Tribunal denies dairy farmers' appeal

© AgMedia Inc.

Comments

WHAT A JOK THIS ONE IS ,ARE WE IN RUSSIA OR CHINA ,CAN YOU BELEIVE THE TRIBUNAL ,WHAT DIFFERANCE DOES IT MAKE RATHER THEY MOVE THE QUOTA ALL TO ONE FARM ,IT IS STILL UNDER THERE LICENCE ,OWNED ,NO SORRY BOUGHT THE RIGHT TO USE THE QUOTA ! MAKES GOOD BUSINESS AND SAFES TRUCKING COSTS ,ALSO USES THE ONE FACILITY TO PRODUCE THE MILK FROM ,LOWERS THE COST TO PRODUCE THE MILK ,IT JUST MAKE SENSE !! BUT THE MIGHTY D.F.O (GOVERNMENT AGENCY ) ALWAYS LIKES TO BE IN CONTROL OF FARMERS ,WHY DO YOU THINK THE GOVERNMENT CREATED SUPPLY MANAGEMENT !! IT SURE WAS NOT FOR THE FARMERS ,IT IS ALL ABOUT CONTROL ,POWER AND MONEY !! WAKE UP SHEEP BEFORE YOU ALL GO TO SLAUGHTER ONE BY ONE !! THIS IS D.F.O. AT IT'S BEST AND THE GOVERNMENT APPOINTED
WE HAVE DONE THEM ALL ,7 TRIBUNALS AND THE D.F.O WON SOME AND LOST THE BIG ONES ! THESE FARMERS SHOULD HAVE HIRED BAY STREET LAWYERS !!THAT WAY YOU HAVE A CHANCE THERE ARE LOTS OF GROUNDS FOR AN APPEAL IN THIS CASE !! GO GET THEM BOYS !"! BILL DENBY , IMPORTER /EXPORTER

Deletion made by editor in accordance with our guidelines.

They knew the rules before they bought the farm!

Nary a peep is mentioned about who pays for all of this "keeping fixed costs high by banning economies of scale" nonsense - the consumer.

In addition, our education system has failed miserably because nobody with a degree in agriculture should be even thinking about a lifetime commitment to a system so-completely dependent on a piece of paper that could, and should, become worthless overnight.

Oddly enough, the only "winners" in this saga appear to be the sons who have, even though they probably don't realize it yet, been thwarted/saved from having to experience bankruptcy when supply management well-deservedly folds.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

They knew the rules but wanted to change them for their advantage, just another example of larger farmers not being satisfied with what they have.

Criticizing the ambitions of these two farmers as being "just greed" but overlooking the four decades of collective greed on the part of supply management is naive and misses the point.

The present quota transfer (non-transfer) policies were put in place to help enforce the $25,000 quota price cap which, itself, was put in place in a desperate and what will be an ultimately-futile attempt to demonstrate that supply management hasn't run amok with consumers wallets.

The inherent futility/stupidity of artificial price caps and even supply management itself can easily be seen "by the numbers" - of the farm's purchase price of $6.55 million, $4.425 million was for quota, while the balance, $2.125 million was for 260 cows, "some equipment" and 80 acres of land and buildings (which, without dairy cattle in them are worthless) which, by the numbers, makes this the most-expensive 80 acre dairy farm to have ever been purchased by any farmer and which, at the same time, makes a mockery of any so-called quota price cap.

Equally as damning of the supply management system is that while the applicants didn't balk at paying $4.425 million (it was probably much more than that when the actual market value of the real estate is subtracted from the purchase price) for quota, they did balk at spending $1 million for barn renovations and a robotic milker which, if my understanding is correct, could cost anywhere up to half that amount.

Most-disturbing of all is that Ripley's "believe it or not" needs to be summoned to meet the scions of these applicants because nowhere but in Canada would people with a University degree in agriculture be daft enough to want to spend up to $5 million on a piece of paper allowing them to milk about 170 - 180 cows - or, to look at it another way, anywhere else but in supply managed agriculture, saddling your sons with what is effectively a $5 million debt for a piece of paper would be referred to as "child abuse".

And yet dairy and poultry farmers still cling to the belief that the rest of the farm population will support quota buyouts when supply management tanks.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Im glad you responded to my comment the way you did Mr Thompson. That was one of your better articles I have read on this site. Time will tell if SM survives or not. I always wonder if the decision by FCC to start using quota values as collateral was the beginning of the end for it.With the Federal Corp holding so much of the debt perhaps the end of SM will be quick when the time comes, just a thought.

