Canada’s milk system would fare better with more transparency, report concludes

© AgMedia Inc.

Description (Tag): 


supply management has been the best thing since sliced bread, this past 35 years , hats off to its offerings

Supply management hurts both consumers and other farmers. Furthermore, it is, by definition, net-negative for both jobs and economic activity. How can people with any sense of fairness for the economy, and society, spout such narrow-minded nonsense? That people seem to believe this idiocy, and so fiercely-so, is just that much more reason, for the good of us all, to get rid of it as soon as possible.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

The comment section below a story of the appointment of a new premier you started a discussion on supply management Mr. Thompson. At a couple of points you called your opponents names. Someone challenged you about the name calling and you said you did this to "teach them a lesson."
From now on I hope that whenever you begin a new discussion on this topic using some new article as an excuse, I hope people will remember this. I hope this statement gets posted whenever you post repetitive comments attacking supply management. I think your response really reveals what this is all about. I don't think calling people names is good for an agriculture forum. If you have arguments that you haven't made before then I am open to hear them. It's just the repetition and "teaching them a lesson" that I think is harmful.

Now come on . Do you really think that the

Anonymous comment modified by editor.

As far as I'm concerned, posting anonymous personal attacks on me is the worst form of cowardly bullying I can imagine. I am, however, perfectly capable of dealing with bullies, cowards, and yokels, especially anonymous ones. Furthermore, if someone anonymously posts something on this site which fully reveals him/her to be a yokel, I'm perfectly justified, in the absence of a name, to identify him/her for exactly what he/she is. Get over it already, supply management has been bullying consumers, non-supply managed farmers, and politicians, for four decades - yet when someone gives supply managed farmers a long-overdue teaspoon of their own medicine, they just can't take it. Furthermore, if you can't do anything but shoot the messenger, instead of offering irrefutable economic fact to justify your fantasies, what's your point, what's your purpose, what's your name? More to the point, why, in your mind, does it seem perfectly OK for supply management supporters to repeat the same economic drivel ad-nauseum, yet when I counter these arguments, I get accused of repitition. Why don't you take a swipe at the (always anonymous) people who keep repeating the same loopy "whack-a-mole" arguments in favour of supply management?

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Do you think when you sign your name its not bullying . Someone should ask the law what is defined as bullying, we try to teach our kids about it and I believe that there is a 100% no bullying policy in school. Hope there is no kids reading these letters , and I pity any adults that has to put up with a bully of any kind.

I don't think that it is attacking you Mr. Thompson to publish a direct quote that you posted here. "Teach them a lesson". I don't think it is attacking you to explain that you gave this as your explanation for calling supply management supporters names in an earlier post. If I got anything wrong please explain and I will apologize.

Going back to that teach them a lesson incident I see another sm opponent who signs his posts still has not answered questions he was asked in that discussion. During that discussion he asked that his name not be used so I'm not using it. I think those answers would add a lot to the debate so I really hope we will eventually get them.

Anonymous comment deleted by editor

Bullying by supporters  has been one of  the big crticisms levelled at supply maagement by Mr. Thompson.   I would also like to know whether  Mr. Thompson' you have any regret for your  "teach them a lesson" statement?

More "governance" is needed, just not by our government. Hire someone from the private sector who understands how to make markets grow, or better yet, hire the most successful farmers outside of sm that have made it through tough times of the last 30 years. The changes needed here are going to be the ones nobody wants because most has to do with 'price'. When you put a value of ANY AMOUNT on a quota to produce food, then the consumer has paid too much for that product. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON

Well that understanding does not come from the George Morris Centre !

Further do you understand or know what has made these farmers successful ?

I will assume you are asking that question in rhetorical fashion, since my name is under it, but I will answer anyway-monopoly. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON

You seem to have a dysfunctional view of "success" - in supply management, success is measured by how much you can gouge consumers, and by how much of an absolute advantage you have over non-supply managed farmers when it comes to incomes and purchasing power. Success isn't the term one would normally use to describe supply management's legislated ability to take advantage of others, but bullying definitely would be.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Just so you know bread and or toast are made from wheat/flour and are not under supply management .

