Despite Supreme Court turndown raw milk activist won’t pay fine

© AgMedia Inc.


Under Ontario regulations, the exemption for farmers is only for milk consumed on the farm premises. Moving milk off the premises is marketing, regardless of whether it is sold. Read the regs or talk to someone responsible. Better Farming should do I little investigative work here perhaps. Please don't just mouthpiece for Schmidt. If you check, I think he also has a contempt of court fine of $50,000 or more still outstanding from the Newmarket court. Ask the bailiff when he will going to collect those funds perhaps.

We are still in the dark ages with regards to raw milk ,take a look at Europe ,most of the UK& NZ ,time we opened the door's and regulate it properly , it is not going to hurt the Quota King's stranglehold , as milk consumption has been dropping .


The story above says he won't pay the $9,150 he owes Ontario courts and a quick search of Better Farming articles on this site finds the other $50,000 contempt of court fine is owing in B.C.
I am sure BF and Ontario Farmer are following up.

Marketing is illegal in Canada



Jails are full of convicted people that still won't admit guilt.
Convicted is convicted.


There is no basis in reality to prohibit people from consuming food they wish to consume. The corporate monopolies held by the food distribution system is dangerous for people, and this is just one example of such an impediment to food choice and freedom. Only PARENTS have the right to tell people what they may or may not ingest if it is not a literal drug. What next? You can't consume fruit from your neighbor's orchard?

While I generally agree with your post, why should the taxpayer foot the bill for these people in our health care system if they become sick?

Raube Beuerman

Slippery slope here. Conversely, we should also refuse to fund smokers self inflicted health care costs. Then there is the overeating or lack of proper food groups diet causing numerous health care issues. Most red meats are also associated with high cholesterol. Should we therefore limit pork, beef, chicken and egg consumption to mitigate health risks? Shure would help eliminate some of the excess in health care costs for the world.

Should we then put every one in a bubble ? No one allowed to drive cars , boats , four wheelers . Walking and bicycles would be your only form of transportation . You have to get real with this stuff .
Smokers could argue that they pay more tax than any else .

Perhaps instead of tripling the cigarette drug taxes paid to cover the full health care costs, a compulsory cigarette drug addiction withdrawal course could be made mandatory!

Never said it was not an addiction . There are many addictions .
Does medical "Mary-Jane" cause cancer , lung cancer ? No idea , just asking . Some times the cure is worse than the cause .
Why are inmates allowed smokes ? Seems when they are in a controlled environment it should be easy to control and have a withdrawl course .
Many people have died of cancer who have never smoked .

There are all kinds of things that people are addicted to . Alcohol , food for fat people , drugs that were used to treat a medical condition . There is no one answer . There are many medical drugs that are NOT covered by OHIP .

There are also times when a back hand might be a good cure for little Johnny but the medical profession feeds him a bunch of pills .

Wrong about the smokes in Canadian prisons!

Could you describe a circumstance where a "backhand might be a good cure for little Johnny"?

When little Johnny tells his parents to F O when not allowed to do some thing or when asked to do something .

I guess one could say the milk industry has done a poor job of educating people of the perils of drinking raw milk,it's just that pasteurization has done such a great job over the decades,people lose that fear.
The government realizes they can't stop parents from feeding their children what is deemed unsafe food products unless they are made unavailable,no one can stop a parent from feeding their child half cooked hamburger or chicken but the means of keeping raw milk off the market should be maintained.

Raw milk will not hurt or affect every one . Problem is you do not know it some times until it is too late .
Should we also not allow a mother to breast feed incase here child is lactose intolerant ?
Should all milk only be soy milk ?

It is a slippery slope but some times you just have to say let them do it to them selves and their own .

"read the regs" Believe me those involved in the raw milk issue have "read the regs" and they have read and researched a lot more than those who think the government is doing all this for our own health benefits. Being "responsible" doesn't mean agreeing with the government because some "reg" has been put in place. Go have a cigarette and chase it with a beer - I've "read the regs" and the government says there great they put a lot of money in their pockets.

Saying the conditions have changed is just a red herring.
He was charged and convicted under the conditions in place at the time of the charges - plain and simple.

The benefits of raw milk is not the issue is the marketing of it . ...maybe Mr Schmidt should have worked within the Canadian System rather than break laws /not pay fines / demand his way and be a big Bully.

Stan H

Stan really, what turnip truck did you fall off of ? Mr.Schmidt tried for years when he was a quota holder to get the DFO to work on raw milk science and safety protocols and testing methods and they would not have anything to do with it at all.

So before you go slandering Mr.Schmidts credibility with only a pinch of the history behind this case you ought better do your home work, before you go rambling on with half truths and rumors concocted in your own mind.

I have personal known Michael Schmidt for nearly 20 yrs he is a man of integrity, compassion, and is as loyal a friend as any one could ask for, he would help any one in need and he would never ask for nothing in return.

We need more people with his dedication to agriculture instead we are plagued with bitter angry baby boomers that only see dollar and cents and are willing be the last of their family to run the family farms as they chose to sell out and discourage the next generation from continuing in agriculture.

Sean McGivern

I haven't heard that expression since I toured thru the Ozarks. It's one not becoming of an executive of a farm organization.
I did not slander Mr Schmidt. I just pointed out the facts that he sold raw milk without quota and was fined for doing that.
I think I know the history of events as well as you do. We need people to work within the system to change the future generation of farmer not by demanding and bullying

I would have to agree that it Sean seems to think he is right to call out and demand answers .
I seem to remember some one on here asking for some answers from Sean and PFO but have yet to see him answer the posting . If nothing else it was like he went into hiding .

Yes trying to work within the system is "supposed" to be the way to make changes . Just don't forget that you can't change for the better things that people don't want changed when they represent them selves on a board . There is a thing such as leaving your personal hat at the door but many can't .

Mr. McGivern....perhaps you could encourage your "dear friend" Mr Schmidt to speak for himself on this forum . I'm sure that many would be interested in debating his justification for not paying his fines.

Stan Holmes

I respect that you identify yourself.
Now tell us all about yourself, what type of farm, how you got started and such.
The rest of us with names have told it all, usually a result of some anonymous cowards who otherwise are afraid to do so themselves since they don't want to get their poor widdle feelings hurt.

Raube Beuerman

Dear Mr Beuerman

I follow this forum because I am interested in others opinions. I not interested in your farm and family history.

