Canada’s pullet growers denied marketing agency

© AgMedia Inc.

Comments

Several years ago, the demand for brown eggs suddenly went back up to where it had been prior to the stock-market troubles of 2008, and the domestic egg industry simply couldn't source the right kind of day-old chicks in Canada to meet this sudden change in demand.

Hatcheries had to bring in day-old chicks from the US to meet the demand, thereby making a complete mockery of the claim by pullet growers that they need supply management in order to "manage the supply of pullets in Canada".

Even worse for the credibility of pullet growers is that none of them would have had any idea which of the day-old chicks that came to their farm to be raised as pullets, were born in the US, and which were born in Canada.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I can imagine that Andy DeWeerd and his team are quite disappointed with the news. The Egg Farmers chipped in huge piles of cash to fund this application. Unless Andy and an army of paid lobbyists can change the Minister's mind, it will be money thrown away, added to the bill that egg consumers will be eventually billed through higher egg prices.

Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada raised a number of important issues, see our Blog postings:

Pullet Parasite: $11 million/yr Screwing of Canadians http://canadiansmallflockers.blogspot.ca/2013/05/pullet-parasite-11-mill...
and
Questions for FPCC and PGC http://canadiansmallflockers.blogspot.ca/2013/05/questions-for-fpcc-and-...

Small Flockers also made a submission to the government hearings, but our comments were too late to be entered on the record (at least officially).

Perhaps Andy (or his successor) will re-work their application by fixing the many fatal flaws in the Pullet's application that we and others identified, and re-submit their application.

Maybe they will give up.

From this vantage point, it appears that the tide has turned on Supply Management in Canada. It's all down hill from here.

No imperial system lasts forever; most are 200 years or less. The really bad ideas, like Supply Management, will burn our far sooner, perhaps around the 50 year point which they recently celebrated (or soon will).

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Something doesn't compute here,you used "bad idea" and "50 year point" for Supply Management in the same sentence.
Seems some people had a very good idea 50 years ago!

Supply management was a bad idea 50 years ago - even then, the economics community warned farmers, farm leaders, and politicians, that supply management would gouge consumers, reduce overall demand, and pit farmers against one another, but the economists, even though they turned out to be completely-right, and then some, were ignored.

The truly sad things are that:

(A) supply management is a vivid example of how even bad ideas can last for over four decades.
(B) supply management is a testament to close to fifty years of greed, incompetence, and wilful-blindness, on the part of the Canadian farm community.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I would advise that if you are going to put out facts or points that you get them accurate . Nothing speaks does not know what he is talking about more than stating a point in time and then covering your butt with an "or soon will" statement

I want to be sure I have accurate facts. I appreciate you taking the time and effort to correct or clarify dubious facts. You state there are errors. Exactly where? Please be specific.

Complex systems are affected by many factors. Neither I, nor anybody else I know can predict the future. If a system is complex, non-responsive to its stakeholders, and contrary to the best interest of its stakeholders, then I define that as a "bad idea".

Back in 1965 when Chicken Farmers of Ontario was formed, farmers were trapped and abused by the powerful upstream feed producers, and the downstream processors and distributors. The consumers were being abused by the system too. In Dec. 1971, a badly flawed Bill C-176 was again before Parliament, was passed and created Supply Management in Canada, so as to help the farmers.

Today, how much control, pressure, and influence do the feed mills, AOCP, and the downstream chicken distributors have on the farmers and the overall system?

To me, it seems that these large corporations have as much or more control and power as back in 1965. Did Supply Management fix anything?

It appears that it increased the powers of the chicken farmers, and they have slowly joined forces with the upstream feed dealers, and the downstream processors and distributors, and started changing the system to the advantage of their special interests; growing in wealth, power, and prestige. Statistics Canada reports in 2010 that chicken and egg farmers are the best paid farmers in Canada, with a median income of $90,250 per year, 21% higher than the median income of all farmers. Do chicken & egg farmers work 21% harder than grain farmers?

The lowly consumer pays for all the benefits and excesses that everybody else takes for themselves. If Supply Management was installed back in 1971 to help the farmers, when will this legislation be fixed so as to help the chicken consumers?

That date is unknown to me. Governments work in mysterious ways. If you have a crystal ball and want to take a guess, please do so.

All I am able to say is that the longer the abuse and oppression of consumers and small flockers continues, the higher the probability that change will eventually occur. I believe that time will soon be here.

