
Let's not forget that the Canadian taxpayers paid your fellow producers to shut down during the recent buyout!!!! Have you ever added up the money your shrinking industry has received from taxpayers over the past decades to continue to produce at a loss? No fault to the enthusiasm and work ethic of pork producers they are a among the hardest working citizens we have. You just have a bad playing field. This is no temporary set back this is a trend that has gone on for a very long time.
Even now some remaining operations are supported by off farm income.
I won't split hairs though, even if we agree that from the 10s of thousands of producers in earlier years, there might be one or two or a dozen pork farms that will remain not as hobbies, what then what are we really saying about the Ontario pork industry?
Does the industry need to generally maintain the status quo, make some small adjustments, change production methods, change marketing methods.
Two things will change for sure-- there will be fewer tax $ going to Ontario pork producers both to stay in or get out and costs will keep rising in relation to some competitors as animal welfare and environmental restrictions tighten.
Here we go again...this is all about retiring/existing pork producers getting a subsidy from tax payers vs. the sqeeky clean (in their own eyes) SM industry getting (or as some have said extorting) the money from consumers...isn't it. Well I happen to believe that the money received to pork famers getting out was a mistake. In some cases it was a retirement bonus and in some cases it was just market interference. A banker informed me he has recently loaned money to producers to bring some of these barns back into production...now that the three year time limit is ending.
However, you can bet that these farms will still be competitive in a global economy and families will make their living from them...without 200% to 300% tarrif protection. Take note of those words...they will be competitve with the rest of the world.
You are right that there will be fewer tax dollars going to pork producers...and those that say SM will lose there huge tarrif protection are also right...but then some people don't realize either one.
Dave Linton
Bet you some of the ones getting back into the pork is likely the ones that got a cheque and went wee all the way to the bank. I don,t like the price of SM produce but its better than what other countries have, if they can drop the price they can stay.I wonder if this idea will go over well with some of the writers or will they come out swinging.
Maybe you're prediction is right Dave. On the other hand though we have the very shocking reality of an industry that has shrunk by 95% in 40 years while being subsidized (lots of money pumped in before the latest bailout) by taxpayers.
Is the key that has been admitted .
Praise Be
If I were a politician, I would be confused by the fact that new pork barns are being built to export pork into ultra low priced U.S. supermarkets and then whine to gov't that there is no money in exporting at a predermined loss. To confuse politicians more would be the fact that Ontario corn basis is approx. $1/bu. less than in the U.S.
Seems to me if low Pork price needs to increase then overproducing to flood the U.S. supermarkets with Canadian pork in attempt to supply the marketplace with more widgets, we or they don't need is, in the end, counterproductive.
Yeah but ya gotta admit at least they're shipping it closer to home than Japan another place pork producers once based their fortunes on. Different year slightly different illusion.
While you claim you won't split hairs, you have done just exactly that by avoiding any mention of the obvious fact that the Ontario pork industry is, and has been, fighting two-800 pound gorillas, one called supply management, and the other called ethanol, when it comes to incomes and purchasing power. No discussion of the plight of the Ontario pork industry can even begin, let alone end, without admitting the obvious, and horribly-adverse, effect on hog farmers caused by legislation designed to assist other sectors of agriculture If anything, subsidies received by hog farmers amount to little more than either a supply management injury assistance program or an ethanol injury assistance program, or, more likely, both. These adverse cross-elasticities of assistance programs are well-known by every hog farmer, yet seem to be completely-beyond the comprehension of grains and supply managed farmers.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Ethanol is relatively new and doesn't explain pork losses and taxpayer bailouts over decades.
SM, which attempts to match domestic supply with demand, doesn't harm pork or beef producers who think they can compete with countries with lower standards. Irresponsible over production, or playing the boom and bust game does a pretty good job of harming both pork and beef. It does help consumers in foreign countries though so that's nice. No one can say Canadian taxpayers aren't generous.