Stan Holmes

It appears to me the only thing you are interested in is insulting the "opinions" of Mr.McGivern or Mr.Black. I am still waiting to see you "debate". There are only 2 types of people that support SM. Those born with quota under their pillow, or some of the baby boomer generation non SM farmers that are close to selling and have seen their RE value double because of it. Which category do you fit into?

Raube Beuerman

Why would it matter to you what category Mr. Holmes is in . Did you ever even give a thought that he might not even be in one of the two that you so educately put him in ?
We aren't all waiting for daddy and mommy to pass the farm on to us . Some of us have bought and are paying for our farms . Bought the farms at fair market value so that our parents could enjoy retirement . Once the time comes for those farms to get sold or passed on to family is not any ones business on this forum unless some want to tease the hell out of the SM anti trinity and piss off hog farmers .

I seem to remember a post not long ago asking Sean to answer some direct questions asked of him by some one on here . Maybe you could jog his memory to answer before some one shows up at the PFO day and shows him up in public .

Mr. Beuerman is entirely correct to point out that the two main groups of farmers who support supply management are:
(1) those who were born with quota under their pillow
(2) those non-supply managed farmers hoping to sell their farms at inflated prices to supply-managed farmers.

There would appear to be, alas, another type of supply management supporter - the perpetually anonymous smart-ass.

Unfortunately, nobody in any of these three groups cares one iota about anyone but themselves - I, for one, speak for an entire generation of under-forty non-supply managed farmers (and I have a lot of them as tax clients) who, unless supply management is abolished, face the very-real possibility of spending their entire lives being second-class farmers and/or second-class citizens, in their own community - and that injustice created by one group of farmers in order to be inflicted on another group of farmers, definitely is everyone's "business on this forum".

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Editor: Comment will be published if resubmitted and signed.

DFO has some of the highest quality and safety regulations in the world when it comes to production and marketing of milk,thousands of dollars are spent by dairy farmers each year on quality assurance and bringing to the public the most trusted product they can.Why in the world would they jeopardize that by backing a completely untrustworthy,unpredictable product like unpasteurized milk.

Its not a question of the integrity of Mr.Schmidt but he probably knew the Canadian rules about selling unpasteurized milk when he immigrated here back in 84.I think he has tried turning this into small farmer vs big Government but it was never that from the start,its simply an unsafe product that should never be sold.

It has been a killer in the past and continues this day to cause misery to a unfortunate small percentage of its users. The worst part is most of the severe illnesses will affect the children who aren't given the choice of drinking the unpasteurized milk.Those are the ones the Government and medical profession have to protect.

They try but over 200,000 people in Canada got Crohne's Disease which is due to Pasteurization and how many have died from Asthma which pasteurized milk is a contributor to Asthma, also sick too.

After 6 years of close research of Raw Milk, here is an update. I can not find a record of a person dying in Canada in the last 20 years + from drinking Raw Milk which came from grass fed cows (no grain). Not so with prescription drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, meat, etc. Asthma, Gut diseases, ADD, Osteoporosis is reduced with Raw Milk. Read the medical results of those who switched to Raw Milk. Check the farmers Milk Tests which are Certified by the Raw Milk Institute at . To comment with some knowledge on the subject go to . When TB was at it's highest, Mayo Clinic was using Raw Milk from pasture fed cows to cure TB. Several thousand (50,000 by one Prof.) Canadians are drinking it, this includes the farmers. Check out how many Canadian farmers there are and how many live on them.
In California, Organic Pastures is supplying Raw Milk to over 75,000 people every week without one sickness. Less than 1% of a general population is allergic to the proteins. There is over 200,000 Canadians that have Crohn's Disease which comes from cows that have Johne's Disease and Pasteurization does not kill MAP.

All you have to do is google to prove how wrong you are. Last year Gorts Gouda cheese in BC had a recall for their raw milk cheese because of ecoli contamination. Two years ago a toddler and two young teens were hospitalized in Portland Oregon after drinking raw milk contaminated with EColi. The same year there were eighty one people who got intestinal infections from campylobacter bacteria from a Pennsylvania farm. You can drink raw mik if you choose to but do not be ignorant of the danger in can pose

Sure raw milk can make you sick, but so can drinking pasteurized milk, that has been handled inappropriately, lots of people have gotten food poisoning from pasteurized products. There is risk in everything we do each day. I live in a highly populated Amish and Mennonite community and those people drink raw milk several times a day and they are as healthy as any one and in my 35 years of life, i have not know one person to die from drinking raw milk in my community...

Lets be realistic this has nothing to do with food safety its all about control and supply management.

Sean McGivern
Practical farmers of Ontario

Supply Management or not you are more likely to get sick from raw milk then you are pasteurized milk. Pasteurizing milk greatly reduced the risk that harmful bacteria had contaminated the milk. Just because no one has died does not mean no one has gotten sick. All you have to do is search on google and you will find recalls and stories of people who picked up E.ColiO157:H7 after drinking raw milk. As you said lets be realistic. The consumption of raw milk raises your risk of contracting E.Coli, salmonella, listeria and campylobacter. The modern medical system is able to ensure that these pathogens are not fatal but that does not mean they are not dangerous.

In reply to "Truth is your more likely to get sick from raw milk"

You state "The modern medical system is able to ensure that these pathogens are not fatal..."

I disagree. That assumption is becoming less and less true due to the growing severity and frequency of antibiotic resistance, and the growing strength of the bacteria.

There is growing evidence that the major source of these antibiotic resistant bacteria are questionable farming practices for food animals (eg. beef, pork, chicken, eggs, turkeys, etc.).

Between 30% to 80% of the raw chicken sold in Ontario is contaminated with deadly bacteria, and 50% of those bacteria are Superbugs with resistance to 1 or more human antibiotics.

These Superbug contaminations are caused by the daily feeding of antibiotics and drugs to CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) animals so that the farmer's profits are maximized and their risks are minimized.

However, those costs and risks are not eliminated by the farmer, they are merely transferred to the general public. The "modern" farmer wins, and the public loses.

Some of these infections are killing people or making them extremely sick with permanent health consequences in spite of using every available antibiotic. Witness Walkerton (farm runoff to a potable water well, 7 died and 2500 made sick, note that E.coli 0157H7 only became a problem after CAFO and the feeding of excessive grain to finish cattle became a "standard" practice ), Maple Leaf Foods (22 dead, 57 affected, see ), XL Foods in Alberta (see ), and so on.

