by SUSAN MANN
It’s now up to the Americans to “try and sell” their Country of Origin Labelling law changes to the World Trade Organization, says Canadian Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz.
Canada will be going to the WTO to argue that the modifications are “completely off the mark,” he says. Ritz made the comments today during a telephone press conference from Kazakhstan where he has been on a trade mission.
Today is the deadline the WTO had set for the United States to make changes to its law.
Ritz says the Canadian government is disappointed by the American proposal. “We thought the Americans were serious about actually addressing the shortfalls that were identified in their adjustment to the rule. Even their own industry has come forward and said this is going to cost them hundreds of millions of dollars to comply.”
The process to continue challenging the United States at the WTO takes time, Ritz says. But Canada, joined by Mexico, which was involved in the original challenge, won’t be stepping away “at this point. We have no intention of backing off or backing down. If the Americans think this is a game of chicken, well the cliff’s in front of them.”
About seeking retaliation, Ritz says Canada will do everything in its power “to make sure they understand that both Canadian industry as well as American industry is totally rejecting what they’ve come forward with today.”
Ritz says he’s disappointed but not surprised the United States Department of Agriculture stated today its amendments proposed in March are now in effect. “We still feel they’re completely not in compliance with what the WTO ruling and the appeal process instructed them to” do.
He drew a relationship between his current trade mission and the COOL issue by noting that as the United States makes market access tougher for Canadian products, it’s imperative the Canadian government gets out on trade missions “around the world and starts putting more market share in other than the American market.”
In July 2012, the WTO Appellate Body ruled COOL discriminates against non-U.S. born and raised livestock. An earlier WTO ruling also gave the legislation a thumbs down.
In a news release today, the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association announced it has spent more than $2 million in legal and advocacy expenses to fight COOL.
The association says farmers have lost about $25 to $40 per head or about $640 million per year since the law was implemented in late 2008. It estimates the proposed changes will result in a $90 to $100 per head loss for Canadian beef farmers.
Martin Unrau, cattlemen’s association president, says the Americans’ statement that their changes comply with WTO “is absurd. It will require additional segregation by eliminating the ability to commingle cattle of different origins.”
The Canadian Pork Council also says in a press release today that the changes to U.S. COOL legislation may exacerbate “discrimination against Canadian livestock exports.”
Jean-Guy Vincent, the council’s chair, says in the release that the new rule “does nothing to reduce discrimination against Canadian feeder pigs and slaughter hogs.”
“The new rule will strip away any flexibility to comingle Canadian and US live swine at processing plants. This will make a very bad situation of the last four years much worse." BF
Comments
There,s nothing cool about it. They will do anything to get an advantage over Canada livestock and produce , just look how much we lost to the BST movement. At the very least the SM movement helps the farmers make a profit and don,t have to depends on other countries. Just hope they get off there butts and get their price level down to an level where everyone is happy with the end results and more farmers able to get in on the action. No signed so I don,t have to worry about getting a egg in the face at Halloween .
Anyone who thinks COOL has nothing to do with supply management, is dreaming in five shades of technicolor. We've been sticking a sharp stick in Uncle Sam's eye for 40 years by restricting what we import of poultry and dairy products, and we've been bone-stupid to do so - what else could we expect the US to do? COOL is what we so-justly deserve for supporting supply management.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Here's a great example of a free market at work. I can,t believe that the supply managed sector in this country doesn't feel like joining. There is as much bureaucratic B.S. in defence of free trade as there is in the defence of supply management. What do we do now?
The free market and/or capitalism is not always perfect but I do believe it is still the only way. Trade wars are never good, no one wants retaliatory trade restrictions. Having said that, its one thing to have trade disputes between countries, but its quite pathetic to have provincial trade disputes like we see in SM. Raube Beuerman, Dublim, ON
On the one hand Canada wants to cry foul over trade distortions such as COOL, yet on the other hand they fail to admit to the U.S. that Canadian non SM livestock producers have and continue to receive billions in subsidies that the U.S. livestock farms have not had access to. Subsidies such as NISA. CAIS, Agristability, AgriInvest, and in Ontario RMP for livestock. Of course to top it off there is the irritating trade tariffs of S.M.
American farmers also get subsidies. The US government has bought up milk powder to support the milk price. They have the Direct and Counter-Cyclical Program and the Average Crop Revenue Election program all part of the larger U.S Farm bill which has a number of subsidies and support programs. They also had a program where they paid producers to slaughter cattle when there was too much milk. All these programs trace back to before we had supply management in this country. You can not blame supply management for every trade dispute.