SM, especially poultry has done a way better job of paying its way with research. SM never comes, hat in hand looking for emergency payouts from taxpayers. SM has played by the rules. These rules were made available to other sectors. They made choices. Is everything perfect? No.
It's complete nonsense to claim that supply management doesn't harm pork and/or beef producers when it's obvious to pretty-much everyone in the farm community that people who don't benefit from 200% tariff barriers simply cannot compete with the incomes and purchasing power of those who do. In addition, even though SM doesn't come "hat-in-hand" looking for payouts from taxpayers, SM does have the right to demand that Ontario consumers pay almost 38% more for milk than US consumers which, in economics, is called a producer subsidy equivalent. Therefore, even though, in the narrowest possible sense, supply management isn't a subsidy from taxpayers, it's far more of a subsidy from consumers, especially poor ones. I mean, really, you've got to be a new subscriber to this site to spout this kind of utter nonsense, because it does nothing but infuriate those farmers who don't enjoy SM's purchasing power, and never will.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Stephen you suggest I "must be a new subscriber" and you worry that I'm going to "infuriate" someone. I know you wouldn't be trying to shift the focus from the message to the messenger because that would mean you are losing ground in the debate and resorting to diversionary tactics. My suggestion and hopefully you will agree-- let's stick to the facts.
Fact is consumers of SM products pay cost of production. That way producers don't have to repeatedly go to the taxpayers for tax dollar subsidies so that they can dump product in foreign countries for less than the cost of production. SM is a win for suppliers, taxpayers, consumers and producers. Your way is a win for foreign consumers but everyone else loses.
Only someone who believes in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny could ever claim:
(1) Canadian consumers "win" by being forced to pay almost 38% more for milk than US consumers.
(2) Farmers "win" by allowing supply managed farmers to bully non-supply managed farmers by virtue of the incomes and purchasing power available only to supply management.
All you are doing is infuriating every non-supply managed farmer on this site - if that's what you want to do, go right ahead, all it will accomplish is stiffen the resolve of every non-supply managed farmer to get rid of supply management, and the sooner, the better - those are the facts.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
How do we know that consumers are paying a fair price ? the prices are set by the people getting the money not some 3rd party board who decides for them, its a scam lol the Sm boards are taking advantage of the consumers and todate there has been nothing consumers could do about it, But trust me in the coming months there will be a big wake up calls coming, stay tuned for more details because, there are several hard working intelligent people working to ensure this all comes to an end, and comes to an end very soon.... I was glad to finally hear this week at the Ontario cattlemen's AGM that supply management was finally brought up as an issues effecting beef farmers...
Sean McGivern
PFO
When many hog producers were crying foul and saying they were slapping $20 to $50 dollars or more on the backs of every pig they were shipping they were lying about that ?
So the cost of feed is not and has not been too high either then ?
This puts things a new prospective .
Beef and pork( and other business') could arguably be making more money now if our governments were not so stubborn about budging on sm anytime they go to the trade table with other countries. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
If Dave Linton really has not lost money in 40 years in the pig business then there are several things that don't make sense. First Stephen Thompsons idea that hog farmers need a ethanol injury assistance program is not needed. Secondly every economist who has said that hog farmers are losing money when they do the cost of production calculations must be doing them wrong. Thirdly why do we need a business risk management program? Fourthly why hasn't your feed company and bank put you on the road doing seminars on how to never lose money in the hog business, that would sell out in a heart beat since all my neighbours and I am guessing yours also would like to know your secret. Lastly maybe agricorp needs to be asking you to repay all government money you have recieved in the last 25 years since you didn't need it and have been making money all along, rather than chasing people from 10 years ago who probably needed the money as still do need that money.
You really don't understand the hog industry.
There are many ways to farm and have hogs a part of that.
You could have SM as your main line and have hogs on the side. A guaranteed return to subsidize any loses.
You can have a diversified operation and concentrate on increasing equity as opposed to increasing debt.
