The deal is done

© AgMedia Inc.

Comments

Who gits the import quota I think Canadian customers should who agree with me

The consumers of Canada have been allowed to be ripped off again by supply managed farmer ,it is a crime that consumers have to pay twice the price and still pay millionaires for quota losses! When is this Government going to get it, the Canadian Consumer has been held up for over 50 years by this group of millionaire farmers! They do not care rather people go without food as long as the rich will support them, in 50 years the domestic share has not kept up with population growth! Thank god we have imports that fill the CANADIAN MARKETS or else more people would not be able to buy chicken, turkey and dairy products ! This is another chapter and nail in the supply management coffin, when you read the fine print in access commitments their is much more growth than they admit! This deal will still have opportunities over time to drive down the prices for Canadian Consumers , their will be more pressure put on the Domestic Industry then you have been told! To many other trade deals being implemented ,that have already been signed that are in effect! Just trust a Politian to tell you the truth, who is running to get re-elected! Great trade deal for Supply Management Farmers! Bill Denby importer / exporter

Supply Management was a form of protectionism. The farmer had a license and he could protect his earnings. He was paid for his work and product.

Minimum wage is the largest form of protectionism in this country.

The TPP has not been seen and will not be seen for years. The TPP is about getting rid of barriers and the minimum wage is a barrier to manufacturers. Harper didnt say anything about he clause that protects international corporations and even allows them to 'sue' governments for compensation or losses of 'expected future profits'.

Before you pop that drink, you should actually read the agreement!

Good. Minimum wages should be abolished. There are a lot of people out there who don't have $11.25/hour worth of skills

There was a significant promise by Harper in the 2006 campaign. His plan was to stop the erosion of "seniors retirement savings and preserve income trusts by not imposing any new taxes on them". Page 32 Conservative Platform. People trusted him and counted on his word and many seniors continued to invest in income trusts

On Halloween, Harper broke his promise, even shockinf Bay Street. $35B was lost and never recovered. Mostly seniors were affected. It was just one of many broken promises.

If any one thinks a promise to cap the effects of the new trade deal, and a promise to compensate for losses, then the lessons of the Income Trusts have been completely forgotten.

The lessons of Income Trusts will remain, for an entire generation of people in the securities industry, a stark example about how government will support you right up to the moment they don't.

To say Bay Street was shocked by the abrupt ending of Income Trusts is an understatement - the entire securities industry was horrified because, in the securities industry, the concept of trust is utmost and government broke that trust.

It's a lesson Ontario grains farmers are now painfully learning - it's obvious that nobody at any level of the Grain Farmers of Ontario knows anyone who lost money in Income Trusts or knows anyone in the securities industry at that time.

It's also a lesson dairy and poultry farmers will still eventually have to learn, and since the amount of money lost because of government's abrupt scuttling of Income Trusts is about the same as the aggregate value of quota, they've done it before and they can easily do it again.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

milk quota should be gone

Supply management in its entirety is what has made our dairy uncompetitive.
Take away the cost of quota, and the high land prices that are the result of SM, and I believe we can compete globally.
Only a fool would have believed the financial pundits back 5 years ago when they claimed the US dollar would no longer be the dominant currency.
Of course the dollar can vary from unforseen circumstances, but a dollar ranging from 75-85 cents is the norm.
Something is badly wrong if our dairy can't compete globally with a 25% head start right out of the gate.

Raube Beuerman

This 4 billion achieves 2 things.

1) The silencing of anonymous posters that SM was/is not a subsidy.

2) The silencing of anonymous posters that SM farmers have never received taxpayer money.

3) The silencing of anonymous posters that SM farmers have never been bailed out.

Raube Beuerman

I CANT BELEIVE The Tax payer has to bail out these rich SM farmers but no RMP this government is has no idea that should help your vote.

The tax payer is not bailing out the SM farmer. The money is set to bail out the banks and FCC. Notice how quiet they are?

The easy loans FCC made to SM farmers drove up the price of land. TPP will 'reset' land values.

So the banks loaned quota money to SM against the farmers' will? It's absolutely a bailout of farmers.

No, the banks did not loan money against farmer's wishes. FCC loaned money to everyone and their dog. Land prices escalated because of easy money. Quota was used as collateral. Over $50B in farm loans.

Quota will be worth $0 in 15 years.

That sound you just heard? Land prices falling.

Translation: Financial institutions are looking at protect their interests. Government is protecting financial institutions by keeping farmers "whole" for 10 years.

Lets see know.
1. We are going to have to ramp up production of Pork, Beef, Pulses, Soybeans, Grains, plus SM farms will have to get bigger to survive.
2. This all translates into much larger corporate style family, as well as, corporate farms.
3. Walmart Agriculture good or bad here we come.
4. Does however, beg the question, where is the increased land base to be created from?