I have filed an Appeal with the Ministry of Agriculture Appeals Tribunal to expose all the issues I have researched in the last 3 years, and the relief I seek for consumers and small flockers. CFO has filed a Motion to Dismiss my appeal, wanting to continue the secrecy and continue the abuse and oppression. CFO's Motion to Dismiss will be heard at the Appeals Tribunal in Guelph on May 14th at 9:30 AM.

Perhaps the end of this bad system and its abuse and oppression will end sooner than anybody thought possible.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Ontario has an active and large vibrant small flock sector

Between broilers and layers, Ontario has more than 5,000 small flock producers - that's a lot of potential members - how many do you have as members, Glenn?

Mr. Chris Horbasz, Director of Policy and External Relations for Chicken Farmers of Ontario says in his sworn affidavit that there were 15,129 small flock farmers in Ontario according to CFO's records (ie. filled in a Form 300 during that year). There may be many more, as not everybody buys new birds or chicks, and some don't buy every year.

Our paid membership in Ontario is a small fraction of this 15,129 potential, but is steadily growing.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Ok, I stand corrected. so that would mean about 30,000 small flocks across Canada
What is a "small fraction" of that total?
A quarter, an eighth, a tenth?
How many? It will be easier to understand your support with a real number please.
1000? 5000?
The name is SFPF of Canada - so give the national numbers too please. How many can you speak for?

So what is your membership now?

we are all anxious to hear the outcome as Mr Black takes on the Chicken Farmers of Ontario

How many of Ontario's more than 5,000 small flock producers do you have as members?

That should mean about 10,000 small flocks across Canada - what percentage of those do you claim to speak for?

Did truth & justice prevail over power & privilege?

CFO (Chicken Farmers of Ontario) filed a Motion To Dismiss to stop our appeal before it got started. |The Motion to Dismiss was held in Guelph ON on Wed May 14th. I presented numerous arguments and many examples of case law to support our position. Now it is in the hands of the Tribunal. We should be getting their answer in 30 days or sooner. For more info, see http://agri007.blogspot.ca/2014/05/black-challenges-tribunal-to-be-brave... and http://canadiansmallflockers.blogspot.com/2014/05/tribunal-hearing-cfos-...

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Good to hear you got your day .
You still have not answered the question as to how many members you have ?
Also how many members did you have at the hearing ?

It's hard to imagine government supporting a new supply management group. The challenge is to hang on to the existing ones. We are the only country in the world that is still trying to protect them, as far as I am aware. The notion of adding to the list is a bit of a fantasy.

The only fantasy is not believing other larger Countries don't have different forms of protectionism that are very much equal to Supply management or better.

Even with our Supply Management, Canada imports 3-4% more dairy produce than the US.

Canada imports a certain amount of milk that was negotiated under NAFTA. There is absolutley no reason for any US processor to want to import milk from anywhere else, especially Canada. Raube Beuerman

I did not say only milk or mention NAFTA.

The US doesn't have Supply Management but imports only 2.5% of their total Dairy produce.Canada with SM, imports roughly 6%, you have to wonder which Country has the better SM.

You don't seem to understand. There is no reason for the USA to import dairy, the price is fair to begin with, which is why such a small percentage is imported. NAFTA has to be mentioned here, since the ONLY reason Canada imports any dairy is because they were forced to when negotiating NAFTA. Raube Beuerman

There was very little material change with CUSTA or NAFTA for dairy. Mainly because the US wanted to keep to the status quo on their protection. The 17% tariff on frozen pizza came off with CUSTA over a 10-year period. NAFTA did make it difficult to cover designer blends and new products that did not have tariff lines. Most of the existing dairy imports into Canada are WTO obligations. The U.S. maintained its dairy import tariffs that still range in the 40 to 90 % range. Nobody likes to talk about these US tariffs and a multitude of other barriers gives the US the most tightly closed market to dairy imports in the world. SM haters will point out Canada's tariffs are about double but fail to acknowledge that tariffs were calculated with a common formula based proportionately on the amount of subsidies available in other countries. Canada got higher tariffs because of high EU and US subsidy levels.

and the 2 of you are still missing the point. Going back to the original comment I replied to, if there was not an allowable amount of milk, or chicken for that matter, permitted to come into Canada tariff free, then none would come in at all. Therefore, when the original anonymous commenter claimed that Canada imports more dairy produce than the USA, he/she was not explaining the whole picture. Raube Beuerman

Not explaining the whole picture is exactly what supply management is all about. For example, a favourite ploy of supply management supporters is to boast about the jobs supply management creates in our dairy and poultry industries.

The whole story would, of course, be that the jobs created by supply management's protectionist tariffs are, by definition, net-negative - meaning that there would be more jobs, and more economic activity without these tariffs, than with them.