The difference between sliced bread and toast is about one minute - and that's about all the time it would take to turn the "sliced bread" of supply management into "toast" that Canadian consumers, and non-supply managed farmers, would very-much appreciate, and enjoy. Hey, I didn't use the "sliced bread" example - I'm merely pointing out how approrpiately-stupid an example it really was, in order to, once again, illustrate how self-centred supply managed farmers really are, and why supply management will not be missed.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

As a producer of wheat I have the ability to store wheat and sell it when I can make a profit. Not quite the same with milk. As for how self centered you are just look at what is happening to the dairy farmes of Austraila. Not sure what you do for a living but I know you would not work for nothing. With out supply management you will pay more for milk. It is just a matter of when.

Some people just don,t wake up and look around at the rest of the world.
The sm farmers get to keep more of the money and not the big companies that manufacture the produce or the stores. I,ve been saying all along you pay a piece now or a really big piece when there is no farms left to produce.

Change is needed now! Not in 2020 the expected p10 harmonization! In Ontario there is a group of elite producers that are preparing there farms for post sm era! DFO and their policys have started too drive a wedge between producers! So too be honest one of the biggest challenge is expanding farmer simply can not! This will only go on for so long until producers have enough and then we will start to see sm crumble! In Canada its been a privilege to have sm! Some day we will find out what the real reason as to why chobani decided not to build there plant in Kingston Ontario! I think it will very interesting! Or just maybe chobani knows something that we farmers don't! Maybe they have some more insight as to some new trade deals coming down our pipelines soon! time will tell!

Anonymous comment modified by editor

Anonymous comment deleted by editor

Hypothetically speaking, if I operated a small engine repair shop out of one of my farm buildings and therefore did not have to pay commercial taxes or higher rates for utilities and other associated expenditures that a commercially operated business would incure, but still charged the same hourly rate and markups on shop supplies and parts, and also wrote off said parts and supplies against my farms day to day maintenance costs, thereby receiving an unfare advantage over commercially run shops, would that cause consumer unrest as well?

Once again, another nameless, usual personal attack, shoot the messenger ploy. Consumer unrest would come from no competition in the market, so in fact, independant business' like mine benefit the consumer. If my business was operating illegally I am sure in the last 10 years I would have been notified. No consumer is forced to come to my shop, my hourly rate is less than OEM dealerships, I don't charge for shop supplies, if they feel I have overcharged them, they are free to go elsewhere, it's called the free market. In addition, 2 of my customers that are poultry farmers have been bringing their machines to me for yearly service ever since they purchased them in the USA a few years back. Apparently some understand the free market. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON

Does those poultry farmers know that you would like to see them out of business for being a SM farmer? I for one will not deal with anyone that would like to see the way I live abolish and sit back and take my money. Its the same as consumers are not forced to buy eggs , poultry, turkey or milk products they can go elsewhere. You have an none farm company fine , don,t take it out on someone that wants to farm fulltime .

First of all, I don't want to see anybody out of business. I just want to see legislation the same for all farmers, in a progressive form. I have plenty of sm customers. I have talked with many of them about the problems surrounding sm and it is great, interesting discussion. They all ackowledge that there needs to be some changes come, but one thing we agree on is that it is going to be hard to fix. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON

According to you and your past postings it should just be gone , scrapped , over and done with . Now you seem to singing from a different hymnal !!

Well then let's use this forum to discuss relevant topics to further the ag industry as a whole. I frequent this site to read and respond to such topics and do so anonymously because I am not yet fully educated on the problems associated with our industry(neither is the premier). The individuals on this site that do provide there name seem to only insight personal attacks due to the demeaning nature of there responses. That can also be said for the anonymous posters. Point is the discussion would be furthered more rapidly if the meaningless drivel were to end! Solution - remain anonymous and discuss the issues point-counterpoint, present a solution and then proceed through the proper channels. Believe me, there are more people that would debate the issues if there was a open and fact related positive forum. I,ve heard lots of problems, please present some solutions for thought.