They are going to lose a lot of money simply because they thought they could bamboozle their way around the set-in-stone regulations.They gambled and lost.

They also overpaid on a dairy farm that they would of had to truck feed to miles down the road.The fact that they wouldn't pay a extra 12.5 K/acre for the other 320 acres shows they had no intention of milking a herd there for 5 years.

Comment modified by editor in accordance with out guidelines.

The entire Canadian dairy industry has gambled on supply management, what with participants now effectively paying, in lock, stock and barrel farm purchases, purportedly up to $40,000 for quota simply to gain an increased share of a declining market - a market which is declining because of high farm gate prices which aren't going to get any lower because dairy farmers are effectively denied the opportunity to expand to obtain economies of scale.

Therefore, we have an entire industry frozen in a time warp of its own making - what's even more bizarre is that the people in the industry think this time warp is some sort of Garden of Eden when it's actually a type of purgatory, not just in the present for consumers and non-supply managed farmers, but in the long-term for dairy farmers themselves.

Senn and Suter are, in effect, "the canary in the coalmine" - quota was always a misguided idea and quota price caps are even worse. It's only a matter of time until dairy farmers revolt against the current DFO no-transfer policy, assuming, of course, there will even be quota at all by that time.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

50 years says purchasing quota is never a gamble,however challenging the authority of the DFO is.
As some glamour seeking name-signers on here can attest to.

There's a common-sense disclaimer required on most investments to the effect - "Past performance is no guarantee of future success", yet that adage seems to be perpetually lost on supply-managed agriculture the way it is continually ignored by gullible stock market investors.

It's always a gamble to invest in an industry which exists solely because of legislation, as the Ontario horse-racing industry realized to its horror and which supply management will also realize to its horror and chagrin, hopefully soon.

More to the point, I can think of no greater form of child abuse than to tell one's offspring - "Buy quota, it's lasted this long so it has to be a good thing."

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Then your argument is with the lending institutions of this Country not Supply Management, because they seem to have overwhelming confidence in the Canadian Dairy system.

In sticking with the Article,seem a little strange that the 270 cows and the 177 Kilograms of quota brought the home farm up to capacity! Almost like it was planned to work out that way.

When it comes, particularly with the FCC, to taking quota as security, one has to wonder who the greater fool is - people for wanting to borrow the money or FCC for wanting to lend it.

Both parties seem to be hoping that the supply management "ship of fools" will stay afloat long enough so that somebody else on both sides of the equation will have to clean up the mess.

A pox on both their greedy houses!

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

There are many good reasons for questioning DFO's authority . One and likely the biggest is that their power can be cut by the stroke of a pen .
If infact SM is soo good and their producers are soo competitive then let them have a go at the free market and free flowing imports like the rest of agriculture . You would think that after 50 years there would be the insight of SM to better it's self for no other reason than keeping up with the times .
Put another way , if the voting public decided that they would elect a Gov that said if elected they would do away with SM because it is restricting trade and is not price competitve and would save tax payers and families millions of dollars over a year , you can bet your bottom dollar that the public would support that party .
SM could fight back and say but look at all the support and product we give these food banks and such . Truth is in order to be giving those gifts some one has to pay for it in the first place which is the consumer in the price they are paying for those products . It is the same as Hydro One giving money for up grades to lighting and picking up old freezers and such . It is not free as they like to claim . Every person who is paying a hydro bill is paying for it in their hydro bill . Actually we are paying twice because we pay an environment fee when we buy these things also !

You're not making a lot of sense here,Supply Management can better itself by dissolving itself ??
There is no will of any Government,either Provincial or Federal to tinker with SM,simply because there is no will of the populace for change and no one can ever bring forth proof that dairy prices would fall if Supply Management was absorbed.In fact there are instances like in Australia where milk prices went up after SM was gone.Plus the going's on in Europe,where Governments are being forces to step in and help dairy farmers from plunging milk prices.All this coming after dismantleing Supply management only a year earlier.

(1) On the science side ot things, even though SM supporters continually point to increases in retail milk prices after the end of supply management in Australia as evidence that the same thing would happen here, these people are, as could be expected, looking at only one side of the equation by ignoring what would have happened to the price of milk if supply management had been kept in Australia. Every scientist knows that any experiment must be conducted using a "control" or "placebo" study to determine how much of any change is because of the change agent and how much of any change would have happened in any event - yet supply management supporters just don't seem to understand this vitally-important scientific principle.

For example, if the retail price of milk increased by 5% in Australia after supply management ended but would have increased by 25% during the same time period if the system had been kept, the ending of supply management would have meant a 20% net-benefit to Australian consumers instead of a 5% cost - yet supply management supporters neatly, incorrectly and as always "hang their hat" on only one side of the equation, the most-convenient side.