Southwestern Ontario is not the limit to Canadian agriculture. In spite of the old wives' tale, they are indeed making more of it everyday, and there's more good farmable land available to be cleared in northern Ontario than there is being farmed in the Whole province today

1. Ramp up production? Not unless you lower all your input costs or you produce at a loss.
2.Corporate style farming? Absolutely. But what nationality will the shareholders be? Asian would be my guess.
3.Walmart Agriculture? Absolutely. Lowest prices at the lowest cost with questionable integrity. What is that in the new milk? More products to be sold with our high environmental standards.
4.Create land base? In Asian, Poland, etc, of course. Ontario Farmers can't complete.(see, I didn't even mention energy costs) Now, where can we learn Mandarin?.

From now on, NOBODY in supply management will ever again be able to boast that:

(1) supply management isn't subsidized
(2) supply management has never had a bail-out
(3) supply management doesn't hinder trade talks

Therefore, now that supply management is going to be subsidized and is going to have a bail-out (for the sole purpose of keeping them the richest group of farmers), why shouldn't we go the next logical step and eliminate supply management completely so that:

(A) Canadian consumers can be on a level playing field with US consumers?
(B) All Canadian farmers can be on a level playing field with each other?

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

It's like this Mr. Thompson, since tariffs were eliminated on dairy products moving south, the DFO won't have to dump milk anymore.....they'll just ship it south. Americans will be able to buy Canadian milk cheaper than Canadians.

Americans are already dumping more milk than you can dream of

(1) If Ian Cumming is to be believed, his part of New York State is the source of a lot of the dairy product coming to Canada as part of the almost $1 billion in Canadian imports of duty-free milk protein replacement.

Therefore, why dump milk when Canadian processors can, and will, import it duty-free, process it and sell it at rip-off Canadian prices?

In addition, I suspect that most of whatever US milk is being dumped is being dumped in areas not close enough to the Canadian border and/or Canadian processors to be able to be part of the $1 billion annual import picture.

(2) What really makes no sense is boasting about getting increased access to the US market given that our milk and dairy products will be, thanks to rip-off farm gate pricing in Canada, too over-priced to ever get into the US in the first place - I guess that's just another example of supply management arithmetic.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Crying over domestic milk pricing is just a red herring. People grasp the things they can relate to in simple terms.

The TPP is about harmonizing standards around the globe with corporate control.

The TPP agreement was negotiated behind closed doors and is not available to most politicians so we are only hearing Harper's version of it.

There is a whole chapter on Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) whereby multinational corporations can create one-way rights. Its the clause that allows corporations to sue governments, not vice versa. It enables corporations to sue governments that have laws that impact on their estimated future profits.

Quota has to go.

Financial institutions that used quota for collateral have 10 years to recoup their money. If the government didn't give the money to the farmer, the banks can sue the government under ISDS.

This isn't about the farmer. The money is not about the farmer.

Its about big business and the government getting out of the line of sight.

Minimum wage protection can't be too far behind.

If what you say is true, I don't see this as bad.
For example, if I owned Saputo shares, I would not want government restricting the supply of product to them.
In regards to your comments about lenders recouping their money, and removing quota as security over a 10 year period......I just don't see how this is possible in that time frame even with the bailout package.
I suspect we will know within the next few months, as lenders will severely start restricting loans, or possibly calling them given how thinly stretched some SM farmers are.
Then again, I have to wonder who you are, and how you would know what has been negotiated behind closed doors.

Raube Beuerman

There is no increased access to the US dairy market.
US dairy tariffs were not changed.
Was not on the table at TPP.

Kelsey Johnson, posting on ipolitics.ca on October 5, wrote - "The TPP will secure increased duty free access to the American market - including duty free access for artisanal cheese destined for the United States. In return, Canada will give 3.25 per cent market access for dairy products, including fluid milk."

It seems far-fetched that any more than a trickle of dairy products ever will go south because of our rip-off farm gate prices for milk, but increased duty-free access to the US dairy market has, according to Johnson, and contrary to what the above poster claims, been given to Canadian dairy farmers.

Once again, and as always, anonymous posters can neither be trusted nor believed.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Even if the Canadian farm gate milk price was equal to the US price, the 90 % US tariff  on milk imports would still prevent access. The tariff-free TRQ levels into the US are still tiny and may never be filled but they are a good dead cat trick in the shell game of trade agreements. They help most people miss the real issues. The US dairy market is still very effectively controlled, has the lowest level of permitted imports of any developed country (less than 3%) and their own complex approach to managing their milk supply is still working away as usual. Similar games in many other US commodities - peanuts, sugar, cotton, rice.......