These risks from deadly bacteria caused or contributed by "modern" farming practices, both within and outside of Supply Management, are going to get a lot worse (higher severity, prevalence, and frequency), continuing until it reaches a breaking point, the public demands something is done, and finally we'll get a knee jerk reactionary response by government. In the interim, everybody's life is at significant risk.

The alternative is that smart and empathic farmers decide for themselves to become more aware, improve their own practices, become better stewards of their land & animals & the public, and support their fellow farmers to do the same.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

I live in the middle of an Amish community as well and l can tell you if they did get sick from their own milk you would never hear about it.

Sean you are correct on this one. Why is no one concerned about Raw Goats Milk, Buffalo Milk etc. Because they are not regulated by supply management.
If this cow share milk was pasteurized before it left the farm, and the cow share farm had the proper health inspection what avenue of attack would be used?
I became quite wealthy saving for a milk quota, but still cant afford one.

To be pasteurized on the farm, he would have to get a processing licence (I think a dozen or more Ontario dairy farms do this) but processors can only source milk from licenced and inspected farms. Schmidt stopped being licenced and inspected in the early 80s and sold all his quota.

Here is all that you have to do sell dairy products from your farm, build a clean licensed kitchen, pasteurize your milk or sell aged raw cheese and you are in the clear there is absolutely no way you can be shut down if your using your own on farm milk and processing it in a licensed kitchen, and you could also go and independently get a HACCP certification in conjunction.

Sean McGivern

why aren't more farmers doing this are saying they don't even need quota??
I hate to burst your amish bubble but they are often seen in our health care facilities for all sorts of treatments can't say the whole community is healthy.

G Kimble

Really Sean, you know better!

Milk and dairy products for consumption on the farm premises are the only exemption for farmers. All movement off the farm is marketing under Ontario regs.

A "licenced kitchen" - surely you must be joking, but someone might take it seriously.

I am not sure if the CFIA, OMAFRA, Min of Health and the local health units watch this forum but they all have jurisdiction and anyone reading Sean's advice should see them all for the correct information.

Can't believe how irresponsible!!!

Food safety must be kept independent of Supply Management.

In reply to "Science Vs. Supply Management"

You state that "Food safety must be kept independent of Supply Management".

Interesting idea !

Putting a fox in charge of the hen house is usually a bad idea. Obviously SM can't be trusted, as demonstrated by them consistently acting in their own best interest, and contrary to the greater good of consumers, during the last 50 years.

If we're going to change the SM laws and regulations, I'll gladly make many additional recommendations for improvement to go with your proposal.

Do the Boards of SM (eg. Chicken Farmers of Ontario, Chicken Farmers of Canada, etc.) even admit they have a duty to protect and serve the end consumers of their products?

As of May 15 2014 Chicken Farmers of Canada "CFC" passed a regulation banning the injection of ceftiofur antibiotics into the unhatched broiler eggs. CFC finally acted due to the proven link between the egg injections, Superbugs on the raw chicken sold at grocery stores, and the number of Superbug infections showing up at doctors' offices and hospitals in Quebec and Ontario (see ). This is the first instance of what I am aware where the CFC passed a regulation in favor of consumers, rather than acting in the SM farmer's best interest. My complements to CFC on this issue, even if CFC only decided this grudgingly while government held a gun at their head.

In Ontario, the Farm Product Marketing Commission can pass regulations under Section 24.(1).24.(iv) of the Farm Products Marketing Act to improve the quality of the regulated products (eg. chicken, eggs, turkey, dairy).

Having the power to do so doesn't necessarily mean they will do so. If something would be against the selfish best interest of SM farmers, those responsible to act will likely be asleep at the switch.

Under ON Reg. 402-1990, Section 7 sub 1.1 OFPMC is delegated power and responsibility to CFO to define the chicken quality level required from each chicken farmer. Under Section 20.(8) (d) the Advisory Committee can recommend quality improvements to CFO. Again, self-serving chicken farmers on the Advisory Committee aren't likely to bite their own hand with "crazy" recommendations that help protect consumers.

If someone disagrees with these statements, let they prove the contrary with numerous specific examples where SM did their duty to serve the greater good of the public.

If all you have are snappy or sarcastic responses, or hyperbolic rhetoric with no facts, don't bother responding.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Micro Dairies are growing in numbers and will continue. The mandate of the health depts. is to protect the public. Health depts. have a roll to inspect these Micro dairies, regardless of the Milk Supply Management Laws in this country. This is like to the need to pay income tax on illegally earned money. I would hope if a micro dairy wanted to be inspected for the safety of the public that the inspection would take place and the operation licensed or not, the license should clarify the safety of the products being sold or distributed to the share holders, all fees for the licensing and inspections would be paid by the micro dairy. The milk marketing legal issues need to dealt with the marketing boards and the justice depts., not tying up are health resources. I think our health inspection resources are being used to try to protect supply management laws. In most provinces there is a minimum amount of milk needed to have pick up by our milk marketing boards, often about 10 kg of butterfat (about 250 Litres of milk per day), most of these micro dairies would not make enough milk to have the tanker truck show up. These raw milk farms are fighting a battle on two fronts, health and supply management. Work on getting your farms inspected and pasteurize your milk for now. You are paving the road for a new dairy industry, but your going to have a big set back from moving forward if there are any health issues with your products. The customers/share holders of the micro dairies are tax paying Canadians and have the right to safe product. Perhaps a Micro Dairy set up to supply Guernsey milk, I don't think one can buy pure Guernsey milk, this may be something new and work well on a small scale. A micro dairy is a great idea, but needs to be operated properly. There would be a lot of public support in local communities across this country for a local micro dairy. New England is well underway, and there is lots of small scale pasteurization equipment available, glass bottles, etc. Good Luck!

We have a dozen already and they are thriving.
More are in the works. Licenced and prospering.

This is signed, so by the logic of some posters must be correct.
And he is the head of Practical Farmers of Ontario, so it must be correct since he should be knowledgable and careful to speak only if he knows the correct information.
To get something like this wrong would destroy all credibility.
So it must be correct?

Sean is wrong on all counts.

If one were to set up a pasteurized cow share, could the cow share farm be inspected a licensed to distribute pasteurized milk to the care share owners? Good safe milk going to the share holders.

