by SUSAN MANN
About 3,000 dairy farmers from across Canada hoofed it to Parliament Hill in Ottawa Thursday for a rally highlighting the government’s need to support the industry.
Dairy Farmers of Canada president Wally Smith said in a telephone interview he told the crowd that “actions speak louder than words. So even if they (the government) tell us they support supply management, if they showed us they supported supply management it would be more meaningful.”
The Canadian Milk Matters/World Milk Day rally was held to recognize the Canadian dairy industry’s contribution to the country’s economy, honour Canada’s supply management system and put a spotlight on several matters industry leaders want resolved. They include:
- compensation for impacts from the soon-to-be ratified Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement,
- Canadian processors’ use of imported diafiltered milk in cheese making that’s cutting into farmers’ incomes, and
- the need for a processor modernization fund to help processors upgrade aging and obsolete infrastructure.
Some of the farmers arrived on Parliament Hill in two tractor convoys – one that came from eastern Ontario and one from Quebec. Some farmers also bought cows. They were very popular with the public, Smith said.
“There were lots of thumbs up from people (the public) on the sidewalks,” Smith noted. “There was lots of support for what was happening. It was really quite a positive event.”
Similar regional events were also held Tuesday, according to a Dairy Farmers of Canada press release. One was in Regina and the other was in Prince Edward Island at the office of Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Lawrence MacAulay.
For its part, the federal government said in a press release it’s working on a response to dairy farmers’ concerns. After meeting with farmers, processors and regional agricultural associations from across Canada, the government has heard their views and is working to “develop a long-term strategy for the whole sector,” the release said.
The parliamentary secretaries for agriculture and international trade met with rally organizers Tuesday morning to continue those earlier consultations.
“Our goal is to improve the position of Canadian dairy farmers, help modernize the Canadian dairy industry, and ensure this critical industry can continue to grow and thrive in an ever-changing global economy,” the release said.
Smith said the government hasn’t told Dairy Farmers of Canada when it would release its plans on how it would be addressing farmers’ concerns. BF
Comments
(1) Instead of a rally in support of the 15,000 bandits who rip off consumers via extortionist farm-gate pricing of dairy and poultry products, why not have a rally in support of Canada's more-than 35 million consumers who, unless they live close to the US border, are continually being ripped-off by the quota-owning bandits having this rally?
More to the point, how long, to the nearest minute, would a rally like this last in Sarnia or Windsor before spectators, most of them veteran cross-border shoppers, would start throwing things at the demonstrators?
(2) Instead of a rally in support of the 15,000 rural aristocrats who can, and do, act as financial bullies in the farm community, why not have a rally, and call it something like "bring back fairness in agriculture" in support of 90% of Canada's farmers who, because they don't have access to the 200% tariff barriers enjoyed by the aristocrats, are the victims of the financial bullying?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
To claim that SM can grow and thrive in an ever-changing global economy is like claiming oil and water mix well.
In the meantime, hog and beef farmers go quietly about their business.....
Raube Beuerman
Supply management wants to grow and thrive by continuing to be able to "suck" money out of consumers while at the same time "blow" the rest of agriculture into the water with the purchasing ability supply managed farmers derive from 200% tariff barriers.
And then, dairy and poultry farmers STILL can't figure out why supply management is not well-liked and will not be missed.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Way off base again Thompson. Consumers don't care about supply management or the price at the grocery store.
"Americans spending on dining out just overtook groceries sales for the first time."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-14/americans-spending-on-...
Claiming consumers don't care about supply management is little more than a diversionary smoke screen to try to hide the obvious fact that non-supply managed farmers DO care a lot about supply management and its ability to create and enshrine systematic financial bullying in the farm community.
Supply managed farmers have always focused on the wrong "enemy" - while it may not be consumers who rise up and demand an end to supply management, it definitely will be non-supply managed farmers who demand an end to the financial tyranny of supply management and will dance in the street when it does.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Didn't say anything about supply/non-managment farmers and what they thought.