If a young person entering the small engine repair business did not have a farm building to work from, there only option would be to work for a commercial shop, buy a commercial business to work from, or work for a independent business owner working at an unfair advantage from there farm. Due to the constraints of commercial business owners based solely on there location and elevated expenses is operating a independent business from your farm net negative or net positive to your industry? Why are snowmobiles cheaper in the US than Canada? Do dealers in Canada have to charge more for the equipment due to higher operating costs and lost revenue to others in the industry that have an unfair advantage?

That is absurd. It would be far easier from an economic standpoint to enter a business such as this because there is no quota costs. Only if a business such as mine came with quota costs so high that it prohibited entry would you have a valid point. Why does milk and chicken cost more in Canada, but beef and pork don't? Here's a suggestion-Why don't the two of you try pointing out why we should keep sm and all the benefits that come with it instead of personal attacks? I am not making this stuff up, Chobani, Cami International, cheese smuggling, millions of dollars tied up in quota, prohibited entry, it is all real. Don't deny it. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON

Cheese smuggling you say? Look around at the smuggling going on in Canada cigs., alcohol , drugs , guns ,clothing , and no telling what else. Why does anything costs more in Canada , must be because of those SM farmers they take from everyone else and give nothing back to society - Go Figure. Why is there all those manufacturing jobs going to China, is it those SM farmers forcing them out? Those SM farmers got a great thing going that they get to farm make money and keep the jobs here in Canada . Maybe we should import from China our food ,maybe pork they seems to be pulling lots out of the river and on the side of the roads with their hind quarters missing and you know its not to feed their dog. They caught a company that is processing disease pork for human consumption . SM may not be the best but its a lot better than the alternative, letting Canada be a dumping ground of junk and slop food. Remember that when they say I have something for sale or do for cheap you usually it end up costing you a lot more in the end.

If all the food in other countries is so bad, then why don't all the travellers to other countries drop dead as soon as they arrive in another country? Why don't all the Canadians that travel to the US not take their own Canadian food along to eat?
The answer is that any country can grow/raise healthy food, not just SM farmers in Canada.

Put words in my mouth ,I said sm farming produce is grown , produce and sold here in Canada. It brings lots of jobs , not like the food that is dumped here in Canada that only bring employment in trucking and sales. We have to bring in food that we cannot produce or fresh fruit and vegetables in the months we cannot grow them. Why should Canada bring in food that can be grown and produce here and let other countries run us. How much do Canadians on a whole spend on their food budget , not just a cerain group of people.

And just so you know you can have a small engine repair shop but that des not mean that you will be given territory rights to sell all brands . Some name brands will only set up certain persons under a contract to sell their products . Same a getting a Pizza Pizza franchise . But then you would not see that as a limitation much the same as SM .

Not totally true.

Taxi cabs needs licenses. Those are limited too. Cabs are supply managed and insurance is going sky high too.
Stop feeling sorry for yorself.

A few months back the Practical Farmers of Ontario, started an online petition in support of rasing the small flock size from 300 broilers annually to 2,000, to match the levels of most of the other Canadian provinces. We now have over 1,000 sigantures and they are signatures of both farmers and consumers 20% farmer sigantures to 80% consumer signatures, Consumers want to have the right to make the choice about who produces their food for them. Supply Management is the barrier preventing them from that right. As small flock farmers can not meet the demand for locally raised chicken. I do not know of one single small flock farmer who can't sell their chicken at $2.50 lb or greater. Small Flock farmers are no threat to the factory farmed chicken.

Sean McGivern
President PFO

Wow over a 1,000 signatures , how many people in Canada 34 million plus .
Keep looking over 33,999,000 more to have the ball rolling.