Almost anyone can meet the requirements of OMAFRA and get a processing licence. Meeting the physical plant specifications is not cheap but more than a dozen Ontario farms do have licenses to process milk. 

The biggest problem with your question is that there is legally no such thing as a cow share in Ontario.  It is a fictional thing that persists as a myth in spite of many legal cases that have proven it is not a legal option.

If you have a processing licence you can only process milk from a licenced, inspected farm, either your own or/and other farms if you have a milk receiving bay and have a licenced milk grader to accept the milk you buy.

Anyone can legally consume raw milk on the same farm where it is produced. This is the only exemption. It is a practical historical exemption that has not been removed because it is has not proven to be a high risk since only dairy farmers have used the exemption up till now. 

Since raw milk on farms is always consumed the same day it is produced, the bacteria loads are USUALLY low enough to avoid problems. It is not too hard to find farms that get caught by the USUALLY issue with one of the more serious and infrequent pathogens, often with small children,  and they never consume raw milk again.

The moment that milk or milk products move off their farm, there is no exemption and all rules come into force regarding inspection, testing, processing, packaging etc.

Raw milk for wider public consumption has proven to be a  high enough risk that federal and provincial health laws prevent it. Full stop.

A modern Canadian Dairy Farm vs. a small cow share dairy. The modern dairy farm with 100 or more high producing Holsteins cows, freestall barn, milking parlour, cows fed T.M.R.. The typical cow share 12 or less smaller lower milk producing (jersey etc) cows milked with a couple of bucket milkers in an inefficient cow shed, grazing in the warmer month with some grain a milking time and purchased hay for the winter. How could this smaller farm be an economic threat? Surely the large dairy industry could compete with these smaller operations.

Gorts Gouda cheese production was only temporally shut down but they continued to drink their milk because it was in the processing of the cheese that was the problem. They are now cleaner than ever. This the way it should be.
The Pennsylvania farm you referred to is now testing and testing and is a lot better than the Conventional Dairy Farmers in the U.S.. You can view his Test on Line at His customers have increased beyond his expectations. God is blessing!

No one has died from drinking raw milk in the last 20 years is not very comforting to parents of a child that has contracted E.coli and is in the midst of kidney failure and needs dialysis....just because they believed the people at the so-called raw milk institute who would tell us its safe!

My hat is off to the Alberta Milk. The Alberta Dairy Producers are making only pennies per litre but they are financing a Johne's Disease Research which is costing them $100,000.00 a year for the next five years. Dr. Herman Barkema, professor in epidemiology of infectious diseases with the Dept. of Production Animal Health at the University of Calgary will be in charge. Thanks again Alberta Milk and for posting this in the Alberta Milk "Milking Times". If any oil company can contribute more, I am sure the U. Of C. could do use it to do a more intensive research.

only pennies per year lol

Sean McGivern

it is funny how you are able to comment on every SM issue when you are not even in any of those sectors.
Stan Holmes

Agree fully with your comment Stan . Amazing how the experts are not in the said sector .

Comment modified by editor in accordance with our guidelines.

Mr. Holmes would seem to be of the frighteningly-narrow mindset that only dairy and poultry farmers should be allowed to express opinions about supply management. He, therefore, appears quite-willing to:

(1) deny non-supply managed farmers the ability to complain about the financial bullying they receive from supply managed farmers.
(2) deny consumers the ability to complain about the price gougng they receive when they buy Canadian dairy and poultry products.

Therefore, in a nutshell, the democratic rights Mr. Holmes seems to want to deny to anyone being disadvantaged by supply management, and that includes well-over 30 million of us, represents everything people detest about supply management, and is, once again, and not-surprisingly, exactly why supply management won't be missed.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

there is plenty of bullying going on for and against SM. I'm really sorry that you feel "disadvantaged" living in Canada solely because you are paying a fair price for some of your food products :-(
Mr Schmidt needs to pay his fines and all the interest accumulated by them ....just like any other Canadian would have to.
At The present time drinking booze in public is illegal...smoking pot in public is illegal....speeding is illegal ....cheating on your taxes.......................and selling raw milk is illegal

Stan Holmes

I just don't feel disadvantaged by supply management, I very-much am disadvantaged by supply management. Why should I, and/or every other non-supply managed farmer, have to endure the financial bullying dished out by supply managed farmers just because they, and they alone, get the advantage of 200% tariff barriers.

In addition, why should I, and over 30 million fellow Canadian consumers, be forced to pay up to almost 38% more (according to information released by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario in late 2010) for milk than US consumers, solely to support about 15,000 quota-owning bandits who see nothing wrong with their banditry?

As for the juxtaposition of "legality" and "morally-wrong", supply management, while for the moment legal, is very-much morally and ethically wrong because it simultaneously screws consumers and non-supply managed farmers - just because something happens to be legal, doesn't make it morally right.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Obviously your fellow 30 million Canadians don't feel the same way you do toward Supply Management or it might have come up in some vote-getting political parties agenda in the scores of elections both federal and provincial in the last 40+ years.The fact that it has not says the majority of Canadians don't mind a home-grown product that may or at times may not be higher prices than some "off-shore" product.

Mr.Holmes is correct,Mr Schmidt knew the rules reguarding the selling of unpastuerized milk many years ago,either pay the fine or due the time or in this case be shut down permanently.

Yes, Mr. Holmes is right.
And Schmidt obviously knew the rules from when he was first fined for selling raw milk in 1993.
He paid the fine then and he must now.
Maybe selling milk for $3 a litre while avoiding the revenuers is just too addictive to stop.
It is always about the money in the end.

As you are a accountant, I totally expected you applied the proper disciplines in determining that the "over 30 million fellow Canadian consumers" did indeed purchase milk. As a accountant you would also know, that the total population of Canada does not buy nor consume dairy milk. Therefore your theories and statements are on the wrong side of the facts. Please provide solid "proof" that 30 million fellow Canadians buy dairy milk before you comment further.

Editor: comment will be published if resubmitted and signed.