The point is that supply management is still largely intact in Canada, the only country in the world still allowing and defending this sort of soviet-style system wherein the government allows about 15,000 rural aristocrats to legally screw over 30 million consumers.

Complaining about the real or imagined sins of US in an attempt to cover up the far-bigger sins of the dairy industry here is simply the excuse of a bully, and nobody and/or nothing is a bigger bully than supply management especially when the bullying comes, as it does in the above posting, from someone lacking the gonads to identify himself/herself.

The epitome of selfishness and denial still goes to Canadian dairy farmers - earlier this week, in response to the TPP deal, Wally Smith, the President of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, couldn't leave well-enough alone when he appeared on the Amanda Lang Exchange, and boasted that supply management doesn't raise prices for consumers, thereby clearly irking Lang by doing so.

Therefore, the real issue, as always, is the duplicity and denial of the obvious by supply management supporters - instead of being contrite and gracious in their victory at the expense of Canadian consumers, Smith and company continue to patronize everyone who doesn't own quota.

Furthermore, the above poster demonstrates the ultimate in cowardice, blame-shifting and even cliche-mangling. What, for example, is a "dead cat trick"? and how does it compare to the Canadian "dog in a manger" trick still being pulled by supply managed farmers?

In addition, finding fault with the permitted import levels of the US is so "last week" and ignores any additional levels the US may have given up in the TPP process at the insistence of New Zealand - as I recall the situation, part of the reason the process took so long was that New Zealand wanted more access to the US dairy market, while the US, in turn, wanted more access to Canada who, in turn, was still trying to "suck and blow" by wanting to give up nothing in exchange for getting everything for our exporters.

Finally, only an anonymous supply management supporter would be obtuse enough to complain about US import restrictions at a time when the price of milk is so low in the US that nobody would want to sell them milk in the first place. Therefore, the above poster's complaints are, as is always the case with supply management supporters, exactly like a one-legged man complaining that he can't find his second sock.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I didn't go far enough in my "one-legged man complaining that he can't find his second sock" analogy.

Insofar as supply managed farmers are little more than modern-day "Corporate welfare bums", I should have compared supply management supporters to a "one legged man collecting two welfare cheques complaining that he can't find his second sock".

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Who cares about your socks when you can't afford any then complain . Now it might well be that the second sock is where you stashed you cash !
Now to read the above post with many run on 1 sentence paragraphs from some who has complained about other posters doing the same makes you wonder if the sock , a sock or any sock really matters when your loosing it !

When ridiculing my grammar, the above poster made mistakes typical of someone who would be, in many cases, assessed as being functionally illiterate.

(1) His/her first sentence contains two separate thoughts and, therefore, makes no sense. If it did make sense, it still needed to have a question mark at the end of it. It should have been written as "Who cares about socks when you can't afford them? That would be the time to complain."
(2) His/her second sentence refers to "you cash" when it should be "your cash", or "the cash".
(3) His/her third sentence is equally nonsensical and is definitely a run on sentence. To make sense, it should have been split into two sentences and written as - "It is incongrous to see a post containing run-on sentences coming from someone who complains when other posters do the same thing. It makes me wonder if any sock really matters."
(4) The third sentence contains terms which may be connected, but which often are not. For example, a run-on sentence could easily be part of a much-longer paragraph, while a 1 sentence paragraph could contain two words, hardly indicative of a run-on sentence. Mangling these two terms together indicates extremely-poor literary skills on the part of the poster.
(5) The third sentence has a another needless duplication because "the sock, a sock or any sock" is repetitive and could easily be shortened, with no loss of meaning, to "any sock"
(6) "loosing" isn't even a word - people lose things and they loosen their ties, but it's impossible for someone to "loose" something.

As for my purported crime of writing a run-on sentence, I used what might be a run-on sentence because it is an entirely-proper way of making a point about things that are connected in real life. There are times when a long sentence, properly punctuated, communicates a point in a way that several shorter sentences could not.

It's like this, the above poster made at least 6 errors in three sentences - my children could both write better by the time they left Grade 4.

I guess there are times when functionally illiterate posters should, to avoid the shame of having their illiteracy exposed, stay anonymous. This would appear to be one of those times.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

this forum has become "an (a) one man show"
it's clear that Mr Thompson likes to see his words up on all our monitors
it seems that there are less posters now
this is a shame when there are so many topics to discuss
G Kimble

The above is another example showing that when some people can't raise any cogent points in a reply, they resort to introducing new subjects, strange tangents or trying for clever turns of phrase. Some also try and make up for a lack of relevant points by the sheer number of words. So some constructive advice - as you likely have heard before, size is not important - for responses either. This is a vote for a word limit here.