1000 signatures sounds like a lot but look who signed it .....80 % consumers who don't know the true story........did you tell them that the average flock produced by the 13000 small scale producers is 60-75 birds. ...did you tell them that the 300 bird exemption is vastly under-ultilized.
maybe there should be a campaign to encourage these producers to ramp up production to meet the demand.

The 300 bird number is not viable, the CFO them self's even said in writting that they didnt design the 300 bird exemption to be financially viable, so why would we go out and encourage people to produce more food that wasn't profitible ??? The reasean the 300 bird limit is under utilized is simple who in their right mind would set up or invest any money into building a system that wasn't meant to be profitable.

We have and continue to post any information we can find on our web site and it is available for all the world to read, so we are not hiding anything, we are delivering all of the fact and all of the information.

Sean McGivern

The small scale farmers that you are always talking could be mixed farmers ...300 meat birds /100 laying hens/50 turkeys and pastured pigs and a herd of shorthorns and grain crops and maybe some value added.....sounds like a fulltime farming operation to me.....If you want to be a chicken farmer only then you purchase quota!!!

Thats a small scale farmer who cant't pay there bills from farming and better have a partner with a well paying job in the city,

Sean McGivern

it surprises me that you are the leader of a farm group with such a negative attitude. Your profile states that you farm 2200 acres ...farming that scale should pay the bills.We are living in a period where consumers are looking for direct marketing farmers ...there is lots of opportunity.
What "commission " were you referring to in the recent posts?

Well I indeed do make a full time living from my farm, but not every farmer has the same situation as i do and many are not able to make a living from their farm, for several different reasons. But one way to help level the playing field would be to over haul supply management and stop all farm subsidies, since 85% of the money goes to the wealthiest 15% of the farmers any ways. The commission i was referring to was the Farm Products Comission, its not a surprise that you've never heard of it most people haven't because its a Sleep Dog.

Sean McGivern

The full name is the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission . Not Comission with 1 m as you have wrongly spelled it . The "commission" might be a Sleeping Dog or did mean Snoop Dog ? With the many changes happening in Ag I would think most would know and or heard of them . Two examples of their involvement are the changes made to Wheat , Corn , And Soybean groups to form the GFO and also the changes that the OWBPMB & OCBG are going through to form a new . I am sure the head of the OFPMC would like to know that he is running a "Sleep Dog" .

As for 15 % getting 85% of the dollars that is not up to the commission that is the Gov. . As for farmers not being profitable it is not the Gov. job to make some one profitable , it is the owners job . Not every business is profitable . Management has a lot to do with profit . You are giving the impression that by doing away with SM that all farmers will become profitable . That is totally wrong . That is like telling some one that if the divorce their wife that their profits will rise . Not figuring in the fact that she will have to be paid out first at todays prices .

Many farmers have said that they made a living farming . Never got rich from farming but did get rich by the fact that their land kept increasing in value . That value is only realized when you sell the land/farm not before .

I see you are again singing from your new hymnal this morning about making changes and not getting rid of SM .

I remember Mom & Dad selling chickens for $2.95 a lb 30 years ago . They claimed the expenses and also the income . The cost of feed , hydro and the chicks has likely doubled since then . Yet people are willing to give their product away for less . Every year they sold out and could have sold at least half as many more than what they had . Farmers are still willing to sell their livestock at a lower price today . Makes perfect economic sense to me . As I have said before it is the fact that many farmers are willing to sell their produce at a loss then want to blame another farmer for high feed costs , higher land costs , higher land taxes , higher every thing . When will Primary Production Agriculture get its head out of the sand ?

What we have is the consumer paying what the real cost of their food is for SM products . When you look at non SM products we have for example hog farmers crying that feed costs are too high , no money in hogs while they keep buying more land and more new equipment . Further when those same hog farmers are asked what the price of corn should be for both grain and hog farmers to make a profit they will not disclose a number . Why is that ? What are they afraid of ? Put the numbers out for every one to see . The only answer given is I want my feed as cheap as I can get it . Well HELLO then you need to grow your own feed if you think you can grow it for free !