I am not sure you want to open up that "disadvantaged" can of worms .
Could US pork farmers use that as trade action with Canadian pork producers ?
Livestock producers get the advantage of ddg's to feed their livestock on both sides of the border . Canadian livestock producers get subsidies that US livestock producers don't get .
Canadian grain farmers are disadvantaged because they sell their products based on the CBOT price but don't get the same grain support programs that the US grain farmer gets . Plus we pay 38% or more for the same equipment and parts .
Funny how your freinds at the no longer GMC could not figure that into their studies . So grain farmers in Canada are also very much disadvantaged and more so than other Ag sectors !

I really feel "disadvantaged when I have to pay for fuel and vehicles and homes and entertainment and and and whatever
I would feel "disadvantaged when I had to pay someone to prepare my taxes (how difficult and risky can that be?)
I think many of the honest people on this forum would agree with me. Mr Schmidt needs to pay his fine just like anyone of us would have to.

Stan Holmes

Well said.
Used all available appeals.
Now, Pay the fines.

That Mr. Holmes "had" to pay someone to prepare his income tax return is his choice - if he took the time to read the Farmers Tax Guide, he could easily prepare his own income tax returns, many farmers do.

Furthermore, if Canadian taxpayers really are being disadvantaged by Canadian tax preparers, companies like H&R Block would have long-since opened offices in US border cities specializing in preparing Canadian income tax returns - this service would greatly appeal to the increasing number of Canadians who go to the US to buy dairy and poultry products (see below) and who could get their income tax returns prepared at the same time.

On the other hand, and as per the paragraph immediately above, unless Canadian consumers of dairy and poultry products:
(1) keep a cow or some chickens in their back yard,
(2) live withing shopping distance of the US,

they have no choice but to be victimized by the quota-owning bandits in supply management.

Therefore, the so-called "logic" espoused by Mr. Holmes is the same-old double standard espoused by the dairy industry for four decades, and is, unfortunately for Mr. Holmes, exactly why supply management is not well-liked, and will not be missed.

More importantly, I can't understand why Mr. Holmes and the anonymous pasteurized milk rabble can't figure out that if Schmidt doesn't pay the fine, he'll go to jail where he, like farm activist Alan Wilford three decades ago, could easily go on a hunger strike drinking nothing but, of course, unpasteurized milk.

Come on now, people, am I the only person on this site who's ever even heard of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", let alone owns an admittedly well-read copy?

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I think "Rules for Radicals" is used by many politicians and I can see you are selective about the rules, since you brought it up.
Rule #5: "Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon." It’s irrational but works.
Rule #7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” SM anyone?
Rule #8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” SM is evil!
Rule #10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” SM anyone?
Rule 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Alternative to SM anyone?

Alinsky didn't quote from the movies, but if he had, there are many lines which are apt in any power struggle - as an example:

(1) "when you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk" - Eli Wallach as "Tuco" in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Obviously you did not read the book either. The rules stated are a few of the 12 rules Alinsky stated, a book you praised on this site. Why are you deflecting the discussion with frivolous cowboy lines?

"Why are you deflecting the discussion with frivolous cowboy lines?" I suspect you answer is obvious.

Mr Thompson

I am more than capable of filing my own extensive income tax return. Some people chose this as their occupation;others are dairy farmers/ crop advisors/teachers/journalists etc.

You think that Mr Schmidt will do the time rather than pay the fine?
I will be waiting to see what he says for himself

Stan Holmes

Mr, Holmes, in a previous posting, noted - "I would feel disadvantaged when I had to pay someone to prepare my income tax...", and even though this sentence is riddled with bad grammar because he mixes the past tense (had to) with the future tense (would feel), one would assume that he does pay someone to prepare his income tax return because of the operative words "when I had to pay someone to prepare...."

If he doesn't pay someone to prepare his income tax returns, he should have noted something like the following - "I would feel disadvantaged if I had to pay someone to prepare my income tax returns" which, since he claims he doesn't have to do so, means that he, unlike the people who consume what his farm sells, isn't disadvantaged - and if he isn't disadvantaged, but his customers are, what is he complaining about?

All-in-all, my belief that Mr. Holmes is sponsoring a double-standard, is still very-much accurate, notwithstanding the fairly-dense fog emanating from his writing.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Haha ....It's funny what this forum has become!!
I joined "Better Farming" months ago because I thought it was an outlet for farmers opinions on various agriculturally related topics. I quickly realized it was only for 2 or 3 writers who are negative because their past farming experiences and their "wantabee attitudes"

It is a joke that you are correcting my grammar ( the use of past and future tenses). I'm sure many readers understand the points I make in my postings.

I supposed if you insult me enough I will go away so that you can rant all your one sided opinions

Stan Holmes

Is Stan Holmes a marketing board plant ? he seems to always talk out of both sides of his mouth and never seems to follow along with the conversation but interjects odd rambling at his leisure.
Stand what is your back ground and why are you so Pro Marketing Boards?

Sean McGivern

All you do is bash supply management Mr. McGivern. If your allowed to bash it Stan is allowed to defend it. That's the way debate works. You and several other posters have a noticeable habit of attacking the character of those that argue with you rather then addressing any points they raise against you.

They all seem to have magical crystal ball forecasting an even more magical country full of riches without supply management.Like SM had something to do with BSE,COOL,ethanol,value of the dollar,PED and a host of other marketing influences.l am even sure SM had something to do with Russia cancelling food imports from Canada.The non-sm groups will never understand
that giving away SM will never fix their problems.

Hardly a debate when the only argument supporters of supply management have is don't wreck our gravy train lol... and we can't make it in the big bad world with out being propped up lol.

Sean McGivern

And with that statement you proved the point. Considering that your own arguments amount to "I am not making money so no else should" or "If I destroy something I might make more money. Maybe" you would do well to look in the mirror before you fling accusations around.

I farm full time with no outside income and i can make a living from farming, but it shouldn't have to be an uphill battle all the time competing against supply managed farmers who have an unfair advantage over the rest of agriculture. When i was President of the NFU in Ontario, i was the only farm leader to not support OASK farm subsidy program and till this day i still dont support farm subsidy progams that are tied to cost of production they dont work and the market place in turn only pays the farmer less because of these programs they are nothing more then a waste of tax dollars, that lead to no longer structural changes, zero.

So don't go on blowing smoke about some thing you clearly little about or are to incompetent to understand.
Sean McGivern

Your were correct to not support the OASK group .

It is OASC not OASK !

Clearly some one is blowing smoke and some one does not know what they are talking about ! . Was NFU even invited to the meetings ?