This forum suffers more from dumb postings from dumb (and anonymous) people than anything related to the length of the posting.

Self-imposed word limits are utilized all the time by people who know what they are talking about and have something to say. They know that if they can't communicate clearly, succinctly and in as few words as necessary, to not even make the attempt.

All of the common sense understanding of communication seems to be completely lost on pretty-much every anonymous poster, especially the ones who also don't understand anything about basic economics and who, therefore, wouldn't understand a "cogent point" if it hit them in the face.

As a case in point, the above poster seems to have a grasp of language skills almost never seen demonstrated by an anonymous poster, yet he/she still falls into the trap of having his/her acuity lessened by remaining anonymous.

Therefore, some "constructive advice" for anonymous posters - why write like you have a 140 point IQ if, by remaining anonymous, you prove that you have an IQ equal to your shoe size?

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Did Johnson happen to give any numbers on how much more cheese Canadian dairy farmers can export south? Like so many of these trade deals of lately,we seem to have the exact numbers of what we are giving up but very vague on what we are getting in return.
Under WTO we have a sliver of cheese exports into the US, until we see some added numbers l suspect that sliver to remain just that!

seams like the dairy gets picked on while the chicken farmers stay quiet these r the guys making so much they dont know what to do with it $1.50 a bird net come on and now we have to give them more out of our pockets come on harper don't you think they have enough

Chicken Farmers of Canada ("CFC") whine that they are forced to give up another 2.1% market share to foreign imports (7.5% under previous WTO rules + 2.1%= 9.6% total), but they support the deal on behalf of all Supply Management ("SM") chicken farmers.

It was SM farmers, producers, and their SM friends who have been importing on a duty free basis every known "spent hen" in the USA plus magically creating even more than what existed. Obviously, this is just a cover for US broiler chicken meats masquerading as spent chicken.

Another trick they use is to import to re-export on a duty free basis. For example, they may bring in whole chickens from the USA on a duty free basis. They remove the high value skinless, boneless breast meat, then re-export the rest of the carcass plus some low value chicken lips or some other trash so make up for the high value breast meat that was removed. When you can sell breast meat inside Canada at $11.80/lb or higher, it causes all kinds of craziness and greed.

On top of all the greed of chicken trucks crossing the border today, the poor under-privileged chicken Overlords will be getting $4.365 Billion in income and investment guarantees from the Federal Government to protect the sensitive little darlings.

Since there are only 17,000 SM farmers in Canada (just 8% of all farmers, or 0.05% of Canadians), that equates to an average gift of $257,000 per SM farmer.

Who else in Canada has a government guaranteed income & business valuation for the next 15 years? Certainly not me. Do you?

Not bad for a few hours time charged by the SM lobbyists to whisper into the ears of politicians and bureaucrats.

No wonder the Chicken Overlords are happy.

Glenn Black, President
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

There are all kinds of Canadian products selling cheaper in the US than what we pay here . This is not a new thing since TPP .

US dairy tariffs were not changed in the TPP deal. They were never even on the table.
Milk imports into the US will remain at a bit under 3% of their market versus about 10% into Canada.

There is no level playing field anywhere.

Back in. 92 we were all worried about SM weakening. Almost 25 years later it's still protects dairy producers. SM now has the best of both worlds : border controls and now generous tax payer subsidies. Enjoy the ride while it lasts let's see some new and younger entrants to the industry. Too many we'll established elite dairy farmers still running the show. Change is finally coming.

(1) TPP does nothing for consumers because the additional duty-free imports will still be sold in Canada at rip-off supply management prices.
(2) Cross-border shopping will continue and will likely even increase because cost-of-production based pricing will increase the per-unit farm gate prices of the soon-to-be smaller Canadian production.
(3) TPP does nothing to change the fact that dairy quota can be sold but effectively not bought.
(4) TPP does nothing to lower 200% tariff barriers, ever.
(5) TPP does nothing to stop the pitting of farmers against each other along age and sector lines.
(6) TPP does nothing to stop calls by economists, consumer advocates and newspapers for the end of supply management.
(7) TPP does nothing to encourage companies like Chobani to come to Canada.
(8) TPP does nothing to reduce the rapidly-increasing duty-free imports of milk-protein products, now approaching $1 billion annually.
(9) TPP does nothing to change the economic truth that supply management is net-negative for jobs and economic activity.
(10) TPP does nothing to allow Canada, because WTO still considers supply management to be a subsidy, to export dairy and poultry products.
(11)TPP does nothing to reduce the need for supply management to end - it's a monster that has outlived any usefulness and TPP is only a small first step in its well-deserved demise. The bigger job of getting rid of Supply Management is, alas, still ahead.