The problem is that many hog farmers are tied to a contract to produce for a price that is now lower than their COP ( cost of production ) and the only way they can cut costs is to lower their feed costs . Well if they made the deal then they need to suck it up . The real problem is that the retail price of pork in the store does not reflect a true COP for the farmer . Do you hear any SM farmers crying when they see hog farmers making out like bandits and the SM farmer is still tied to their SM COP ?

You have a mindset that SM is bad but seem to forget that it is fair for both here in this country . If you want to compare prices in other countries then you need every thing the same not just one piece of the equation .

Its not so easy, Supply mangement, is throwing all other sectors of agriculture under the bus, highest land values are in the county's with the highest number of supply managed farms. Dairy farmers are dumping their old cows into our beef market and further depressing our prices, Supply management was even spoken about by the Dave Stewart in his open remarks at the Ontario Cattlemens AGM this year. So can i ship the surplue milk from my beef shorthorn cows in to the dairy market ? i dont believe so... Supply Management is a steam roller that is crushing all other sectors of agriculture.
I know one broiler farmer who started up 8 years ago, he told me he has made more money from the free quota each year then he has from the actual chicken he is selling. There is some thing seriously wrong with this whole system, There should not be a single free unit of quota go to any producer, it should all either be sold at market value and the money returned to the government for use in paying down the public debt or it should be given to new producers, In the next year there is going to be a major shake up coming and some heads are going to roll, the commission has not been doing its job and this will all come out in the wash, stand by... this is going to get very interesting.

Sean McGivern

Those same counties you speak of also have the highest number of hog producers . Those same hog producers who not too many years ago were running roughshod over every farmer young or old to buy land and no one could compete with the prices they were paying for land then . So now the tables have turned and you and other livestock producers are wanting more gov assistance for problems brought on to those farmers by their own doing . They asked for and borrowed the money , paid big bucks for farms , bought new machinery and built livestock hotels and did I mention all of their own doing . Now those same people want to drag the SM sector of agriculture down to their level of yo-yo profit and lose farming when they should be trying to do what they have to to get to a steady COP with a profit built in like SM . At a time when things are so bad I still see livestock farmers buying land equipment and building new livestock hotels . What gives ? Is there yet another gov hand out coming to those farmers ? They are crying about the high cost of feed but yet they increase their numbers rather than decrease them . Do they really expect a grain farmer to sell them their grain for feed at a loss so they can sell their product at a competitive level with other countries who subsidize their farmers ? When asked what the correct price for feed grains is so both G & O and the livestock farmers can make money , the livestock guy says he is only willing to pay as little as he has to for his feed . Feed costs are only one part of the equation . The problem is that you guys are selling your livestock for the same price as I did back in the seventies . You are not keeping up . Also you are trying to compete in a market that has other countries with fewer or no regulations and a lower COP competing for and gaining market share . But yet you think SM is throwing others under the bus . Go Figure !

I am no calling for any subsidies, rather the polar opposite, I would like to end all subsidies in every form, and i believe supply management is the biggest subsidy of all. If supply management is running the price of land then why is land worth more per acre in, Huron, Perth and Oxford then it is Chatham, Kent and Essex, where they have the best growing conditions in all of Canada ???

Sean McGivern

Health is a monopoly supply managed industry with the biggest portion of our tax money going to it.

There is absolutely no comparison between publicly-funded health care and supply management. Supply management is a user-pay system, shielded by 200% tariff barriers, and which, therefore, forces the poor to pay a disporportionate percentage of their disposable income to pay for certain food items. The health care system is NOT a user-pay system, but, rather, is funded by income taxes where the rich, and corporations, pay according to their incomes. We went to a publicly-funded health care system for exactly the same reasons responsible public policy analysts oppose supply management - the poor should not be required to finance the select, and lucky, few who control the supply of either. With health care, we got it right, with supply management, we are so, so, wrong.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

The system of taxes paying is at best a farce because the more you make the proportion of the taxes you pay is less . Then take the fact that most businesses are incorporated and pay a much smaller percentage than the working stiff . You really have no clue .