The long and short of it is, the original intent of the 40% Ontario RMP was to give us a start towards a level playing field with the U.S. Farm Bill focus of investing in certain commodities (Grains). However, OASC meddling wanting to camouflage non transparent livestock programs (to camouflage and temporarily avoid livestock countervail) within the original RMP programs resulted in stingy government caps effectively neutering the original intent of RMP cost of production down to almost zero. This in turn gives Ontario (Grains) no chance of a level playing field with the U.S. Farm Bill. Want proof?
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the U.S. Farm Bill continues to focus investment almost entirely on one group of commodities (Grains). US Farm Bill Agriculture Risk Coverage for various crops absolutely blows the doors off Ontario's currently capped and neutered RMP program.

The title of the article is "U.S. rolls out milk price insurance plan".
There is also a PED re-imbursement plan and a 20 million dollar wild hog elimination program...and those are only the ones I've heard of...I'm sure there are lots more.
The point is, the US does not just support grains...and my view is that we would be better off without RMP.

You missed the point.

Where have you been the last several years? For decades it has been no secret that the U.S. Farm Bill INVESTS the vast MAJORITY of mega-billions to invest in grain price support programs with the occasional ad/hoc emergency payment. The reason the U.S. does that is to encourage grain production and lower per unit input costs for the value added chain such as livestock and food manufacturing.

Yes, as you point out the livestock exception is the ongoing U.S. dairy program. However, other U.S. Livestock have almost zero yearly average support and most certainly no price support programs and or margin programs LIKE Ontario livestock farmers can subscribe to.
So, the question becomes? We compete directly with U.S. commodities and part of that government competiveness responsibility involves the same government investment $$$ per unit as the U.S. does. Note: I said per unit and not total $$$ as some Canadian politicians try to spin it. I would also agree to no government per unit investment on one condition, at this point in history.... only if theirs is zero. With all due respect, to do nothing simply means we are at an investment disadvantage before the ball game starts.

Maybe you can petition the government for an anti-bullying law in agriculture to help the poor little non-SM sectors since they can't seem to stand on their own.

"anti-bullying law in agriculture "
That is an absolutely unbelievable comment...considering where it comes from.
Where do you suppose the "fat cats" in SM would be without 200 to 300 percent tariff protection?

Sounds more like a livestock farmer ! Or would it more so correct to say they want another gov bail out or I mean buy out !!!

Not in Alberta. I am not a drinker but I see it on Calgary Streets daily, at the Stampede Grounds, at Sport Events, and Parks. I am glad that police are only picking up the one's that are disrespectful of others.
I strongly object to Mr. Schmidt paying his fine and any other farmer who is fined. The Milk has not made one person sick. Unjust law. Investigate if you can and you find that many of his Raw Milk Drinkers are healthier. Are you going to deny them? My personal view is that it was not for regular public sale. Even the investigators had to hunt for it. Thousands of $$$,$$$,$$$.00 wasted.

How much business is lost in Canada due to cross border shopping. The milk and chicken draw a lot of people over to the U.S. to shop and a lot of other items are bought while they are over there. One industries gain is many other industries losses. Think about that! Lots of grocery stores have closed in border towns across this country.

I think it is more that the other items are what draw people to shop there . Groceries or more so Sm products are not the main draw .
I can't say that I would blame any one for doing so . It is just not consu,er goods any more though . Many people are buying auto and equipment parts in the USA and bringing them back . The price makes it worth while . We are getting hosed here . Same products that are made in Canada sell for 1/3 of the price in Port Huron .

I believe Statscan just came out with cross-border shopping numbers representing less than 2% of Canadian retail sales.The lower Canadian dollar value conpared to the US is far the main cross-shopping draw and l don't think milk and chicken are the big ticket items.

One thing to keep in mind is that studies show that the people who cross tend to live very close to the border relative to the rest of the population. Not surprisingly, other studies show that negative retail effects are also mainly experienced close to the border. For most Canadians cross-border shopping is a pretty rare event without major economic consequences.

The list of more expensive Canadian items is almost endless.

1. Labour 2. Fuel 3. Home heat 4. GEA- electricity 5.Auto-truck parts. 5.Agriculture parts 6. fertilizer

Above we have 6 examples of items, and the one thing they have in common is that they do not come with protectionist tariffs over 200%.

Interesting that fertilizer was noted, as 95% of Canada's potash is exported therefore contributing signifigantly to the Canadian economy. Thankfully other countries have not slappped us with tariffs preventing potash from entering.

Are we ever really surprised that the feet of anonymous posters seem to be a perfect fit for their mouths?

Raube Beuerman

Yes, potash prices are finally after many years similar in the U.S. and Ontario, but 82-0-0 and most liquid pop- up fertilizer are more. So, on balance one might say we are finally at par with the U.S. fertilizer cost. However, it would appear that (chemical costs not on list here) for things like ASSURE 2 or Atrazine are almost double U.S. costs. So, yes Chemical costs should also be on the list. How do feed medication drugs and vet drugs shake out in all this U.S. Canada comparison Raube?

The people who anonymously, and always incorrectly, accuse others on this site of "cherry-picking", are always those simpletons who can't, to mix metaphors even more, "see the the forest for the trees".

More specifically, those simpletons who constantly proffer the "but everyone else is doing it" argument in defense of supply management's singular ability to use 200% tariff barriers in order to screw consumers and bully other farmers, would be the first to cry foul if any of his/her neighbours was able to use a 200% tariff barrier in order to bully them.

In other words, when atrazine costs 200% more for some Canadian farmers than for others, these anonymous simpletons might have a point, but until that happens, they're grasping at straws in the same way everybody with unearned entitlemets grasps at straws in an attempt to defend, and justify, their ability to have an absolute advantage over others.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Comment will be published if resubmitted and signed

Wow, you really don't get why countries use tariffs and how they are supposed to work!

Your "economist" buddy will doubtless chime in now to correct you.

If the shallow theory was correct, the products with tariffs should be at top of the list.

And the US wants cheap potash, so no tariff.

Comment modified by editor

The difference between the average tariff, and the tariffs that protect a couple sectors of agriculture here in Canada is that the former fills tax coffers, and the latter fills SM coffers.

I have purchased thousands of dollars worth of parts over the past 10 years from the USA because of the price difference, but recently the manufacturers have lowered their prices signifigantly because unlike SM farmers, these manufacturers have figured out that lower prices prevent, or greatly reduce, cross border shopping.