There is also a difference between making a little money and making a lot of money...and it's really my own business which category I fall into.
Non of this is any secret.
As far as ethanol injury assistance...it's called "robbing Peter to pay Paul", surely you've heard that saying before.
Lastly if I'm offered money from the Gov't and refuse it...I'm at a competitive disadvantage...but anyone knows that, and I'm willing to give up any gov't subsidies if SM gives up quotas and Ethanol mandates dissappear.
You make an interesting comment that I (and I assume all other farmers) repay all government money recieved over the last 25 years...think you'll get much support for that?
Dave Linton
I do understand the hog industry, have been it in close to 50 years made some and lost some money. I understand about diversification I do it my self. But to say that every pig I have shipped has made me money would be a lie. On our farm we figure our corn at the price we could sell it for that we feed to our pigs because that is what it is worth.
I hope no politician reads that you have never lost money on pigs, cause they will use that as ammo to never give us money again when we need it.
You are the only hog farmer I have ever heard say they never lost money on hogs (and I consider some of my neighbours to be very good and astute hog producers) so why shouldn't you give the money back clearly you didn't need it.
"never give us money again when we need it."
So this would be money to subsize your product. All taxpayers (including those who don't eat pork) pay to provide pork to consumers in Canada and outside who like pork?
OK so you understand the hog industry. You said I've never lost money on hogs not me. I said I have been in the hog industry for close to four decades and never lost money...obviously I wasn't explicit enough for you. Our farm has had a positive cash flow every year...how's that...and I know other hog farmers that have done the same or better.
Every one of the farmers I know personally that took the buy out were making money off their operations. They saw an opportunity and took advantage of it. everyone but one is still farming too (not hog farming) except one for health reasons.
As I said before, I'll give up any gov't subsidies when the playing field is levelled...no SM...no ethanol mandates.
Dave Linton
When a hog farmer says he/she is making money in the hog business, he/she could easily be getting 50 cents per bushel for his/her corn by feeding hogs, yet still be producing a positive cash flow on the entire operation. Because of ethanol, instead of getting, for example, $1.00 per bushel less than market price for corn by feeding hogs, many hog farmers are likely now getting $3.00 per bushel less than market price for corn by feeding hogs. Hog farmers do very-much need the ethanol injury assistance program to cover them for the extra $2.00 per bushel they're "leaving on the table" that they didn't leave on the table before ethanol came along. It all has to do with the basic managerial accounting principle of transfer pricing and the willingness of hog farmers, and even the necessity on the part of hog farmers, to not use it. That, plus the nonsense from the ethanol lobby that ethanol is all benefit, and no cost, makes it tough to be any sort of livestock feeder. I suspect the ethanol lobby picked up the "all benefit, no cost" slogan from supply management lobbyists - it's dead wrong, yet always popular with many farmers lacking a basic understanding of economics.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Dave I have no doubt that you are a successful pork producer. You have achieved a lot and you seem genuinely content with your circumstances and that is as good a definition of success as I can think of. Few people can make this claim.
I do think you are overlooking some inconvenient truths about your industry though. Here are a few:
1)The number of hard working, efficient producers driven out of business. Can you name another industry that has lost as much ground as pork in Ontario?
2) The harm done to families, creditors and communities with some of these unnecessary failures.
3) The fact there is no virtue in producing Canadian pork at a loss
with taxpayer subsidies, for foreign households.
4) The opportunities you, your family and other pork producers would have had by investing the same equity and sweat in other industries or in pork with a more responsible approach to marketing.
5) The reputation pork producers get when they do the regular begging thing for the media in an effort to get their hands on taxpayer dollars. On national TV we've seen demos in Ottawa and Queen's Park, a highway blocked, a producer who couldn't keep the power on, massive euthanasia of cute little piggies.
How many people could respect such an industry? How many would want to be part of it? I think you have the answer to that with the relatively tiny number left in the business.