US subisidies come from taxpayers, including the biggest corporations, while supply management is disproportionately by the poorest group of consumers - therefore, any comparison of the two systems is nonsense. Furthermore, when one looks at the cost of US subsidies, on a per consumer basis, compared to the cost of supply management, I suggest the US costs are trifling when compared to what we pay in Canada. I really wish supply management supporters would start comparing apples to apples, but then again, they've never been able to do it before, why would anyone expect them to start doing it now? And, I mean, really, when it comes to supply management's arguments about food security, when have we ever run out of oranges and bananas, two products we don't grow in Canada at all? And, I mean, double really, when it comes to food safety, when's the last time someone was poisoned by an orange or a banana? I'm sorry, supply management supporters, but your arguments are lame, worthless, and totally without merit - give it up.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
US farmers get a cheque in the mail and its not for their produce and yes its the big guy that gets it just like in Canada where the big guy get the help. So if yous want to lay some PR on me go ahead and say that's not so, get your head out of the sand and read whats going on and not come out screaming that the writers don,t know whats going on. People like to talk about SM and they likely have never milked a cow in their life , but wish they could and bring home all that money. Have they ever raised a chicken for the eggs or meat , I wonder. The big boys or gals today don,t have to go out and do all the manual labour that the small farmers do just have the hired hands do it while you,re in your office or on your black berry.
Yes if the us can't send chicken turkey eggs or dairy in to our market then who can blame them for fighting them for their market
Well there is food in those areas where the SM farmers fall behind and they bring what in what is needed. There is people that doesn,t seem to read anything and just shoot their mouth off so the SM farmers look bad.
Supply managed farmers don't need anybody "shooting their mouth off" to make supply management look bad. For example, while SM supporters fall all over themselves to fearmonger about food security and food safety, when, for example, have we ever run out of, and/or be poisoned by, oranges or bananas, two food items we don't grow in Canada at all? In addition, while supply management supporters fall all over themselves to boast about the employment and economic activity created by supply management, they conveniently, and overly-willingly, ignore the most-basic principles of economics which dictate that jobs and economic activity generated by protectionist measures, such as supply management, are always net-negative. Other than sucking large amounts of wealth out of generally-poor consumers, and giving it to only a few, and generally quite-wealthy farmers, supply management serves no purpose whatsoever, except to increasingly pit farmers against one-another.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
excuse me but you don't think for a second that COOL isn't a Protectionist measure ??
We here in Canada should be well aware of what happens when you put the health of an Industry in the hands of a foreign country,we have saw it too many times and l hate to describe the US as a foreign country but it is.They will put their own interests 1st! ..and the worst part is, now you have these anti-Supply Management people that want to drag our Milk,Chicken and Egg industries down into the same abyss that the Pork and Beef sector is in.The old saying is true,"Misery loves company".
COOL would disappear the moment we do the right thing, and eliminate supply management, a sharp-stick we've been poking in Uncle Sam's eye for 4 decades. In addition, nobody wants to drag dairy and poultry farmers into an abyss - all we want to do is level the playing field so that they don't have an absolute advantage over the rest of us when it comes to incomes and purchasing power. Your apparent belief that supply managed farmers should be completely-able to dish out misery to consumers and other farmers, while at the same time be completely exempt from having any similar misery inflicted on them, speaks volumes about the greed and double-standards by which supply management exists, and also speaks volumes about why supply management, even in the farm community, is not well-liked, and will not be missed. Finally, you don't seem to understand that your point about placing trust for our food in the "hands of a foreign country", is nonsense to the point of idiocy, because since, for example, we are well-served by the orange and banana industries which are obviously based in foreign countries, there's no reason to protect Canadian dairy and poultry farmers from a threat which exists only in the minds of dairy and poultry farmers.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Even if SM was to be eliminated today, the economic war chest SM has accumulated will still give them a huge advantage over other farmers for years to come. Also, those that have already cashed in their free quota and invested it in land and machinery to better out compete other cash crop farmers will continue to have an economic advantage.