While supply management supporters aren't outright liars, their highly-selective, and highly-partisan, arguments are nothing but the most-misleading kinds of half-truths.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

The point being made was that the amount of dairy imports into BOTH Canada and the U.S. is established by access levels mandated by WTO agreements.

This was to counter your statement that... ”There is no reason for the USA to import dairy, the price is fair to begin with, which is why such a small percentage is imported.”

Nonsense. It is not “fair” prices, it is pure import protection through tariffs and other methods by the US - just like Canada.

All developed countries manage their dairy industries. Around the world, 93 per cent of milk production is consumed in the same country where it is produced. Through different methods, all countries have “supply management” for milk.

That "93% of milk production is consumed in the same country where it is produced" has everything to do with transportation costs, and very little to do with anything else, unless you're a jerkwater country like Canada with 200% tariff barriers to keep milk imports at, or near, zero.

For example, who would the US import milk from? - certainly not Canada with our horrifying price regimes. Therefore it is hogwash, and nonsense, to maintain that the US has any sort of effective supply management for milk other than the market itself.

Furthermore, the statement - "there is no reason for the US to import dairy, the price is fair to begin with, which is why such a small percentage is imported" still makes economic sense, especially when compared to Canada where, thanks to the price gouging by supply management, consumers have every reason to want to import dairy products from the US.

In short, your posting was a good example of the sort of half-truths and smoke-screens supply management supporters continually trot out in an increasingly-futile attempt to save the supply management dinosaur.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Appearently our 200% Tariffs are not enough to keep some Dairy imports out as it has been estabilshed we here in Canada import almost 3-4% more than the US.

So you must of mistaken the US as the one with near or zero dairy imports,in that you would be correct.

It’s not “who would the U.S. import milk from?” - it is, who else would export dairy products to the U.S.!!!

Answer – every single developed country in the world if the US did not have its current dairy tariffs and other border protection.

Most countries overproduce milk by at least 5% to safeguard their supply situation and that product always has to be dumped somewhere – it is a worldwide constant problem.

A 200% tariff on milk into Canada and a 90 % tariff on milk into the U.S. have exactly the same effect – there will be NO imports into either country except for tariff-free import access guaranteed by the WTO. Almost every industrialized country does this under WTO rules.

Under this required WTO tariff-free access, the US imports about 3% of its milk market needs and Canada imports about 6%. Both countries have no choice.

In fact, in terms of what an economist would calculate as “effective tariff protection” levels – U.S. dairy tariffs actually provide higher levels of import protection and that is why imports into the U.S. are about half of Canada’s.

If it was based on price levels alone, as wrongly suggested above, then dairy imports into the U.S. for butter and cheese would be much higher than Canada’s imports.

It is also simply wrong to say effective supply management for U.S. milk production comes from the market itself when everyone should know there are huge US government purchases of surplus milk products by the federal Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) and subsequent exports under the taxpayer-subsidized Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP). They clear the market – there is no true US market for dairy products under these conditions.

If you like market theory, you can’t like the US dairy market.

I actually don’t care much about supply management but I do understand trade and prefer readers hear a balanced discussion instead of an ideologically-driven campaign apparently created by personal bitterness. But I do know that getting rid of Canada’s approach to milk supply management ignoring the trade reality in the rest of the world would be ludicrous.

Abandoning current dairy policy would leave Canada fighting with a butter knife in a world dairy situation where the rest of the world still has the equivalent of nuclear subsidy weapons.

The economic theory of trade is simple but the economic reality of trade is very complex.

Let’s not be simple.

Getting rid of supply management would not be ludicrous to either those consumers who go to the US to buy dairy and poultry products, or to those non-supply managed farmers who are on the receiving end of the financial bullying dished out by supply managed farmers.

It would appear that whatever qualifications, if any, the above anonymous poster may have when it comes to trade, the reality of being either a poor Canadian consumer, or a neigbour of a supply managed farmer, seems to elude him/her - therefore, by trying to not be simple about trade, he/she is being just-plain dumb about on-the-ground reality.

It's bad enough being anonymous, it's just as bad to be dumb, it's far-worse to be both.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Nice familiar rant but not a response as such.

We always come back with the personal attacks. Bullying tactics are another type of signature and they tell us far more than a person's name or qualifications.

How would you respond to the original point that "there is no true US market for dairy products under these conditions. If you like market theory, you can’t like the US dairy market."

From a purely economic point of view, it is indisputable, is it not?

We should not ignore facts simply with the excuse that a post is unsigned any more than we should accept or respect bitter rants just because they are signed.