All this nonsense about subsidies coming from people who boast about getting no subsidies, yet who not only see nothing wrong with extorting money from consumers, but who also will be the first to run to government for a subsidized quota bailout the first time quota drops in value - save the pontification, please, your double-standard is showing.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
When I moved into this township there were 50 milk producers...now there's two. How does this fit your definition of success...and since you're being so chummy and calling me by my first name, why don't you sign your posts?
Dave Linton
I honestly am not familiar with the context or the number you mention. Since you prefer I won't use your first name.
Feel free to respond to my other points.
To the debate is mire likely how it is . There is the FOR , the AGAINST , those for CHANGE , and the NEW FARMER . I would say those who are for change are closer to what new young farmers want and need . Why would you want to set up a system where there is a roller coaster of profits and losses for some one getting in ? But then you have those who now on here claim to have never lost money but I bet they cashed every Gov. cheque that came in their mail box .
There is no disputing that the system works . The problem is that with in the system there are things that need to be changed . One being that there is a concentration of power or control of too few who are producing . No one back in the day would have ever believed that some would milk hundreds of cows or raise tens of thousand or more chickens . No one is going to want to start raising hogs , cattle or what ever when you can't see a profit . No one wants to or can start in SM because the costs are too high to even think that a profit is attainable in the future .
There is all the talk about the unfairness of the chicken quota system....as mentioned before CFO has let there be exemptions from the Minimum Amount of Quota and the 300 birds without quota. Would the PFO and others consider a licensing system within with SM...annual cost per bird to raise more than 300 birds?
Cathy Mcgregor-Smith
I guess if you read it in the Ontario Farmer it must be the truth .
Now if I put things in prospective that might help you understand , lets say I was to believe every thing . I would have to say that hog producers are losing money . So I see hog farmers building new barns , buying new equipment, building new houses , driving new cars and trucks and buying farms . You would have to agree when the two pictures are put side by side that there is a stark contrast . I can believe that some hog farmers are struggling but maybe that is maybe because of management decisions made to expand or buy a farm at a time when if all things in the executed plan went perfect it would work out . We all know things can go to hell in a hand basket in short order .
The mindset in agriculture is when prices drop below profitable levels that you have to produce more to make more money . The fact is that the only thing that will raise prices is to shorten production . SM controls production . Would not hog farmers like to produce at a steady profit rather than a roller coaster ? The hog producers worst enemy is the next hog producer . Same as equipment dealers . It is not the dealer who sells another brand of equipment who is his worst enemy it is the next closest dealer that sells the same .
Another example that may help you to understand is to look at electricity . If we did not have base power from the nukes and only had wind turbines there would be many days we would have just enough power to operate as a province . Other days we would have a surplus and yet other days we would not have any because there is no wind . Now that would be a roller coaster that could be compared to hog farmers . Slow and steady wins the race . Bruce power sells power at 5.4 cents . Wind gets 13 but is not a steady supply . The kicker is that Bruce Power is getting paid millions to not produce power as per their contract that all consumers pay . The poorest consumer to the richest consumer . Sort of sounds like a form of SM to me .
As with many things with Gov. you have to see the "out" or "loop hole" that is in the wording . Since Wynne said she is a strong supporter and believer of supply-management the question is does she believe and support it in it's current form ? That question brings to light the fact that there are some who think SM must keep going in its current form , likely many who think SM needs changes and those who are so against they can't see any thing different . The last group is so blind with rage they look foolish and scew things around to put those who want to see real changes into the SM as it is group .
For the average consumer he or she does not care what the price is . They just want to go to the store and get it when they want it . They yes may grumble over the price but for the most part they put it in their cart and carry on or they can choose some thing different or go with out . When the store self is empty then consumers get angry .
How many years have you heard the SM is coming to an end, its been decades now. Yes maybe it will come to and end and yes they said the universe is coming to an end too in how many billions years , yes it may end together? One thing for sure if you read some of the letters the hot air is heating up the earth and we love hot weather.