I said the consumer doesn't care about supply management, doesn't know what supply management is. Consumers are eating out more than buying their food in the grocery store. The majority of food shoppers today are buying ready made foods and don't care about the cost of raw materials.
Those are facts, not hyperbole.
The author of the above posting doesn't seem to understand that claiming the consumer doesn't care about supply management is a half truth because it ignores all those people who do care, and that includes but is not limited to:
(A) everyone in the food business from the farm gate to retail, especially the fresh pizza business.
(B) everyone in the country who has ever taken even the most-basic course in economics
(C) everyone involved in Canada's substantial export sector, especially those in Canada's hog and livestock sectors who consistently see protectionism act as a barrier to the establishment of trade agreements
(D) every non-supply managed farmer under the age of 40, especially in Perth, Huron and Oxford counties.
Or, in other words, "facts" presented in the form of half-truths, as is the case with the above poster, are disingenuous distortions of the truth - but then again, supply management couldn't exist without people gullible enough to believe supply management's hyperbole, half-truths and outright propaganda, and that would include, alas, everyone who owns quota.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Spewing out all that rhetoric does not address the basic facts that consumers are spending more on ready made food than on groceries. The economics of supply management is simply not a factor in the majority of households.
Availability of products might be a concern but price of raw products is a non-issue as today's consumer is spending less on those items.
Why do you choose to draw in irrelevant information and not address the facts head on? Stick to the basic discussion that people are spending less in the grocery store which will be a continuing trend.
I just don't understand the dismissive and patronizing mentality that believes it's OK to screw consumers simply because they appear to be spending less on that product anyway. It's the same mentality that causes dairy farmers to fall all over themselves to boast about what they've given to food banks and all the while ignoring the fact that if they weren't such deliberate bandits at the farm gate, consumers wouldn't need to be going to food banks in the first place.
It's the essential unwillingness and deliberate obtuseness of farmers to believe that their banditry at the farm gate has any adverse effect on anyone at all that makes dairy and poultry farmers the epitome of dismissive and patronizing, and just another reason why supply management is not well-liked and will not be missed.
In addition, it is complete nonsense to claim that the economics of supply management is not a factor in the majority of households - the extra $300 to $400 the average household pays per year to satisfy the unmitigated greed of Canadian dairy and poultry farmers absolutely IS a factor to everyone who pays it.
And, of course, the above poster is in denial that cross-border shopping exists and that group of consumers included my son when he was on a University work term in Sarnia. He and his house-mates would all go in one car to Port Huron every Thursday night to buy their weekly supply of dairy and poultry products as did the parents of his housemates, all of whom all live in the Sarnia area. It's rather obvious, therefore, that when one grows up near the US border, cross border shopping for dairy and poultry products is something taught by your parents that you simply do automatically. Therefore for the above poster to pontificate that supply management is not a factor in the majority of households assumes that all Canadian households live further than 50 miles away from the US border, and that's simply not the case.
While dairy and poultry farmers obviously have $400 to waste every year and while apparently no dairy and poultry farmer understands that intelligent people actually do live in Windsor and Sarnia, or anywhere else in Canada for that matter, making sweeping and incorrect generalizations about red-herring issues in attempt to divert people's attention away from the deliberate banditry being orchestrated by supply managed farmers, is just another "deny, delay, distract" strategy on the part of these farmers.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
People are spending less on raw products at the grocery store because they need the speed of packaged or prepared food because they are chained to their jobs 80+ hours a week to pay for the supply managed farmers to have a rich life. The majority of the population doesn't have the luxury of time to cook from scratch because we're always working. You farmers think you're the only ones who work 365 days a year! Plenty of us urban dwellers work just as long if not longer hours and don't have the ability to set our own hours. We consumers aren't stupid and we absolutely understand how we're getting screwed by supply management. Might want to start taking care of your consumers and work together instead of treating us as your personal ATM. Hard to feel sorry for you all when you have tractors that cost more than my house and FCC just hands out cash no questions asked. And then you sell out your quota and farm and retire richer than the consumers you spent your career taking advantage of.