Some signatures probably reduce the respect for certain posts.

Let's start respecting BF's site motto - Ontario's Online Community of Professional Farmers.

We should always ignore anonymous, obtuse, irrelevant, pedantic, and dumb, postings - In addition, it is never a "bitter rant" to point that Canadian consumers are being gouged by dairy and poultry farmers, and that Canadian dairy and poultry farmers are financial bullies in the farm community.

The comment that there is no true US market for dairy products, is a gateway to any number of half-truths, and just stupid irrelevancies. The point of the matter is that Canadian consumers get screwed in Canada, and go to the US to buy dairy and poultry products.

Furthermore, using a half-baked claim about the US marketing system which is taxpayer funded, in order to make a left-handed justification for keeping a system in Canada which is 100 times worse, if for no other reason than because it is based on regressive taxation principles, is obtuse, irrelevant, pedantic, and dumb.

Or, to stoop to the colouring book and crayons logic of people who support Canada's dairy policy, when compared to Canada, the US has a true market for dairy products - and that's all that matters.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Editor: Comment will be published if resubmitted and signed.

It might be a true market without the government guaranteed surplus purchase programs (CCC) and the Dairy Export Incentive Program dumping 10 to 15% of production, and without the U.S federal milk marketing order system and the vast web of state programs, restrictions and controls.

Yep, a true market.

Yikes, did a dairy or poultry farmer belittle you enough that everything has to be a reason to attack instead of respond maturely to reasonable arguments?

You don't really need to sign your stuff - the anger alone is enough.

Given that there is, by the first principles of economics, no reasonable argument to support supply management, your point is moot, and meaningless.

Yet, every day, anonymous posters on this site fall all over themselves to promote the sort of gibberish and nonsense which would guarantee them an automatic failure in any economics course taught in the past 50 years.

Of course I'm angry, but the most of my anger is directed at those who defend the ability of a few farmers to bully everyone else, especially younger non-supply managed farmers who, thanks to supply management, will spend their entire working lives as second-class citizens in their own community. The rest of my anger is directed to those who see nothing wrong with this imbalance.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Just because you dismiss or disagree with arguments does not make your opinions facts.

There are many reasonable arguments to operate supply management for short shelf life food staples. That is why almost every developed country manages milk markets. They are inherently unstable and cyclical without management.

You have strongly embedded ideological beliefs that have lead to such strong selection bias in your thinking. You accept only information that supports your existing views. You also think your economic views are economics laws. This shows when you have compared economics to physics as if both are sciences governed by immutable laws. This is incorrect. Economics is not a science.

Economists generally choose a belief system related to their own views and this is often shaped by their instructors.  Some are evangelists for their views. Perhaps Guelph taught you narrow views or they developed on their own. I do know Dr. Brinkman at Guelph provided broader insights to his students.

There are five major schools of thought in macroeconomics: Neoclassical, Keynesian, Austrian, Marxist, and Open Economy Macroeconomics.

Each school of thought differs by the set of economic phenomena they wish to explain, the economic methodology used, and the assumptions used in to explain those economic phenomena.

Each of these system explains things is a way that makes sense of the world for those who believe but they are really only models that cannot fit or explain all the markets and complexities of the real - and very messy and distorted markets- of the real world.

If you view these issues as black and white, you are ignoring the reality of the world around us. That is your choice. Others are free to make other choices.

You also fixate excessively on anonymous posting. You should be aware that many banks, universities and businesses have specific limitations on signed participation in social media in general. This forum is also viewed as particularly problematic because it can can be so extreme and unprofessional at times.

You might be speaking for a lot of the silent readers out here.
Look at the narrow views and personal agendas of the two or three regular signed posters.
Do those signatures add credibility??

and write ANONYMOUS on your forehead. Leave it there for days while walking around in public. When anyone asks you why you have that written on your forehead, you can gleefully explain to them that you are an immature narcissist.

Then come back and explain to me if remaining forever anonymous gives you any credibility.

Raube Beuerman

Most readers here judge the credibility of a post by its contents.
Signatures obviously don't create quality or credibility.
I have judged yours, I will let others make up their own minds.

In your lengthy rebuttal you forgot to mention the biggest single factor (at least in many cases) that affects the way you view the economics of SM...that being self interest...and quota value or maybe working for DFO will certainly shape the way you view the word.
Much the same way as living and working as a second class citizen in your own country, or being shut out of an industry because of SM bureaucracy.
Either one would have more to do with your views than Neoclassical or Keynesian or even Marxist...but hey...thanks for the lecture!

That tariff-based systems, such as supply management, are net-negative for jobs and economic activity, is simply not open to debate, or even discussion.