I'm not in supply management, and no economist and that is a GOOD thing but we can't change the supply management system now. Why open the flood gates to those sectors now? The pain the swine industry with no supply management has endured for years should be a good example of why supply management works. I got out of cattle because of no profit and pain. It is good to see at least some sectors of livestock making money. If you want to help the pizza maker in some way, then lower his energy costs by eliminating the green energy act! That is the most ridiculous change of policy in this century!
Not only can we change supply management now, we have to change it now, or the next generation of farmers will do it, and will do it by their rules - procrastination is not an option, except to the timid and the entitled. Furthermore, your inference that we should keep supply management because it allows at least some sectors of agriculture to make money, is exactly like the pre-civil war argument in favour of preserving slavery by claiming that without slavery, everybody in Mississippi would be poor. Your argument, therefore, is one-sided because you completely ignore the "slaves" whose farms are at a perpetual disadvantage to the incomes and purchasing power enjoyed only by supply management.
To look at supply management another way, Winston Churchill's famous quote, when applied to supply management, would be - "never have so few been given so much by so many"
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
SM producers have paid for quota so that they don't have to harass taxpayers for money like other commodities do. If Canadian consumers understand this they will realize the potential of this great system for the future of the Canadian food supply. Yes quota value needs to be dealt with and yes more needs to be done for young farmers but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If every business in the world was given legislative authority to this kind of protectionism from their governments, the entire global marketplace would be one very sad situation.
We normally think of slaves as having no choice except maybe where people practice S&M in the bedroom. That's not the kind of slave you meant is it Stephen? Otherwise I don't see any sign of involuntary servitude. Some producers chose SM. Some didn't. Neither group are slaves. Some just chose more wisely and therefore don't have to resort to name calling or attacking fellow farmers.
When one group of people has a legislated, and markedly-absolute, economic advantage over others, this, by definition, puts the disadvantaged into economic slavery to those with the advantage - therefore, by any definition, and by common sense, supply management makes economic slaves out of consumers as well as non-supply managed farmers. I mean, really, what choice does any consumer have except to either pay the rip-off prices for dairy and poultry products, or go to the US and be branded as un-patriotic by those who force this economic slavery on them - especially those consumers who lost their jobs at a milk processing plant because rip-off prices charged by dairy farmers causes people to buy less milk in Canada, and buy more in the US? Oh, yes, I forgot, what but slaves would anyone call all of those spineless politicians who continually pander to supply management at the expense of the rest of their constituents?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
They could get police to bring products across the border for them to buy . But then those police might get thrown in the clink . Hmmm Did that not happen not too long ago ??
Sort of take the wind out of your semantics & dodging the truth sails !!
If it was so important, why was it not ,mentioned in the throne speech
Its not just SM farmers putting the price on farm land , maybe in some people,s mind. In the real world its a combination of every body else that want land and will pay whatever to get it. If I,m wrong I guess I should buy the book that,s the 3 is reading and get a shot of reality?
Editor's note:
Writer's signature in question, please provide a phone number for verification.
I think the latest SM discussion here actually exposes the strong farmer opposition here for SM for what it is. When someone stands up for SM on the issues, not bashing personalities and argues logically that SM isn't the monster it's made out to be, things change. I don't think things have ever been so quiet here for so long.
I'm sure SM needs work. But SM farmers deserve respect and this latest round here shows what happens when the facts come out.
Where are the usual attacks on supply management? It's not natural.
Its about time some readers wake up and start putting in their 2 cents on the topic and how all and all its good to keep the business in Canada. We have non-SM produce that is no longer a production concern in Canada and 3 people thinks that,s alright , but I for one thinks we should grow and manufacture the things in farming to eat right here. We may have some problems but at least I think we know what we are getting when it says on the package and I'm not Horse-ing around.
As a service to your readers why don't you move this supply management discussion somewhere else? If you don't people will look for an excuse to just start this up again below another story and it will be like this discussion never happened.
Post new comment