Also by putting AAAARRRRGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!! in your posting shows

Unsigned comment modified by editor

What is with supply management supporters always blaming the victims of supply management for their predicament? Come, on, really, supply management has an absolute advantage over other farmers, and over consumers - what's to like, and what's to admire, about that?

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Beneficiaries is more like it . Supply of safe , regulated , home grown food . It is only you and one or two others who think SM is making every one else a victim . Even Sean has changed his tune . Every one else looks to the SM sector with envy .

You can't keep comparing the Canadian SM sector to other countries who have a completely different governance system and a completely different view of what farming does for a country . Apples to oranges or oranges to grapefruits does not cut it

If supply management is such the envy as you reffer to it as, I am amazed that over the past decade of being actively involved in several producer organizations, that not a single one of them has been lobbying to employ supply managment into their sector ??? Hogs, Beef, Sheep, Crops are all sectors i keep a very close watch on and its odd that i havent seen a single document or been made aware of a single producer meeting about trying to bring supply management to my respective sectors ??? So i would suggest that you re-think your statement about me making a victim of myself and you calling Sm the envy of all of Agriculture. Because any farmer who has any vission and forward thinking does not want to be trapped by Supply Management, they want to be able to capture opportunites and act on them when they feel the time is best. I am also not sure what you mean by "even Sean has changed his tune" Because any one who knows me, knows that i have never support supply managment and my message has always been the same, on the issue of it. Every other sector of agriculture is asked to stand on its own two feet and so should the dairy and feather sectors, they have for decades now been granted a massive advantage over the rest of the farming community and they have good feet underneath of them now and the time is right to let them be big boys and girls and find their own way, just as the rest of agriculture does and i will add that i do not support direct commodity farm subsidize programs and i have never once taken a single penny of tax payer money to run my farm, if i have to will stop farming and go get a job in town, i have far to much dignity to do other wise, but first the government must level the playing field so its far for all farmers regardless of what sector you are in.

Sean McGivern

Check your past postings .

Also since you do not take or accept any gov. money , programs or funding then why register with a GFO and ask for a refund ? You don't need a number or need to register . Go it on your own as you state you do and cut the BS you are spewing . You don't take the farm tax rebate , Agstability , or any programs that sre gov funded , supported and matched . Priceless !!

Your 100% correct, i am not enrolled in any of those programs, those programs are a big part of the problem facing agriculture and i believe all subsidies tied to commodities should be done away with and let agriculture operate in the free market, from the reasearch i have seen there is no evidence to show or support that these types of programs benefit the farmers bottom line, the market place simply pays the producer less. As for this farm tax rebate as you call it, farm land was never suppose to be taxed in the first place, so there is no rebate, we as farmers pay tax on the home stead that is your house and the one acre of land around it, i am not sure what politian got farmers to believe they were helping them out by not taxing their farm land since it was never suppose to be taxed in the first place.

Sean McGivern

Unsigned personal attack deleted

The above posting makes me shake my head with disbelief, and even horror - I dare you, or any supply management supporter, to stand outside a grocery store in Port Huron MI, and try to tell somebody who's just gotten out of a car with Ontario plates, just exactly how, and why, they are "beneficiaries" of supply management, and you're likely to find yourself getting well-deservedly pounded into the ground. Furthermore, I've just spent over a third of this year's tax season listening to farmer, after farmer, after farmer under the age of 40, including one last night, telling me exactly why supply management has to go. There really is a disconnect in farm country, and supply managed farmers of any age, but especially those over the age of 40, obviously have no ability, and/or no desire, to see themselves as others see them. Too bad for them, too bad for us all.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Why do people have to resort to violence when some one does not agree with them ? Maturity I think .