For anyone to maintain otherwise, is just-plain wrong - we've had over 150 years of real-world economic history clearly demonstrating the regressiveness of tariff-based systems, yet, alas, when it comes to understanding basic economic principles, farmers, especially the anonymous ones, tend to be the dumbest, and most-obtuse, people in the room.

And while your understanding of economic history is quaint, it is irrelevant - one can be either an economist, or a supply management supporter, but not both.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

You are qualified to say that you can be either a Guelph
Ag Ec grad from the 70s in the income tax preparation business in Clinton, or a supply management supporter, but not both. Recognize your limitations.

Again, dismissing or disagreeing with arguments does not make your opinions facts, no matter how often you repeat them.

Most economists know that basic economic principles apply well in teaching economic models where all other things can be held equal, but in real world use, these basic principles can easily break down or become overwhelmed by other economic factors. Canada does not have tariffs in a vacuum. Remember, this is not physics and economics is not a science.

In terms of attacking people, you may want to broaden your scope beyond farmers - posters can be farmers, neighbours, friends, colleagues, bankers, economists, priests, heck... they could be anyone - so perhaps you should consider insulting on a broader basis.

When it comes to being obtuse about basic economic principles, the out-pourings from the anonymous rabble on this site demonstrate, in spades, that farmers tend to be both willingly-dumb, and deliberately-obtuse about protectionism - get over it, it's not just undeniable, this kind of uneducated, and uninformed, protectionist mindset is also one of the biggest problems facing agriculture in this country today.

No other industry but agriculture supports protectionism, let alone to the extent farmers do, and it's embarrassing to continually see the half-truths and out-right lies being posted on this site in an attempt to justify the continued existence of 200% tariff barriers which do nothing but screw consumers and farmers who don't have the benefit of similar tariffs.

Furthermore, the argument that because economics is not an "exact science", nothing about economics can ever be true, or false, is not just patronizing and dismissive, it is pure crap - there are some things in economics which, except to the anonymous rabble on this site, aren't open to debate or discussion, and to claim they are, is nonsense, and the equivalent of arguing that the world is flat.

Finally, if it doesn't happen in the real world, it will never be good economics. And while the anonymous rabble heaps abuse on economic models for not representing the real world, the economic Luddites on this site don't understand that we've had over 150 years of real-world models, right back to, and including, the reasons behind the repeal of the protectionist Corn Laws in 1840s England, demonstrating exactly why protectionism is net-negative.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

There appears to be a new economist in town, thank goodness.

I am not a fan of huge subsidies, but the poultry and dairy industry in Canada should become the same as the rest of the world operates their agriculture sectors. If any type of subsidy is to exist, it should only come from taxpayers, not consumers- as it is in Canada's supply management system.

One other important factor not to be ignored is the dollar difference. The Euro is currently at $1.49 If European farmers can sell cheese here and turn a profit, it makes a complete mockery of our system, and shows just how much Canadians are getting gouged. Raube Beuerman

No,what you are really saying is Dairy and Poultry should be like the Beef and Pork sectors are in this country and rise and fall at the whims of our big neighbour to the south.
I always thought taxpayers and consumers were one in the same,what difference is it if you pay it at the grocery store or on your tax return? If ever we were to try and compete with the US on the same footing in Dairy and Poultry our Subsidies would have to somehow match theirs or we would risk being another Country like Mexico.
The only fools in all this is our Federal Government who decided to trade something for nothing! The UE looks for Countries to dump their Subsidized dairy products such as cheese on, while we here in Canada watch our processing plants go bankrupt...good trade!

If our dairy and poultry operated in the same form as the EU, given the dollar exchange, which country do you think would bear the brunt of the cost? If Mario Draghi and/or Janet Yelin choose to increase QE and further indebt their countries, pushing them to the brink, who are we to stop them? All countries will attempt to put up trade barriers, even Canada is guilty. Prime minister Stephen Harper has been actively pursuing trade relationships around the globe, so we are not so dependant on the USA, yet everytime he does, he is accused of "selling us out".
Why should you benefit from globalization, yet expect no one else that is forced to buy dairy and poultry in Canada, to benefit as well??? Raube Beuerman

There is a huge difference betwen consumers and taxpayers -many consumers don't pay tax, and many taxpayers, especially corporations, aren't consumers. This is one of the most-basic principles of economics, and therefore taxpayer funded systems, also known as progressive tax systems, are the basis upon which we fund many programs, such as health care.

Supply management, on the other hand, is based on what is known as a regressive tax system whereby poor consumers pay disproportionately more as a percentage of their income to buy something, rich people pay less, and corporations pay nothing.