Further to your comments, because of the "war-chest" supply managed farmers have already accumulated, and which they've long-used to bully other farmers, there is absolutely no appetite in the farm community for any sort of quota buy-out, and opposition to any buyout proposal could easily be quite-fierce. In addition, without the cash-flow gravy-boat provided by supply management, many current supply managed farmers simply won't know how to compete in the real world, and we're likely to see some spectacular bankruptcies, all of which will provide an excellent chance for younger farmers to get into farming. War chests have a habit of disappearing quite quickly when things turn bad for those who have forgotten, or never knew, how to economize.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
You can post volumes of words about life after SM ....but you will have to continue to post for decades more before it happens
G Kimble
Supply management is alive, but it is definitely not well. When, for example, at their recent annual meeting, Ontario Pork voted, by a margin of about 68 to 13, to urge government to place trade ahead of protectionism, this vote starkly outlined the reality that supply management does pit farmers against one another - something which supply management supporters can no longer deny. When, for example, the Dairy Farmers of Ontario released information, in late 2010, indicating that Ontario consumers were paying almost 38% more for milk than US consumers, and that the Ontario farm gate price of milk was within pennies per liter of the US retail price, this ended forty years of boasting about cross-border retail price equivalency, and forever drove the stake through the heart of supply management's claims that supply management is of benefit to consumers. One by one, the half-truths and economic fallacies which have supported supply management for four decades, are being revealed for what they are - a sham, and a justification for outright selfishness by a few at the expense of the rest of society and the economy. The increasingly-obvious problem with supply management is that, after forty years of not having to follow the rules which govern everyone else, and after forty years of studiously ignoring basic economic principles, which means forty years of believing their own propaganda that supply management is "all benefit/no cost", supply management supporters are becoming increasingly possessed by the "Mike Duffy syndrome", or the belief that the rules which govern economics, and the rules which govern social conduct, just don't apply to them. Why else would, why else could, supply managed farmers continue to so-strongly believe it is perfectly OK for them to bully consumers as well as their fellow farmers?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Many would argue that the original SM model was a socialist one, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, doesn't matter now. Even if it was, all those profits have now been corruptly privatized by farmers backed by government law, into the hands of a very, very small percent of the Canadian population. The NDP will have a hard time explaining how they can now support this system if they are ever in power. Thomas Mulcair was recently quoted "I have always felt that social democracy was about removing inequalities in our society". SM has skewed the economy, promoting less than 10% of farmers at the expense of consumers and other farmers. It has turned alot of farmers into debt addicted farmers, who normally could not leverage themselves so deeply, thanks to quota security borrowing power. Allowing SM to ever get started was the first problem, trying to reel it back in is now a bigger problem. There have been a few changes along the way to try and tweak it, or make it look good, but all we are doing is supporting the first bad decision. SM now finds itself in the bad publicity spotlight on a regular basis. The best thing that could happen now, would be for government to lower tarriffs about 10% per year, and then when they are gone, SM will go under the same progressive programs the rest of farming falls under. Its time someone walked this lame horse out behind the barn and put it out of its misery. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
The past is full of the same corrupt advantages . The same could be said for all of those farmers who in the eighties went through Farm Debt Review . Some more than just once . Would that not be seen as an advantage for some one to have debt written off and still farm the same or more than ever with a huge advantage over your neighbours who worked through the debt and did what they had too and needed to to survive ?? Wake up people Gov does not know Jack about any thing and always greases the palm of those who grease them first . So nice for the rest of the farm community to pay for the stupidity and greed of others .
Pointing out that corrupt advantages held by a favoured few are always with us, while true, is dismissive, and presupposes that there is nothing anyone can, or even should, do to stop it - and that is nothing more than an abdication of social responsibility. We all have a responsibility to end legislated favouritism, not just when it adversely affects us as consumers, but also when we, as farmers, are being bullied by the incomes and purchasing power available to others, but not available to us.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
What about horsemeat ?! Most of the horses are shipped in from the US. Is their meat labeled place of origin when exported or put on Canadian shelves?How can one species have to be labeled and not the next?! Horsemeat should not be used as human food .Canada is eating pets now!!!
I guess we can listen to anger, bitterness and jealousy, or the elected municipal leaders from across Canada who overwhelmingly support supply management.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Supply+management+system+sound+m...
Yes, I read that last week, laughed out loud. A survey sponsored by the egg farmers. Classic. How about the next time we do a survey lets ask consumers, not politicians. I especially liked how they summed up the story at the end, saying they were concerned that a few politicians believe in the efficiencies that the free market offers, or in other words-what are we going to do, we seem to have a few politicians that are honest? If you really want to see the true opinions surrounding supply management then come on up to where the bears sh*t in the woods, like the financial post and the globe and mail. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
Laughter helps give people a positive outlook. A positive outlook means people are genuinely happy when others succeed.