And consequently, the filling of SM coffers(quota) is now the reason that they cannot lower their prices.

Raube Beuerman

The reason why US prices aren't falling is the falling CDN dollar.

The US has a sugar tariff equal to the SM tariff as negotiated under Article 11 of the NAFTA. And if you want to argue tariffs to tax vs. tariff to farmers I'd still trust a farmer with my tax dollar even if he is a SM, more than govt.

I've sold crops and done custom work for SM farmers and they're better costumers than beef farmers hog farmers and Amish/ Mennonite.

Not a big fan of their system but have a lot of respect for the individual farmers

That's only because they usually pay their bills on time.Its the same reason some feed mills deal exclusively with Supply Management customers.

The above poster understands that the proceeds from tariff protection go directly into the pockets of SM farmers, unlike the 30 year dairy farmer who responded also, rather than the tax coffers.

Although, the above poster does not understand that if beef and hog farmers were not at the mercy of ethanol and having to compete with the absolute income and purchasing power advantage, they also would be "better customers".

So, just suppose for a second the fairy tale wish of No SM comes true. That means there would be more dairy and chickens coming to the trough resulting in more demand for feed and a resulting ratchet up of feed prices.

That's not what I mean atall. Rates and prices are the same for all farmers ethanol doesn't favor or discriminate only the dairy guys wont play the "woo is me" card and try an get credit. You'll never see a dairy farmer thro shit on a tired old hay field because he can't afford to reseed. Beef n pig farmers bitch about ethanol jacking corn prices but wont use their own cow shit to grow it cheaper.
N dairy guys wont shun me if I turn a wheel on a sunny Sunday like the black hats do. They prolly already put in a half days work before I started. nuff said

This statement would normally be true, except that SM farmers have the legislated ability to cover those costs, meaning that even if corn was $15bu, dairy and chicken farmers would still be profitable, yet hog and beef farmers would sink.

Raube Beuerman

Perhaps you didn't know yet, Livestock RMP for Pork and Beef is supposed to give back COP. Unfortunately, none can very if this because the RMP program is not transparent for Pork and Beef. Everyone else has their numbers published for all to see but not Pork and Beef. The question is why not?

You're comparing RMP as it stands today to SM...surely you're kidding?

To do a serious RMP comparison with SM, first you have to have the COP numbers for both. Since Intensive livestock (Pork and Beef) want to keep their numbers a secret, how can any meaningfull comparison be done? Why the big secret? Huge payouts have been made to Pork and Beef, yet no transparency exists. Why not?

The above member of this site's anonymous rabble is trying to defend the economic slavery imposed on other farmers by supply management, by in effect claiming that slave owners earn his/her respect by being better at paying their bills than slaves.

This argument is, of course, exactly the same nonsensical argument as the US pre-civil war argument that slavery needs to be kept because otherwise everybody in Mississippi would be poor.

Both arguments completely, and all-too conveniently, ignore the obvious fundamental injustice of even economic slavery imposed on some by others.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

30 years as a dairy farmer and l don't ever remember getting a Tariffs collected check?
However you are correct when it comes to not every Tariff being the same,how else could one explain how Canada,with our 200% tariffs,import up to 6% of our dairy products and the US with their so-called limited tariffs only 2%.

Running across the border for cheaper parts is the same as driving to the nearest Canadian Tire store when they have sets of $9 drill bits on sale,you only get what you pay for!

If you think Canadian Tire is the choice for Ag OEM parts then I guess you are living with Alice in Wonderland . Quite obvious that you have no idea what you are comparing .

Every check was a tariff protection check

Canada's dairy tariffs range from 0 to about 200 % by product line.

The US average dairy tariff rate is about 90 %. No one likes to mention those.

US "effective tariff rates" are actually higher than Canada's. 

That's why US import levels are the lowest in the world.

Some continue to chant against Canadian SM while ignoring (less) effective forms of SM in US, EU and, yes, even New Zealand for dairy. The chanters love the simple theory of trade while ignoring the messy reality of trade.

The EU has the CAP, the US has the Farm Bill, subsidies and tariffs and Canada has its approach.

It works and that's why Canada will keep it. That is the only reason.

Canadian poultry and dairy farmers need operate under the same system as the US and the EU.

Anonymous SM supporters can twist facts all they want, but the sooner we stop using a subsidy(SM) that forces the poorest group of consumers to pay the most for food as a percentage of after tax income, the better off we will all be.

Raube Beuerman
note-the 1 for 2 post is mine also

Wow, there is the proof positive in Raube's first sentence!

This idea is both impossible and unaffordable.

Yes indeed, very few really understand tariffs and trade.

I believe Mr. Thompson has pointed it out several times with his references to Ontario Pork voting against protectionism and that is the assumption that by trading off parts of Supply Management it will increase the betterment of the Pork and Beef industries.
It really has nothing to do with poor consumers,I haven't read anything that would suggest Beef and Pork farmers are the least concerned about record high retail prices this past year in those ag-sectors.I am sure poor families are quite understanding when l hear the term "catch-up" applied to recent rediculous red meat prices (NOT).We have seen this past year that some people that are always worried about the poor sector of our society really have ulterior motives.

It is unfortunate that you have difficulty understanding how consumer subsidies work, compared to taxpayer subsidies.

It would be easier for you to read Jim Romahn's blog from yesterday, than for me to paraphrase. "agri007" 'more canadians can't afford healthy diet'

Raube Beuerman

Lots of people cant afford a healthy diet because rent takes up most of the budget. People like you Beaurman just look at a small part of the picture and ignore the bigger complete picture.

Agree with you Beaurman. But its not just food. Food is a small part of most household budgets. Rent takes more money out of poor households than food. Its time apartment building owners give a percentage of their units as rent-free housing to the poor. They can then apply for a tax receipt.

Supply management supporters can, and always do, whip their propaganda machine into overdrive, yet, try as they might, they simply cannot deny:

(1) supply management screws consumers, and screws them badly
(2) supply managed farmers are allowed to be, and often are, financial bullies in the farm community
(3) supply management is detested with a passion by younger non-supply managed farmers who will eventually, and gleefully, tear supply management to pieces.
(4) supply management enshrines high production costs
(5) supply management thwarts innovation and market expansion (Chobani)

And, really, given the number of Ontario farmers who, not all that long ago, were ready, willing, and able, to export milk into the US, how prohibitive can US dairy import tariffs be when compared to our own?