In addition, it makes no sense to fearmonger about being at the whim of the US, when the real problem is that Canadian consumers and non-supply managed farmers have been at the whim of supply management for four decades - the real problems, and the real bullies, are here, at home, and always have been.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Consumers don't pay tax ? next you'll be saying consumers don't drive cars or go to casino's because they are too poor! The fact is we all pay taxes,there is a reason why tax-freedom day is almost the middle of June!

The thing is both Country's believe in Supply Management,the US with their high Subsidies and billion dollar food stamp program and Canada,who lets the cost of production decide the fair price.Whether the price of dairy is too high is only a matter of conjecture and which country you choose to do comparisons with.

I noticed you didn't mention my Mexico reference,its amazing reading how the highly subsidized US have devastated the Mexican agriculture sectors,its no wonder the poor rural population try crossing the border en masse,also why Canada has so many foreign workers.

Lots of consumers pay no income tax - believe me, I'm in the income tax preparation business.

In addition, cost of production price formulae have nothing to do with a "fair" price except in the deluded, and demented, minds of those on the receiving end of the price gouging they inflict on others.

There is nothing fair about having a retail price which, even according to DFO's own figures released in late 2010, is almost 38% more than the US retail price, yet supply management supporters seem to be able to turn a blind eye to everything except the fleeting scraps of data which seem to support their delusions about the so-called benefits of protectionism.

It is simply amazing how easily, and how quickly, supply management supporters jump to the conclusion that since "everyone else does it too", we, in Canada, are justifiied in keeping a system which is, by design, 100 times worse than anybody elses, if for no other reason than the way it simultaneously screws consumers and non-supply managed farmers alike.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

You obviously re-thought it and added the "income" tax,just a slight oversight yet a mistake a good accountant wouldn't make.

You must be living in a fog as you have yet to admit and realize that 38% is small potatoes compared to what we pay for many other things like equipment parts . Jeez guy give your head a shake and get the old cob webs out !

IF two retail stores were located in the same block, and one charged me 38% more for the same goods, how often would I shop at the more expensive store?

What could that retailer say to me to justify charging me 38% more for the same goods?

Everybody belly aches about gasoline price differences between Canada and USA. Canada has much higher taxes added to gasoline than the US. When you back out the higher Canadian taxes, there is approximately 2 cents per gallon difference between the US and the Canadian price. Since Ontario and Canada are both net importers of gasoline, the 2 cents per gallon price difference pays for the shipping costs and import paperwork. In other words, the price difference for gasoline between US and Canada is fully explained.

Gasoline distribution and retail sales is highly competitive, unlike the dairy monopoly in Canada.

I would love for DFO to produce a similar price justification for the dairy price differences (ie. fluid milk, cheese, butter, etc. ) between Ontario and Michigan, neighbours with similar weather, soils, etc.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Has it ever been explained how gas goes up 3-5 cents just before a long weekend ?
Your idea of gasoline prices being highly competitive is very suspect, when l lived in Waterloo there were a number of intersections with 3 or 4 different gas stations on each corner, I passed by them all regularly and never found them to be more than a fraction of a cent in difference.They went up together and down together.

Nobody gives a rat's patooie about the retail pricing policies of gas stations on opposing corners of the street - the real issue, and the real problem, is that dairy farmers can, and do, act in the collusive manner you improperly ascribe to gas stations, to force prices at all milk outlets to be up to 38% more than they would be if the law didn't allow dairy farmers to do what gas companies can't do.

In addition, nobody cares if gas stations screw travellers on long weekends - the real problem is that supply management screws everybody, all of the time.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

It could be paranoia.

Screwing gas consumers is OK? That's defensible?

Really? We are all gas consumers, not just some "travellers on long weekends".

You think the oligopoly of oil retailers don't manipulate prices. Right...

You don't think most of the conflicts in the Middle East are sponsored over oil interests?

These are real world problems costing billions of dollars and millions of lives.

You are strangely selective about your simple view of market theories and who should observe your rules.

You ignore US dairy import tariffs that are effectively equal to Canada's because that would destroy your argument.

You select out all facts that don't fit your tiny world view.

You are totally fixated on supply management, to a point that is quite sad.

What is really sad is that inside your head, supply management is "the real problem".

Very sad.

Though you may be in the income tax filing preparation business that does not mean that you understand how consumers/people pay taxes . I beg any one in the province to prove that they don't pay any "tax" on any thing they buy . Just because you might not pay any taxes to Revenue Canada on the filing of your income tax does not a I don't pay taxes make ! Get with the program .