So here's to more laughing out loud.
Mr. Beuerman's comment had nothing to do with happy laughter, and everything to do with derisive laughter at the lengths to which supply managed farmers are prepared to go to save a sinking ship. The truly happy laughter will be when consumers and non-supply managed farmers succeed in getting rid of the millstone of supply management, and it can't come soon enough.
Oh no really!! Darn! And here I thought we were seeing something positive.
Aside from making things better for others around you a positive outlook can improve your health.
I've got a challenge. Can the two sm bashers come up with an equal number of positive posts on any topic? Surely someone in their world is doing something right? That way they aren't perceived as obsessed with negativity and they and their anti supply management posts will overall be seen in a better light. Seems like a win all around.
I couldn't agree more. Sometimes people don't realise how unhappy they are. Attacking someone or something allows them to avoid facing the real cause of their unhappiness. Just sayin'
Sometimes people, especially those people who enjoy legislated entitlements denied to others, don't realize that their so-called "happiness" comes at the considerable expense of others. What's worse is when these "happy" people refuse to recognize that unhappy people often have a legitimate reason to be unhappy - this poster sounds exactly like somebody who would, in times gone by, have said - "why are you slaves unhappy - you've all got jobs?"
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
The first step in solving a problem is to recognize it. Each of us has to make choices. Do we want to be happy and healthy or angry and negative. Is my world generally good or is there something wrong everywhere?
Obviously this is not black and white. But some here seem to provide a lot of negative and angry posts. Others are more objective. After a while these negative people are easy to dismiss because it's easy to say "Sadly it's just him again with his usual anger." At that point you have lost a lot of credibility despite the fact you might have an important point. Just sayin'
may l remind you Supply Management was offered to the Pork and Beef sectors at one time also but they didn't want it!...and when its all good like it was before "Mad Cow" hit or the "Swine Flu" we didn't hear a peep about the evils of Supply Management..back then the Pork and Beef guys were doing their own little greed thing...now they whine!
Hog farmers demonstrated a solid grasp of economic fundamentals, and an equally-solid grasp of reality when, at the Ontario Pork annual meeting in early 2013, they passed a resolution to urge government to place trade ahead of protectionism. This is the most-positive thing any farm group has done in decades - thank you Ontario Pork for doing something both completely-right, and long-overdue.
Thank you also to the Globe and Mail, and National Post, for continuing to do the right thing by regularly publishing articles pointing out the flaws in Canadian agricultural policies. Thank you also to the Economist magazine, for continuing to follow, explain, and expound, the principles of freer trade it was founded in the 1840s to advance.
Thank you also to every economics department at every University in Canada for teaching, at even the introductory level, the advantages of trade over protectionism, and that you not only can "bring people up by bringing others down", but also that it is an economic imperative to do so.
Thank you to the great many consumers who aren't afraid to go to the US to buy dairy and poultry products - it's exactly this sort of "civil disobedience" which is the hallmark of a free, and open, economy.
Thank you to the restaurant and pizza industry who, while not being able to slay the high price cheese "dragon", finally, and at great expense, drew some blood.
Thank you also to the great many people who e-mail me, and phone me, to tell me I'm completely correct and then some.
In conclusion, there are a great many people in my "world" who are doing a lot of things right - and that definitely includes those many who, quite-appropriately, point out, and try to right, the many wrongs created by bad agricultural policies.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Congratulations to the Globe and Mail for an article in today's edition (June 3) about a recent OECD report claiming that our dairy farming is inefficient - and that it is hurting our economy. Congratulations to the OECD for having the ability to see what Canadian politicians can not see, or more likely, refuse to see. Congratulations also to the OECD for having a Canadian as the Director of its Ag and Trade Division, and thereby be able to deflect criticisms that the OECD knows nothing about Canadian agriculture. Congratulations also to one of the many responses to this article (close to 200 before the sun was even up) who pointed out that Laval University Professor, and supply management apologist, Maurice Doyon, was not to be trusted because he is merely singing for his supper bought by the egg farmers. Congratulations also to the great-many people who responded to this article by agreeing that supply management is a travesty which needs to be ended. This is truly a win-win day for non-supply managed farmers under the age of 40, and a win-win day for economic truth and fundamental justice everywhere.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I agree 150% bitterness will keep you down and also bring everyone else that is around you . I find it very sad that some people have nothing better to do than bitch about something for so long and never have anything good to say about this place we live in. They just better hope that some day we are not over taken by some country that takes all our rights away and we end up never owning any land and work for 35$ a month and see how much you can buy.