Not enough farmers left to care who is in supply management and who is not.
Farmers are less than 1% of the population. No one cares but you.
The squeaky wheel looks for grease but sooner than later that wheel gets replaced. As for the "quiet" hog and beef farmers, I have to ask what your definition of "quiet" is. Stifled? Muffled? Suppressed? Untroubled?
If you are looking to be recognized as a "quiet" martyr, then I am seriously puzzled by your choice of words.
Currently there are dairy farmers rallying in Ottawa due to US imports finding a market here in Canada. The only reason they are able to find a market here in Canada is not because of the often used argument by SM supporters that the US dairy farmers are heavily subsidized, but rather due to the fact that SM has raised its costs so incredibly high here in Canada, but won't admit it!
For example, today I read an article in another farm publication, where the author, who is also a dairy farmer, complained that the Ontario price of milk paid to farmers had fallen in the face of higher costs, but never once mentioned the highest cost of all-quota!
In the meantime, hog farmers go quietly about their business, selling pork to the US, and other parts of the planet, and not worried in the least about having to compete with US pork products coming into Canada.
Raube Beuerman
The words listed are adjectives, not verbs. They are also synonyms of the word you used - "quiet".
As for accusing SM for raising "costs" you deftly ignore the broader picture of our society in regards to input costs. 42% of an average household incomes goes directly to taxes as an example.
For you to continually blubber and bewail about a few cents on a carton of milk speaks volumes about a person with limited comprehension of a much more substantial picture.
2 are verbs, and 2 are adjectives-but who really cares about that.
In regards to the 42% percent you site, that does not include the tax of SM paid everytime someone purchases chicken, dairy or eggs.
Also, the bulk of taxes, as Mr. Thompson has explained about a million times on this site, are paid by the wealthier of society and corporations, wherein the regressive tax of SM, is disproportionately paid by the poorest. So shame on you for not mentioning that.
And lastly, would not the ones who continually "blubber and bewail"(whatever that is), about a few cents on a carton of milk, be the ones leading cows around and driving tractors in Ottawa???
Raube Beuerman
The "poorest" of society almost always pay rent for their housing. Rent is a "tax" by definition. Rent is disproportionately paid by the poorest of society and is a regressive tax and the largest tax by far in their household budget.
Nickel and diming a trivial item is ignoring the larger substantial grievances our society endures. When you try to micro manage household items that amounts to pennies, it shows a lack of comprehension of much more serious issues.
The 2 words that are verbs may be used in the context of an object of which you did not.
Who cares? Words are important and their use in the proper context is equally important to most educated people.
It appears you don't care
The poorest as in the people that you see driving into the slots late at night.
The above posting has no place in Canadian society and definitely no place in Canadian agriculture.
Unlike taxes levied on incomes and which are called "progressive taxes" because they increase as incomes increase, as well as which are paid by corporations and trusts, supply management is a regressive tax on consumption because as incomes go down, a larger percentage of one's income goes to paying this tax. In addition, corporations and trusts are excluded from having to pay consumption taxes at any level of income because they are not end-use consumers.
In addition, unlike other consumption taxes (alcohol taxes) which go into the general fund and which are distributed back, in part, to benefit those who pay these taxes, supply management does NOT benefit the "tax" payer in any way at all.
Therefore, supply management is not only an example of the worst and most-regressive kind of tax, a consumption tax, it is also the worst kind of consumption tax because the entire amount of the "tax" raised is transferred directly to the richest group of Canadian farmers.