You are still confusing consumption taxes with income tax, and are looking for an easy out for your own self gratification, since you are anonymous-but you're not going to get it. Income taxes are paid as a percentage of money earned, the more you make, the more you pay. In large part, wealth distribution, the rich help the poor-the opposite supply management. Whenever the term 'taxpayer' is used, it refers to income tax only, not consumption taxes. Less than 50% percent of Canadians are taxpayers, and the top 10 % of earners pay over half the taxes. Look it up online, its all there.

A consumption tax is still a tax, yet all consumption tax revenue is created by business. For example, you buy new tires for your car and pay tax on them. The tire manufacturer provided a product for the government to collect tax on to then provide a service for the improvement of society, like road infrastructure.

This is why farmers look like complete imbeciles when they wave the corporations are evil flag. Healthy corporations are the backbone to a strong economy.

Raube Beuerman

A consumption tax is a tax on spending on goods and services.

So all consumption raises these taxes. When you buy a car, you as the consumer pay the HST on the full price.

When you get a haircut, you pay the tax.

For a business, it essentially operates as a value-added tax, on the mark up or added value.

But clearly, consumption taxes do not all come from business.

Businesses get their revenue from consumers, there is only one taxpayer.

So a consumption tax would be a tax paid by the consumer . Hence a consumer tax . So consumers do pay taves even if they don't pay income tax .

For about the one hundredth time on this website, consumers and taxpayers are not the same person.

Income tax and sales tax may end up in the same cofers, but are collected differently.

Not only do taxes ultimately come from business and/or corporations, those business', which are not consumers, also pay taxes on their profits.

Less than 50% of Canadians are taxpayers at the income tax level.

Raube Beuerman

Nothing in your post supports your notion that all taxes come from business.

Did you by any chance take the same Ag Ec classes as the tax prep guy from Clinton?

You both should take a couple of logic courses.

Corporations pay taxes on their profits.

Corporations employ the public who then pay tax on income earned.

Corporations create a product/service, that is then taxed.

Please, give me an example of a tax that is not created by business.

You cannot, it must be a bitter pill for you to swallow.

Burn whatever it is that you have been reading.

signed, Raube Beuerman

Some people just like to write about one thing all the time like a broken record and do not want to come up with something new that will help out every one in Canada. Looking at the subjects on here just keep on getting boring without something new, does anyone out there in farmland have any good ideas to help out young and other farmers what they can get into to make money that people need or want to buy.
Maybe some food that has to be imported from far away from Canada that cost more to ship in that it is to grow.
Maybe some equipment that helps out some farmers to do their harvest so they do not have to hire off shore workers to do the work or not have to quit growing it because of the cost of labour.
I read where the beef farmers are going and the lands is being plowed up, people are tired of low prices for so long and when they went way up said its time to sell would not blame them.
They had to give their beef away so they would not screw the consumers and the price they got was pennies in the barrel but the processors and stores made their profits and not take a lost.
38% wow take off your glasses and see how many working Canadians took a lost at their job or the ones in the Sunshine Club and say they are not protected from everything else by the government.

It is the EU governments through the subsidies of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) that are dumping cheese in Canada.

One of the key features of cap is "reasonable prices for consumers". The CAP system operates very much like the rest of the agriculture sector here, and much like all of the US.
If poultry and dairy here operated in the same fashion, and each country had similar tariffs, we would still have the edge given the strong EURO. Even if they attempted to subsidize more to compete with us, they would have to tax more, or else become more burden with debt, which would scare away investment.
Besides, its one thing to complain about other countries subsidies, but here in Canada, within the SM system, we are subsidizing other provinces. For example, since Quebec has almost 50% of the dairy quota, yet is not even close to half of the population of Canada, everytime someone in Alberta or BC purchases dairy, they are subsidizing Quebec.
Raube Beuerman

Quebec has 38% of milk quota and Ontario has 34%
Quebec has 20% of egg quota and Ontario has 40%

50% was the industrial market share - 30 years ago - before fluid and all markets were integrated. People can't forget the old number but they forget the context.

Sure CAP and US farm bill are both great - billions of farm subsidies, surplus production to dump and lower food prices, well, not lower in the EU.

How do you know what the "fair price" of dairy is when its propped up by Billions in US Government subsities ?

Canada's Supply Management may have its faults but the Government does not spend billions of taxpayers money just so its dairy farmers can export excess milk on the world market like the US does,almost 15% of the US total now goes to exports.
There is nothing wrong with Dairy farmers getting paid for what it costs to produce and I find it a little ironic that finally some of the Beef and Pork people are seeing the same thing..unfortunately it took disease and suffering to get there.