The only anger and bitterness in the supply management debate comes from supply managed farmers who simply cannot accept the truth that supply management harms consumers, harms other farmers, and is net-negative for jobs and economic activity, and who, therefore, have nothing to offer except empty platitudes, economic fallacies, fear-mongering rhetoric, and even dismissive inferences that "hard work" somehow makes it acceptable to bully consumers and other farmers.
If I was a supply managed farmer, and read the great number of reader comments slamming supply management in response to the increasingly-frequent anti-supply management articles appearing in the Globe and Mail and/or National Post, I'd be angry and bitter too - the truth hurts, yet supply managed farmers are too angry, too isolated from reality, and too much in denial, to face it.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Its not just SM farmers that is greedy , there is just as many others that have the greed bug and will do anything or say anything to get it. If your lucky or smart enough to be into SM farming your 1 step ahead of the others. What about the other farmers that have a other income and have farmers as clients that charge 2 to 2.5 % a month or 24% + a year on overdo accounts , is that not greed or a crime. The government protects them so they can charge whatever just like your credit card company or bank. Once a farmer fall into that pit its one heck of a climb out , but there is some that will say tough luck get out and let the big guy buy it , because you,s say they are great farmers. I tell you when we started farming we had nothing and all that matters was we lived off the land a make a living, we had to have credit to keep our old equipment running and the dealers charged so much interest that we hhad one heck of a time trying to keep up. We did and in the end we figured it made us stronger and to this day we still don,t look at the businesses the same as we did before I took up farming. But one thing people out there can screw the money out of you with a big smile and a pat on your back. Take off your glasses and look its not just the SM farmers that is protected from the government.
Of course any vendor or anyone that provides a service can charge interest on overdue accounts. I have done so myself. If I was paying the bank interest for a business loan, yet the client I provided services and parts for failed to pay me or paid me late, why should I have to pick up the tab? And how did a government protect me as you claim? Please enlighten me. If this is your best argument I suggest you reconsider even bothering to comment. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
Well I guess if you think you should make 2.5% interest a month , I guess you shouldn,t mine paying for your SM produce in the store. As I said that amount is highway robbery , interest is only 1% at Bank Of Canada. They always say what goes around comes around, just hope you never falls into hard times. Guess there is some people think they are right doesn,t matter if you can charge that and sleep at night all the more power to you. I nevered charged people interest like that and never will , when I was growing up people helped someone out that is down on his luck or hit hard times. We went on a trip a few years ago to Hawaii and there is a store that back quite a few years ago when people had a really bad time and it gave credit and helped it community out and our tour guide said that when the hard times left people nevered forgot and its the only place down there that never allowed Walmart to open its store and they all shop there still. So help your fellow farmers out when they are down and don,t kick them out so someone else can take it from them. If I,m wrong I guess I shouldn,t be farming or helping others out.
Where are you going with this? What are you talking about? What does this have to do with anything? I have no clue as to how you infer that any business charging interest on an overdue account is in any way related to defending, or has anything to do with supply management and /or the free market for that matter. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
Government let the people charge crazy amount of interest and make it all legal. They use too talk about Mafia that charged interest that was completely insane and shut them down or jail, but the credit card and businesses can do the same and its perfectly legal. Yet the SM farmers can charge enough to make some money with the help of the government protection and you call it a crime . You talk like in free market you have the right to nail high interest on someone that is down on his- her luck and walk away with a smile and say its free market. Come right down to it there is no free market in this world, someone is paying dearly for everything sold or bought our there.
Any one can charge interest but if you are not a bank and do not have a signed agreement the customer does not have to pay it .
Reading these letters is just like watching the soaps on in the afternoons , don,t watch them for 5 years and see a show and find out the same people and same thing going on. I think the end will be the same , one day it will just fade into the past and no one will care.
can we call for a moratorium on
Personal attack removed. Phone number required to verify signature.
this is getting tiresome, enough already... the constant negative feedback on any issue from Thompson and his henchmen needs to be deleted before making it on this forum. As farmers we do not need this sort of negativity in our back yard, its poisonous and does nothing but bring people down and create angst amongst hard working people. Please Better Farming put an end to this negativity and curb the discussions to positive only....