As for finding fault with those who choose to spend money at casino slot venues, blaming the victim is as much a part of supply management as Santa Claus is to Christmas. In an attempt to portray the people being ripped off by supply management as being "losers" in the first place, the above poster conveniently ignores the truth that the people being ripped off by supply management include the people who work at the mostly entry-level jobs at these casinos which are open, at least here in Clinton, even on Christmas Day.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Only a supply management supporter could be so completely unable to face the truth that:
(A) A few cents on a carton of milk when transferred from 35 million consumers to about 12,000 dairy farmers adds up to massive incomes for those farmers which they are then able to use to be financial bullies in the farm community.
(B) A few cents on a carton of milk is a huge amount of money consumers could be spending on other things to enhance the economy instead of diverting it into the pockets of 12,000 ungrateful and ever-increasingly greedy dairy farmers.
(C) A few cents on a carton of milk argument constantly proffered by dairy farmers is an example of the "I took only one cookie" argument proffered by five-year-olds when caught with a hand in the cookie jar.
(D) A few cents on a carton of milk adds up to a processing sector which cannot prosper and grow and which is forced to pass on their higher per unit input costs and their higher per unit fixed costs to consumers.
As for the "much more substantial picture", that picture is one of short-sighted dairy farmers who will do anything, say anything and proffer any excuse in order to retain their legislated abilities to take advantage of everyone else in the food chain.
Methinks that "blubber and bewail" is best used to describe supply management supporters who are completely without any fact-based method of expressing themselves, and as a result, can offer only "blubbering and bewailing" arguments like the "few cents" argument dissected and demolished herein.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I am the son of a dairy farmer that sold quota and now cash crops and hog farms. I also have requested subsidies trough the green energy act for a solar installation and have received a grant for a geothermal installation. My question is, am I allowed to comment in this forum as to my displeasure with the supply management system in this country and the monies that I and others have received due to ethanol mandates? Thanks in advance,
Answer: No ethanol means a return to Lead and MMT or low compression engines, not exactly environmentally sound science is it?
Furthermore, it is a recent proven fact by GM/Ford etc., for engine manufactures to increase engine efficiency and mileage...higher compression is needed....hence more octane needed, hence even more octane enhancing ethanol oxygenate is needed not less.
This poster seems to forget that we live in Canada where free speech is widely accepted, although those that are highly protected by government seem to dislike that fact more so than others.
Get over it.
You're welcome.
Raube Beuerman
YeeePP !! Sounds like hog farming to me .
Free speech is not an absolute right in Canada. You should know that Raubie.
As for those "highly protected by government", you lost me there. Who are you referring to? You are leaving us hanging even after you give yourself a huge pat on your own back. (p.s. Practice yoga Raubie?)
Although voicing your displeasure with the supply management system, ethanol mandates, and subsidies derived from green energy initiatives while benefiting from them does define a hypocritical view, you are more than welcome to comment in this forum. Some of the best addiction counsellors were addicts at one time.
As suggested by the following NPPPC article, Countervailable subsidies as in RMP in addition to other Canadian subsidies for Pork keep the Ontario Pork farmers "Quiet".
See: http://nppc.org/australia-new-zealand-u-s-uneasy-over-canadas-inclusion-...
Excerpt: The Province of Ontario recently enacted a new countervailable subsidy program called the Risk Management Program that sees Canadian farmers receive a guaranteed return for their pork production. This sort of blatant subsidisation places competing pork producers, who do not subsidise their production, at a distinctive disadvantage.”
The above dutifully-anonymous posting is misleading and duplicitous.
There has never been, nor could there ever be an issue, except among supply management supporters, with any of the following:
(1) Canadian and US hog farmers are equally disadvantaged by ethanol mandates
(2) RMP may place US hog farmers at a comparative disadvantage to Ontario hog producers.
(3) Supply management places Ontario hog farmers at an absolute disadvantage to dairy and poultry farmers.
The truth the above poster is trying to hide is that while RMP may, in the short term, give Ontario hog farmers a bigger "engine" in their race car than US hog farmers, it's irrelevant because 200% tariff barriers give Ontario dairy and poultry farmers all of the "gasoline".