I don't believe that you listened to any one because like always they would have never gotten a word in . Had you said "you told" , I would have believed you .

Oh Well !

It's like this - imagine a family from Sarnia, fed up with high prices for poultry and dairy products in Canada, making their weekly shopping trip to their favourite food store across the river in Port Huron, Michigan, to save what even the Dairy Farmers of Ontario admits is almost 38% on the price of milk, and finding themselves, when getting out of their car, face-to-face with someone attempting to persuade them they are the "beneficiaries" of supply management. I think the person attempting the persuading would be lucky if all that happened to him/her was to get pounded into the ground. People resort to violence when they're provoked beyond all reasonable measures, and that's exactly what supply management has done, and is doing, to an entire generation of non-supply managed farmers under the age of 40 - we're not on top of a powder keg yet, but we're definitely getting there. And, ironically, in direct contrast to all the nonsense posted by supply management supporters on this site, I continually get phone calls and e-mails from people who aren't afraid to identify themselves to me, and who agree with me completely - and I had one of these very-supportive phone calls this afternoon from a man I've never met.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Thank you Stephen Thompson. I believe his name was Andrew Urquhart, from New Brunswick

The call I referred to in my posting was in the afternoon, and came from Perth County, the call from New Brunswick came the following morning.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

One of the recommendations in the final report was that there should not be a cap on quota values. At first I thought this was crazy, I think the quotas having value are a major cause of all the problems here, but then I thought if we let the values keep rising it would become even more unaffordable and dairy farmers would exit the system faster and/or not be able to enter, until eventually we would end up with a monopoly inside a monopoly. That would be a first.

We already have that in the Broiler business, you can't start up unless you have enough money to buy the min 14,000 units which would be around 1.8 million dollars today. Take a guess at how many young farmers are getting into the broiler business ???

Sean McGivern

Quebec Egg Quota Farmers are concerned about quota prices, and they are trying to do something about it. Quota is a lucrative license for almost risk-free profits, that is why it's worth so much. The Quebec Egg boys have commissioned research for a better system to set the price is a small market which has significant demand and minimal supply. They have proposed an exchange using a truncated k-Double Auction system (see ).

Credit is due Quebec Egg Producers for realizing the problem and trying to do something about it. The current egg farmers seem ready to take a direct hit to their million dollar retirement fund (ie. the current market value of their quota) so as to ensure a solution for Canada and the next generation of egg farmers. You don't see that every day!

Where is milk and chicken? Probably laughing at the "stupid" egg farmers in Quebec! Wake up and smell the coffee, for there isn't much time left to mend your evil ways.

The other difficulty is that some feed suppliers have created a quota monopoly for themselves by buying up quota wherever they find it (they have insider trading knowledge not available to others), then re-sell that quota to farmers, provided they sign a contract to only buy feed from that feed supplier. In effect, that is tied-selling and significantly reduces competition and artifically raises profits. Perhaps somebody should call Industry Canada's Competition Bureau to see if they are aware, and are investigating these predatory actions against the public.

If feed mills control the market place, and have exclusive contracts with quota farmers, they can elevate feed prices as they please, reap huge guaranteed profits, and push up the cost of eggs, milk, and chickens; because each of these cartels automatically pass the rising feed cost increases to the consumer, who are defenceless.

Current system of quota pricing and its sale is a huge problem, and will soon help destroy Supply Management.

A lousy trick on the unfortunate public.

Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Jim Romahn's recent article on Supply Management is well summed up.

Sean McGivern

I'm becoming more and more convinced that the cap on quota values was part of a carefully crafted scheme to end supply management in an orderly fashion for the banking institutions. Since the cap came into being much less quota has been changing hands, meaning that the banks exposure is quickly being reduced. If the cap stays in place for another 5 years there will be very little quota debt held by banks.

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.