Let these negative people create their own forum away from the rest of us and hopefully rot from their own poison and the rest of us can move on
Ian Velvoot
I have been saying noting the negativity on this forum for months ....no one learns anything .......most of the comments are coming from "has-been" or "wanna be " farmers ...not from the guys that actually farm and count their blessing everyday
G kimble
And...just exactly where is he wrong? Oh yes, another shoot the messenger comment. Let's all hold hands...the second class citizens (those not in SM) will have to sit in the back and wait for us to buy them all out!
The negativity was created when legislation gave some farmers an absolute advantage over others - the poison is created when people see nothing wrong with it. If people want positive, they can read the propaganda coming from the various supply management marketing boards - if they want the truth, they can turn to this site. In other words, given the structural dysfuncition which has existed in Canadian agriculture for four decades, if you want to hear only positive, then you can't handle the truth. Better Farming has created a site where the truth can be told, and where propaganda can be challenged - it is doing a good job. Dysfunction, and what is, in effect, the economic slavery of one group of farmers by another, cannot be eliminated by pretending nothing is wrong, and by trying to muzzle those who tell the truth, however unpalatable it might be.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Don't blame me, I didn't put the article there in the first place, BF did. I don't check BF's website daily for the latest weather report or commodity prices, I can get that info almost anywhere. BF is one of the the few websites that brings all the juicy dirt in the world of agriculture like the egg scandal, COOL and Chobani just to mention a couple. If you don't like what I have to say then don't read it. Protectionism, monopolies and cartels are poison and it makes me happy to point it out. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
CBC did a story on the effects of COOL and most of the people that responded supported it and wished Canada would do the same.l just don't know how many of those had a agricultural background and recognized that Cool is not really all about food labeling but merely a trade barrier,you could say its Supply management without calling it that.
We are not so innocent here in Canada. When I look at the meat counter I see meat labeled "Canadain corn fed beef" and "raised in Ontario pork". There was a study done in Europe where consumers were asked how important it was that food was produced domestically. A survey was setup outside of a grocery store. The vast majority of them said it was very important and they were willing to pay more, yet when they were watched on a hidden camera inside the store, many chose the cheaper product. I recall reading a comment thread on the National Post from someone that lived near the border in Washington State. He said it was not a matter of minutes, but seconds, in how fast Canadian shoppers could make a skid of US milk dissappear after the liftcart dropped it at the Walmart in northern Washington state. One thing I do know for sure is that the US packers want our pork and are opposed to this labelling. The way our dollar is slipping a little makes it even more attractive for them. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
l've read the story a couple of times and don't see the connection with Supply Management in any way other than how it might be for us in SM as well.
l have to hand it to the Americans,they have found a rather unique way of protecting their own industry and at the same time doing a great PR job with US consumers wanting to buy a homeland meat products,its quite sobering to see how the Americans toy with our Pork and Beef industries and at the same time knowing that without Supply Management they would do the exact same thing to our dairy and feather sectors.
We can't escape a couple of facts.
1) Some see supply management lurking in most issues here.
2) Some of these people are very angry.
3) They claim anger is justified because it's for the benefit of consumers and non supply managed farmers.
4) Those who disagree are bullied.
Does this sound like a healthy situation?
you want to see economic slavery Mr. Thompson? drop the border and have your free market as you and the other so dream about and you will see how inconsequential you and the rest of ontario farmers become. We are nothing here compared to our brother farmers in the US and the world and the greed of multi nationals just waiting to dump their unspent garbage on our plates. You fools that think you can produce and survive on the free world trade and make a living are dreamers and have no real clue to the reality of the misguided greed driven gov't policies around us and corporations that exist and control us all one way or another. Careful what you wish for.
We seem to have a realist in our midst. A gentle dose of reality is exactly what our negative duo need to absorb. If only the basic fact that greed will always destroy the best laid plan of good men. Supply managed commodities for all Canadians would be more beneficial than the eradifacation of the legislation. If we are to have generational farms in this country lead by the most influential, positive and best managed individuals, then we had best find a better solution than capitalism. A good feed of Chinese river pork should convince.
When was the last time we ran out of orange juice (or even bananas), and/or when was the last time anyone was poisoned by orange juice, or bananas, two things not even grown in Canada? Orange juice, therefore, is just another food item produced in accordance with "the greed of multi nationals just waiting to dump their unspent garbage on our plates". Furthermore, who knows under what conditions (or even where) juice oranges are grown, and who knows what additives are introduced during their processing into juice, or during the storage period thereafter? It makes no sense that farmers would trust the Canadian food inspection system, and the Beatrice company's orange juice 100% (or Dole's bananas 100%), but foam at the mouth and howl about all the evils that will befall us if Beatrice sources milk from other than supply managed cows - and that fear, given our experience even just with orange juice, and bananas, is hogwash.
