Ontario general farm reps protest treatment of Ontario Processing Vegetable Growers

© AgMedia Inc.


Long-forgotten and completely-shoved to the sidelines of everyone's memory amidst the hysteria and flap-doodle about farmers rights to self-determination is that former Ontario Ag Minister, William A Stewart, created the Ontario Egg Producers Marketing Board without any vote or "grower choice" by anybody.

Therefore, since something as drastic as supply management can be created by Ministerial fiat, completely without any semblance of "grower choice" at all, then altering the way any agricultural marketing system is structured is equally-fair game for any government.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Mr. Thompson, you missed the point. Your total distraction with all that be quota has densely clouded your views.

Mr. Kamenz and the Commission is evasive when asked direct questions. Mr. Kamenz by all accounts is an intelligent man with an extensive agricultural background. So why is he so dodgy when pressed to explain an unwarranted change concerning price negotiations?

Remember a few things.

All boards under the commission are agencies of the government.

Our Premier did a stint as Ag. Minister. She is tight with our PM. We presently have an Ag. Minister in name only.

The TPP and TTIP with the ISDS will be coming to a small town near you very soon.

The ISDS will allow multinational corporations to sue a government if those corporations can prove that government imposed barriers are impeding their future profits.

The boards with collective negotiating powers, as agents of the government are creating barriers to multinationals.

Direct contracting is an acceptable method under the TPP and TTIP.

The TPP has been signed and Canada is falling in step with other countries getting ready to do business with multinational companies.

That is behind Mr. Kamenz statement when he said "processors say the current marketing structure is rigid and inflexible, creates barriers, and leaves them at a competitive disadvantage".

'Nuff said. You can bet this stuff was done long ago but is just playing out now. The only question left is what did Premier/Ag. Minister Wynne get in exchange for dismantling our marketing boards?

The above poster travels to every corner of the fear-mongering, conjecture and conspiracy theory map to try to demonstrate that the proposed changes to the single-desk marketing system for vegetables are "unwarranted". However, the OFPMC obviously believes these changes are warranted and backs it up with basic economics and a grasp (albeit long-overdue) of the obvious.

I, therefore, have missed nothing.

It's a "no-brainer" that an adversarial system, such as the single-desk system currently used to market vegetables, produces adversaries which, in turn, generates (and in this case, enshrines) a marketing system that is " rigid, inflexible, creates barriers and leaves them (processors) at a competitive disadvantage." according to Mr. Kamenz who, in this case, seems to have, as odd as it may seem in an agricultural system profoundly in love with barriers, rigidity and inflexibility (can anyone say "supply management"?), a profound grasp of the obvious.

I mean, really, vegetable people, consider this:

(1) Hogs don't die because of the lack of a single-desk, adversarial marketing system.
(2) Wheat farmers are offered, and get, a premium for growing a certain type of wheat which wouldn't have happened under a single-desk system.
(3) White bean growers and edible soybean growers get rewarded for certain types growing practices, something unheard of during the days of single-desk selling.

While the concept of "value-chain-partners" is obviously anathema to vegetable farmers, the NFU and conspiracy theorists like the above poster, it's the way the world works in 2016 and it works just fine, thank you.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

for some reason i seem to notice posts on this site that continually use fear- mongering ,conjecture, and conspiracy theory to berate, ridicule, hate supply management. but apparently that's fine.

I challenge the above poster, and/or anyone else, to cite even one instance in which I used any of:

(1) fear-mongering
(2) conjecture
(3) conspiracy theory

to criticize supply management. Every criticism of supply management, by me and everyone else on this site is:

(A) 200 years of economic reality
(B) the on-farm reality faced by non-supply managed farmers
(C) the reality faced by fresh pizza makers and others
(D) the reality of cross-border shopping

If anything, it's supply management supporters, for example, who continually fear-monger about food safety, especially since food safety has everything to do with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and nothing to do with the marketing system itself.

I mean, really, supply management invented fear-mongering and half truths - why criticize me for quite-correctly pointing out the false-half of supply management's 50 years of half-truths?

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

1. It would appear you conveniently omitted the OFA from your so called conspiracy list.

2.Furthermore, it would appear the OFPMC is simply aligning itself with the latest so called "bogus free trade policies" and biased upcoming trade policies.

3. Finally, it would appear that many in agriculture have simply forgotten there is no such thing as "Free Trade" ....only "Government Biased Managed Trade". Want proof? Both Hillary and Donald have indicated in the media that they won't abide by proposed free trade rules if they aren't biased in favour of the U.S.

It is painfully obvious that your comprehension of personal opinions are skewed against collective negotiations. No where in the previous post was there even the slightest suggestion that changes to the marketing system was "warranted". There was no fear-mongering or conspiracies. The facts are:

Kamenz is the closest/only thing we have in a way of agricultural representation. Our government does not/never had farmers' best interests on their radar.

TPP negotiations started in 2006. 2008 was a watershed year for marketing boards operating within the commission.

Canada signed the TPP but has yet to ratify the agreement.

Chapter 9 deals the Investor-State Dispute Settlement clause whereby governments may be sued if multinationals can prove there are government imposed barriers that could impede a corporations profit/future profit. Kamenz openly admits government agencies with collective price negotiations are "barriers and leaves processors at a competitive disadvantage".

Signatories have said they will either eliminate or reduce tariffs and other restrictive policies from agricultural products.

Agricultural barriers have been on the table longer than most people willing to admit. The vegetable board is not the first board to be affected and they will not be the last. Who is next?

Many farmers do not see what is coming. We need a new chair someone who looks at both sides and looks at both the big and small picture.we can not afford to pay Ontario wages and imputs and get the price that is the same as Mexico where the standards and wages are much lower. One food processor was looking at a joint deal with Cuba. HA

The present Chair has over stayed his appointed time frame. I wondered why he was not replaced as per schedule.

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.