It seems to me that the only "chant" continues to be that of dairy and poultry farmers who keep hoping that their fear-mongering rhetoric and ncreasingly-vacuous half-truths will keep their "gravy boat" from smashing against the harbor wall of reality.

And, come on, members of this site's supply management-loving anonymous rabble, no dairy and/or poultry farmer can ever possibly be so obtuse as to not realize that the only reason Canada so-desperately clings to supply management is the Quebec dairy lobby, and nothing else, period.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Ignore trade realities. Ignore the US Farm Bill, ignore US tariffs, ignore EU's CAP, ignore that all developed countries have some form of SM, ignore that 93% of dairy and 95 % of eggs in the world are consumed where they are produced.

Ignore that the tariff loophole behind the silly, tiny, short-lived contract milk export regime was hammered closed by the US. The US dairy market is closed. Repeat the myth about the Quebec dairy lobby - the dairy guys know it is not true anymore. Harper has only kept SM because it is stable and needs no bailouts. He does not even need Quebec support.

Other than some Canadian media, no one actually involved in trade has a real problem with SM in Canada because they see every countries' "sensitive products" and just deal with the issues.

Canada has drug patent, financial services, intellectual property, SM and a host of other trade issues. The US has cotton, sugar, rice, dairy, autos and a huge list of non-ag issues, the EU has the CAP and an even bigger list, then there is Japan, China and about 145 other countries.

Sorry to disappoint your SM-fixated view - but on the big world trade stage - SM barely makes the list.

The above member of this site's supply management-loving anonymous rabble still can't bring himself/herself to accept the impending, and unavoidable, fate of Julius Caesar (Et tu, Brute?) which will be suffered by supply management at the hands of younger, non-supply managed farmers who:

(A) can plainly see that supply management is nothing more than the legitimized bullying of one sector of agrculture by another
(B) have no desire to spend their entire lives as second-class citizens and second-class farmers in their own community.

The increasingly-obvious blind spot of supply management is that while like all despotic regimes, they've spent 40 years thinking, and acting as if, the "enemy" was somewhere "out-there", supply management's fate has been sealed by ignoring, as did Julius Caesar, the true enemies within.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Why do they allow such anonymous posts on this site now we have to deal with a reality check. It's just not right. Oh wait a minute it also seems there is no name calling so no doubt the entire post is stupid and wrong and the poster is an idiot without any education <BWG>

The post to which the above seemingly-obligatory anonymous poster is responding, ignores the fact that, as an economist by education, and as a former President of the far-right wing National Citizens Coalition from 1998 to 2002, Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is, by definition, opposed to supply management because he knows full well that supply management cannot be supported by anything other than political expediency, and will, therefore, dump supply management in a heartbeat when it is politically expedient to do so.

The original, also-anonymous, as well as dismissive and patronizing poster also conveniently ignored the 68 - 13 resolution passed by Ontario Pork, at its 2013 annual general meeting, to "urge governments to place trade ahead of protectionism".

The original poster also conveniently ignored the joint letter penned by the Premiers of the three prairie provinces several years ago, the gist of which was to urge government to do exactly the same thing as was more-recently urged by Ontario Pork.

The original poster also conveniently ignored the accumulated wisdom of the past 150 years of economic history which has continually demonstrated the net-negativity of tariff-based systems when it comes to jobs and economic activity, a lesson every economist, including Stephen Harper, knows full-well.

But most importantly, the original poster ignored the obvious fact that nobody meets more often with federal Ag Minister Ritz than supply management, and nobody sweats more buckets of blood, and/or whips themselves into more of a lather, at trade talks than supply management - if, as the original poster claimed, nobody but the media cares about the effect of trade talks on supply management, then why is supply management spending so much time, money, and political capital in trying to defend themselves at trade talks?

As usual, and as always, supply management supporters say one thing, but clearly do another.

So, yes, the entire post is stupid and wrong, and the poster, while possibly educated, obviously has no education at all in economics, and, by choosing to remain anonymous, has demonstrated, once again, that no anonymous poster on this site has any credibility, dignity and/or moral fibre whatsoever.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

The title of the above George Jones classic aptly describes the continuing efforts by supply managment, especially in British Columbia, to portray cross-border shopping as harmful to the Canadian economy - naturally, supply management supporters seem to always conveniently forget the other side of this half-truth which is that, by definition, supply management itself is more harmful to the Canadian economy than cross-border shopping for dairy and poultry products ever could be.

If supply management was to be (hopefully) eliminated, those processing and retailing jobs which increased in the US but declined in Canada because of supply management-driven cross border shopping, would return.

The only losers if supply management disappeared would be the propagandists and lobbyists currently employed by supply management, but they'd probably be snapped up by the ethanol lobby in an attempt to bolster their rapidly, and deservedly-fading chances of having ethanol mandates continue indefinitely.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Daydreaming: a pleasant visionary usually wishful creation of the imagination.

Did you know that people spend 46.9 percent of their waking hours thinking about something other than what they’re doing, and this mind-wandering typically makes them unhappy. I suggest if you (hopefully) think Supply management is going to be eliminated anytime soon that you are daydreaming and the unhappy part about that seems to be on full display for everyone on this site to see.

Because supply management supporters inexplicably still continue to believe that:

(A) supply management doesn't screw consumers, and screw them badly
(B) supply management isn't completely-detested by younger, non-supply managed farmers
(3) supply managed farmers don't, by virtue of 200% tariff barriers available to them alone, act as financial bullies in the farm community
(4) supply management doesn't hinder the negotiating of trade deals
(5) supply management doesn't hinder market expansion and/or product innovation (Chobani yougurt)

this means that, by definition, the biggest daydreamers in the farm community, and/or any other community in Canada, are supply management supporters.

Once again, this type of self-delusional drivel from the anonymous supply management-supporting rabble, demonstrates exactly why, when the opportunity presents itself, supply management will be gleefully torn to shreds by the farm community itself.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Raw milk is safe if you are taught how to us it. I grew up on raw milk. The real reason for such laws it to control it. As all Canadians should be able to see. This is a country about control at any means. Freedom only exists for the rich. Scientists are paid off to lye. If they told the truth. they would loose there jobs. only in Canada.

Post new comment

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
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.