Furthermore, when it comes to "garbage" on our plates, why don't dairy farmers "fess-up" to the fact that they can import BST for their own use, and that unlike US consumers, Canadian consumers could be ingesting BST and not know it?
In addition, I am shocked, and appalled, that you would so-dismissively portray Canadian hog and cattle farmers as fools, because they truly believe they can (and will) survive on free trade. Sorry, but it's postings like this which make it truly understandable how intensely-hypocritical, (and angry to the point of not being able to even think) supply management supporters really are - I mean, how can anyone actually believe all food corporations (except obviously the ones controlled by farmers) are bad, all hog and livestock farmers are fools, and that supply managed farmers don't screw consumers and other farmers? How can any sane person rail against the "misguided greed driven gov't policies" and not include supply management in that category at all, let alone at the top of the list? Methinks we are dealing not so much with economic slavery, but the self-imposed mental slavery, and inability to think rationally, which supply management supporters seem to be able to enforce on their own brains, and so-desperately want to enforce on the brains of others. Sorry, but this is 2013, and the only people who still believe this kind of protectionist drivel, are the poorly-educated, the very-afraid, and/or supply managed farmers.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Well I for one would love to eat rats and other creatures dressed up like lamb and imported to Canada from China or where ever. You never know what is being brought in here because most of the slop is never tested to see whats in it or if its safe to even eat. If you like your chicken pick off the side of the road or your pig out off the river or your beef burger made of a drugged horse bring all the food in from the other countries. I think its hard enough to keep the food produced here in Canada to be regulated and tested to make sure its safe or what its said its is. So the ones that complain about the farmers and the laws in Canada should go to a dump and get a big load of rats to eat and tell us what they taste like and how they feel. Bet you,ll get a 100% taste like chicken.
Yep that post sounds like real wisdom. Sounds like the people in every other country in the world will be dropping dead from eating food that isn't produced in Canada...and no doubt under SM. Maybe you should visit some other countries...and don't forget to take your own lunch...you don't want to get sick.
Did I say that eating rats will kill you NO. I said I don,t want to eat rats period. Nice to know there is people out there that love to put words in your mouth. You can eat nearly anything and not kill you finding out what you just ate will likely make you vomit for awhile. I visit different countries every year and ate their food, I,m saying chances are somebody will ship that crape to your country or table not their own.
What ever words you use it's still nothing but scare tactics...no doubt more to do with quota value than any food facts.
Its nothing to do with scare tactics, or quota values. It has to do with Canada using the food they grow and produce ,and if they don,t search the world and bring in the best they can find and not the garbage from some country that say its better because its cheap. Scare tactics are being used by certain people that want to destroy Canada in producing its own food. There still is farmers out there that want to farm at only doing farming and not have a off farm income to pay for their on farm growth.
perhaps if real farmers appreciated their occupation and valued it as full time ...they would be creative and make the farm profitable.
when off farm income runs the farm ...it is then just a hobby or life style
Let me see if I have this straight - in your world, real farmers don't need to acquire, or use, any sort of marketable job skills in order to compete with the incomes and purchasing power available only to supply management. It sounds to me that, in your world, real farmers are creative, in spite of the fact that they might appear to be completely un-creative, while those with two occupations, and the educational qualifications to be able to do so, are not. However, in my 40-some years of farm management experience, the farmers with two occupations are almost-always far-more creative than what you call the "real farmers" - so I disagree with you profoundly.
Secondly, it would seem to me that, given who you believe to be real farmers, real women don't work off the farm - good luck with that one!
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Lots of farm wives work full time on their family farm raising kids and working every day in the barn and in the fields and do one hell of a job, which in my opinion is part of a true Canadian family farm. I talking about family farms where the women work on it with her husband and or family. Women or men that have jobs off farm and hire other people to do farm work is classified as a factory .I like the way some people like to change the words around to make what some people say completely opposite than what they say. Also on the food subject how many times do you have a recall in the SM produce about it being unsafe to eat. Just Wondering? How many meat or vegetable recalls are there where the health of people is in real danger. If Canada can,t grow certain food why not import but make sure there is at the very least is someone there to check it out too make sure its safe and is what the label says its is. The farmers of Canada should be allowed to grow what we need and do so making a living off it.