The even-bigger truth is that even though they might appear to be "quiet", Ontario hog farmers have no reason to be quiet about anything - they're being screwed by ethanol mandates and they're being doubly-screwed by supply management. The only thing RMP does for them is act as an Ethanol and/or Supply Management Injury Assistance Program.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Thanks for admitting the U.S. hog producers are at a monetary disadvantage compared to Canadian hog producers who have several safety net programs to supercharge their cross border export production with.
The above poster's overly-narrow interpretation of "advantage" is pedantic, obtuse and doesn't reflect reality.
Comparing Canadian and US support programs solely for hogs in isolation of the overall environment in which producers must exist, is the sort of shoddy and sophomoric analysis normally done by:
(A) the National Farmers Union
(2) supply management
(3) the Grain Farmers of Ontario in bids to defend ethanol and/or neonics.
It's like this, Canadian farm support programs may appear to give more money to Canadian hog farmers, but the closest open-to-everyone, two-shift hog plant to Ontario is in, I believe, Logansport, Indiana and, therefore, Ontario hog farmers lose on the "basis" compared to Indiana farmers because of that alone.
So, what's the point if Ontario gives its hog farmers more money than Indiana gives to its hog farmers, if Indiana has a two-shift packing plant open to everyone and we don't?
In addition, what's the point if Ontario gives its hog farmers more money than Indiana gives to its hog farmers if Ontario hog farmers have to compete for land against supply management's endless money-pit and Indiana farmers don't?
Therefore, whether Ontario hog farmers are, or are not, at an advantage when it comes to hog support programs is meaningless unless all business, economic and political factors are included - the above poster has not done so.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Simply put, by definition, as the U.S. NPPC has said on several occasions, several Canadian safety net programs available to Canadian Pork are being used to assist in the production and movement of hogs to U.S. As you indicate, one solution is for Canadian Pork to build Canadian hog plants. Unfortunately, this is almost impossible to do because of Canada-Ontario extra business environment costs and electricity costs. So, instead, Canada-Ontario has opted to use Pork safety nets as an export subsidy.
Well...why is US pork coming into this country then?
Oh and by the way, not all hog farmers or even cash crop farmers are involved in the programs you mention...so are they disadvantaged like you say the US producers are, or is it just a management decision. Maybe the programs you keep mentioning aren't so great after all.
Exactly how much live US pork is coming into Canada,one can find all sorts of numbers on Canadian live pork going into the US but the other way is at best very limited.
Exactly, Pork exports both ways, however, only one country has insulated COP and other programs compare to our U.S. production, which is by definition several unfair export subsidizes!
(1) "Insulated COP" is a term that, until used by the above poster, didn't exist outside the fairy-tale world of supply management because it doesn't apply anywhere else but in supply management - therefore, to try to apply it to the hog sector, on either side of the Canada/US border, is nonsense and neither applicable nor relevant.
(2) the statement "other programs compare to our U.S. production" is nonsense and gibberish at least in two ways:
(A) one cannot compare programs to production - programs have to be compared to programs and production compared to production. Therefore comparing Canadian programs to U.S. production is meaningless and the sort of thing typically done by the NFU and/or other entities with a vested interest in promoting half-truths.
(B) the above poster appears to be a very-confused and grammatically-challenged American because he/she wrote "our U.S. production" and appears to be claiming that U.S. production is several unfair export subsidies.
(3) How can U.S. production, in and by itself, be an export subsidy?
(4) Why would an American admit, on a Canadian site, that U.S. hog production is the beneficiary of several unfair export subsidies?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
From the article;
-SM wants compensation from taxpayers, while keeping SM in place.
-they want a processor fund, which of course will also be taxpayer money
Or in other words, they want to have their cake and eat it too.
When the day comes that we see US pork farmers parading their hogs at the white house due to cheap subsidized Canadian pork, then anonymous posters may have a point. Until then, they don't.
Raube Beuerman
Post new comment