There is everythng wrong with dairy farmers getting paid for what it costs to produce if it means they can be financial bullies in the grocery store and in the farm community - and they are definitely financial bullies in both places.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

As detailed in one of the posts below, NAFTA plays only a small role in this situation.
New Zealand has 3,200 tonnes of butter access and the EU has 29,000 tonnes of cheese access into Canada. That's the lion's share of our imports. The situation in the US is that the government purchases and export programs 10 to 15% of production that is their surplus supply to manage that supply. Absolutely just a different approach to supply management.

Rather than "sliver-down" Mr. Beuerman's most-recent posting, it would appear to be high time to take issue with what Nixon-era US Vice President, Spiro Agnew, referred to as the "nattering nabobs of negativity".

On this site, those would be the members of the anonymous rabble of "so-there" posters who seem to delight, not in being smart or astute, but pedantic and petty, particularly when it comes to their disdain for anything to do with basic economic principles, and the people who understand these principles.

Economics, like any discipline, has basic truths - yet people, and particularly the anonymous rabble on this site, seem to want to believe that if something can't be true 100% true all of the time, it can be false all of the time, and that's nonsense.

Canada's pullet growers recently had a taste of reality when they couldn't get supply management for their sector, yet farmers on this site don't seem to get the point that whether it's this story, or the story about Mr. Black and his organization pounding on the ramparts of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario, or even Mr. McGivern's organization which is dedicated to doing something about supply management, or even whether it's the story abou the Dairy Farmers of Ontario finally admitting, in late 2010, that Ontario consumers were paying almost 38% more for milk than US consumers, the story is the same everywhere - supply management, and the protectionist mantra which supports it, is on the decline everywhere but among those farmers who will lose the most by its end.

Is it smart to know you have a losing hand, and still bet more? - Canada's dairy and poultry farmers seem to think so, and if they want to bet everything on the hope that consumers and non-supply managed farmers under the age of 40, won't revolt against the oppression of supply management, they'll get little, if any sympathy, when it does happen.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Raube might be correct; maybe there aren’t any examples of taxes not created by businesses.

No, wait, there are lots of examples.

Maybe I can jump in and help with a couple of quick ones.
1. You buy my cottage producing a capital gain that is taxed.
2. I lend you money, you pay me interest, that income is taxed.

You and I are not corporations and yet tax is generated.

If we were corporations, it would make no difference.

Corporations are just “legal people” and not a magic special group. They are taxed on the value they add. So are individuals.

If I buy a chicken for two dollars and sell it to you for four dollars, I pay tax on the profit of two dollars. Only you and I were involved and tax was created without any business.

Businesses pay tax on their profits of course but it most respects they are simply tax collectors – the buyer is paying the tax.

How did you pay for that cottage, or the next person that bought it? You worked for a business or corporation. As far as capital gains are concerned, business and corporations created an inflationary economic environment to enhance the value, which was then taxed. "I lend you money, you pay me interest, that income is taxed". If you are lending money in a legal manner, then your business of lending money has created a source of tax revenue.

If you bought a chicken for 2 dollars and sold it to me for 4, then you are in the business of selling chicken, so your 'business' has created tax revenue.

If you cannot come back with a legitimate answer then concede the point now.
Raube Beuerman

That is quite a Möbius strip of circular reasoning, does your head hurt when you think like that?

A word of advice for the above poster trying to use logic with Raube.

Stop.

Accept that some things cannot be changed.

Yes, we can see the obvious argument.

In the words of the immortal Mr. Han. “When fighting angry, blind men, best to just stay out of the way.”

People should keep this in mind with several regular posters.

I could name names, but I will let them remain anonymous.

When I challenged the anonymous to provide proof that taxes come from business' and corporations they could not. Instead they replied with childish replies of flip-offs and simple diversion tactics all too common from their crowd. I accept their surrender.
As another example of how business' and corporations provide taxes, one has to look no further than close by Detroit. Once a great city built upon investment by great business, the taxes flowed in in great amounts, only to see the tax base dwindle away as unions(the equivalent of SM where as one group is propped up at the expense of others) left corporations no choice but to leave.
Now, I do not know exact tax laws in Detroit, but how much capital gains tax would be collected on a house there that was purchased many years ago?
Raube Beuerman

That is a much more simple explanation than a couple of books by well-known auto industry insiders that somehow blamed Detroit's problems on bad management, poor engineering, inept product planning and terrible quality control.

Thanks for sharing your deep and invaluable insight.

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.