The same principle applies when SM supporters claim that a roll-back in mozzarella cheese prices for Canadian fresh pizza makers didn't result in lower pizza prices - these people are, of course, ignoring the "net-benefit/net-cost" calculation by giving no consideration to how much pizza prices would have risen if there hadn't been a reduction in the price of cheese.

(2) On the economics side of things, a basic economic truth for the past 150 years is that any country experiences a net benefit when protectionist priveleges are taken away from the relatively few - so yes, dissolving supply management is unquestionably a good thing to do. Just because present and past governments continue to insist that "water can run uphill" when it comes to supply management, all the water they have pushed uphill is eventually going to cause a flood.

(3) As for helping dairy farmers recover from plunging milk prices, there won't be any sympathy at all from the rest of the farm community because if the present tranche of safety nets is good enough for the rest of us, it should be good enough for them too.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

You seem to be missing the point . It isn't that SM should desolve it self but that SM can be dissolved by public will and the action of Gov .
Look at the buy Local , Buy Fresh for instance . it is working because of people wanting to support local when they can though it is most times premium priced and many times there is some sort of selling feature such as organic , pesticide free , natural ect . Many times the gimmic is the sale and fools people into the premium they are willing to pay . Fact is some can afford it but many can not .

Further if SM as I said is soo price competitve then let it lead by price & quality not by legislation and tariffs . Why should the rest of agriculture suffer or be held at ransome for the benefit of a small part of agriculture ? The rest of us have to sell on a global market set mainly by the CBOT so why should SM be exempt and allowed to run over the rest of us and more so young people who want to farm ? If SM is trade distorting to other farm products then it is time to set things straight .

How much lower would the price of milk be here if the cost of quota was taken out of the SM cost of production ? Would it be in line with what US milk would be sold for here ? You can't continue to prop up or protect one sector and not the rest . Sooner or later you will loose your support and loose that sector . So the question then becomes do you change of your own free will or do you wait for some one else to make the change for you and then cry foul ?

It seems things have not changed in the DAIRY BUSINESS ,just because a few farmers do not like to be controlled and challenge there rights as a CANADIAN ! The narrow minded attack them for being risk takers ,the sad part we are all suppose to have that right as CANADIANS . The charter is very clear under Canadian Law ,there are many case files that prove our rights in court ! The problem is most Lawyers can't even defend a charter challenge ,you have to hire a law firm that has the experience ,track record to beat even the D.F.O on your rights under the charter . Supply Management IS not except from those individual rights that we as people of Canada enjoy ,I believe that if these farmers hire themselves those king of lawyers or a law firm with full services for litigation ,charter rights they will break the strangle hold D.F.O has over all farmers big and small !No other people in Canada operates under this control to grow there business ,only under D.F.O ! Just because there are risk takers in the Canadian dairy industry and are prepared to invest in the market place ,they are being punished by the SUPPLY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ! I know if these dairy farmers challenge this ruling ,the highest court in the land ! The Supreme Court of Canada ,will have no choice but to rule SUPPLY MANAGEMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL and VIOLATES THESE FARMERS and all DAIRY FARMERS CHARTER OF RIGHTS ! If these farmers need a good law firm ,give me a call ,These DAIRY FARMERS have to decide if they want to risk bringing down SUPPLY MANAGEMENT ,in order to have freedom to dairy farm in CANADA !! BIG DECISION !! I MYSELF WOULD DO IT IN A SECOND ,TIME TO CLEAN HOUSE !! Bill Denby , Importer / Exporter

They knew and agreed to the rules that they would be playing by. They chose not to. Why should they be allowed to make their own rules?

The much-larger and more-relevant question is - "Why should the dairy industry be allowed to make their own rules?" especially rules which deliberately keep dairy farms at a size which doesn't allow for economies of scale which can be passed along to the consumer.

The tragedy is that the "no-transfer" policy on quota is just another way supply management screws consumers.

Sigh!

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

It may be that they knew the rules but then it is good to question those rules every once in a while .
One question that always come to mind is how much cheaper would milk & dairy products be if there was no price put on quota ? Some how that quota price has to be paid for . You don't pay for things with a negative cash flow .

They could just sell what they have here and move to the USA

The current rule is no mergers, but at last years dairy symposium 65% of dairy producers thought DFO should create new quota policy that would allow mergers under certain circumstances.Alberta ,Saskatchewan and I believe New Brunswick currently allow mergers.

Post new comment

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Image CAPTCHA
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.