So, in other words, in your mind, a true Canadian family farm is one where a woman who is, for example, a doctor, stays at home to work every day in the barn and raise children. Wow, this isn't the 1950s, yet you seem to have never left - either that, or in your mind, a true Canadian farm family is one where one of the spouses was born with quota under his/her pillow and, therefore, can, because of the money being sucked from poor people who have to have both spouses working to afford to buy milk and dairy products. afford the luxury of being a stay-at-home. Yessiree, Bob, a true Canadian farmily farm is, in your mind, one which appears to hide behind legislation which forces poor families to have both spouses working so that farm families don't have to. Postings like yours make the Better Farming site worthwhile because, every now and then, a posting comes along which defies all social, and economic, reality, and your postings absolutely do. The reality of a true Canadian family farm is one where both spouses work at often higly-skilled off-farm jobs to compete with the elitism of, the incomes of, and purchasing power of, supply management.
In addition, it's nonsense for anyone to believe that supply management creates safer food, especially since, for example, there's a better chance of a Canadian to un-knowingly ingest milk containing BST, than an American.
Thank you for providing an inadvertently-candid, extremely-elitist, and horribly-sexist, demonstration that we, in the farm community, especially the 50% of the farm community which is not male, definitely are second-class citizens in our own industry.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Family farm is where the whole family and no one else work there. If you have a wife or husband that is a doctor or whatever and they hire people to work on the farm is not a family farm its a company or business. We went to the states on the weekend and the milk was 4.09 $ for 3.78 litres and at home we can buy 4 litres for 3.97 $ for 4 litres. So I got your thinking cap on and we must pay more in Canada. I see farms in supply Man. that the wife or wives work off the farm and hire help and they are not considered a family farm because they have hire help to do the work on the farm.I see beef farms the same way that both work on the farm or one work off and its not just the wife.
Not sure where you shop in the US but Meijers price is always 2.50 or less for a US gal........2 doz. large eggs $2.99....SM would be fine if they just stuck too SM business' as when they make a lot of money or sell there high prices quota they compete against other farmers for land or hogs-cattle...but not a lot different than others with off farm income using there monies too farm...the real issue for most is entry for new farmers and trying too justify how a piece of paper known as quota can be bought at such a high price and be justified....either one buying quota can't add or the ones selling SM products are over paid...$3 mil. for the right too milk 100 cows? The argument of "out of country food" cannot be used by anyone that shops at any supermarket -its from pickles to sausage -shoes SM is going too have too come up with something to deal with quota values i.e. maybe have it all turned back too the board at no value when the farmer retires... I am not going to sign this as I don't want my SM neighbors to go after the little land I have left
Walmart the family store
my comments never even mentioned SM.....a mixed family farm can make a decent living employing all members of the family .......GMO crops have freed up more time for cash croppers to do what????....get a second job rather than perform timely cultivation......purchase fertilizers rather than use manures from farm livestock and poultry... i remember at ag college most of the guys were looking for a teacher or a nurse to wed so they could keep farming???
I don't recall any stories about "rats being brought in dressed up like lamb" and brought into Canada...or bringing "garbage" in and feeding it to Canadians.
Maybe you can enlighten us?
l think certain people commenting on here should stick to the topic,either you support the Ag Ministers efforts to have the US conform to the WTO ruling or you don't! ..this continued Supply Management bashing is not only off-topic but its beginning to look like a resume for a job opening at the Globe and Mail...on second thought, if Mr.Ritz is unsuccessful on closing down COOL that might not be a bad idea..especially if your in the Beef and Pork sector.
COOL would disappear in a moment if we weren't so bone-headed, so-stupid, and so-determined to poke sharp sticks in Uncle Sam's eye when it comes to supply management. In addition, bashing supply management is NEVER off-topic because non-supply managed farmers under the age of 40 keep telling me it is the biggest obstacle they face, period. In their minds, COOL is only a minor irritant when compared to the obstacles they face trying to compete with the incomes and purchasing power available only to supply management. Let's get our priorities straight here, my friend, and deal with the big problems which also happen to be the problems we've created right here at home, before we work ourselves into a lather about collateral problems like COOL.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
You and those "supposedly" under 40 farmers better get on the phone and tell the Ag Minister to not get all "lathered" up about COOL because its only a minor irritant!..and then you can tell the head of the Pork and Beef industries here in Canada that their claims of loses of over a billion dollars is all just trivial...maybe you can explain it as one big learning experience..as what happens when you put the health of your food industry in the hands of a foreign country.
Post new comment