My views are those of an ag economist and may not be shared by any agricultural organization, and certainly won't be shared by SM5.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

In his column earlier this week in the National Post, Andrew Coyne noted that it is not for nothing that CBC reporter, David Cochrane, dubbed the Canadian dairy industry "Lactosa nostra" for their odious tactics when defending supply management.

Nothing good is going to come of this - while we, in agriculture, do have some political capital with consumers, we stand to lose it very quickly now that we have become, thanks to our dairy industry, the butt of quite-appropriately made jokes.

Therefore, while Dairy Farmers of Canada President, Wally Smith, can huff and puff all he wants about supply management not raising prices for consumers, he ever-increasingly looks to everyone outside the dairy industry, especially CBC reporters and National Post columnists, like some Mafia don claiming to be a legitimate businessman.

And since supply management is little more than the legitimized extortion of consumers, the Mafia don comparison is even-more appropriate.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

An October 7 article on www.foreignaffairs.com noted that US Congressional Republicans are lukewarm at best to TPP, while President Obama's own party, the Democrats, including Ms. Clinton, are opposed, thereby making the passing of TPP in the US (the earliest possible date is February, 2016) questionable, especially in an election year.

Also noted is that the National Milk Producers Federation and the US Dairy Export Council (exporting milk, what a radical idea!) are reviewing the TPP to see if their "grave concerns" that TPP would give New Zealand more access to the US market, but would not adequately open Canada's market to the US, are valid. These groups have threatened to oppose TPP if their concerns aren't met.

It is almost a no-brainer that a paltry 3.25% increase in allowable Canadian imports is going to completely-validate those "grave concerns" and, indeed, why wouldn't it?

The US is not going to give up and go away when it comes to supply management - if anything, expect the attacks against it, both here and abroad, to increase in frequency and intensity, especially now that supply management can no longer claim (at least with any credibility) it isn't subsidized.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

What a shock, the US always wants access to every Country's markets without giving up anything in return.Its probably why the US has never had a whole trade deal with the European Union.The EU is the only one large enough to stand up to the bullying tactics of the Yankees.
I believe one of the leaders at the TTP talks said that every Country had to give up a little for a deal to be reached.The Americans seem to think they are above everyone else and have their own set of rules.

Repeat after me,....there is no such thing as Free Trade only Government Managed Trade... especially with the U.S.

Compensation is being offered for destruction of an industry caused by government.

If for example government takes your land for a highway you get compensation. Hydro and gas corridors are the same.

It's a simple concept.

Subsidize SM and forget RMP investment appears to be the government growing forward mandate. Government invests in SM, so where is the investment in RMP or price support for other commodities. It would appear, we aren't all in this together.

Hopefully the policies of this Government will come to an end in a week!

Do we have ANY reason to hope for better from the other parties? Their platforms are even worse than the status quo

Instead of giving supply managed farmers, for no other reason than to keep them the richest group of Canadian farmers, $4.3 billion of public money and the continued right to screw consumers blind, any opposition party worthy of any consideration would promise the 92% of farmers who don't own quota, a "supply management injury assistance program".

Instead, the Liberals promise to "strengthen" supply management, thereby making the income disparity problem in the farm community even worse. The NDP was founded on, and is still based on protectionism and, therefore, they're defintionally worse than the Liberals.

We get what we deserve because, by virtue of the paucity of economic education/understanding in the farm community (I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of farmers I know who have studied either economics or ag economics) and by virtue of the farm community's undying love of protectionism, we applaud the wrong things promised by politicians.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

A person needs both hands to count the number of years the Conservatives have been stuttering and stammering over bringing an end to COOL,even with a number of rulings from the WTO on our side.
Even with CETA and this TPP deal all the majority of Beef and Pork producers want is an open border with the US.Something this current Government couldn't deliver!

Unfortunately neither of the other parties would even make a legitimate attempt.

It would be nice to have a government that answered questions and didn't suppress science but don't hold your breath.

The annual meetings of many county federations of Agriculture, and even the annual convention of the OFA itself, are all going to be held in the next six weeks.

Get out from behind your intellectual and emotional "niquab" of anonymity and present a resolution at one, or many, of these annual meetings calling for equal treatment for non-supply managed farmers.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Therefore any such resolution will be deemed as divisive and as such zippo will get done.
Furthermore, as you have stated convention resolutions especially commodity resolutions are
1.avoided like the plague and 2. non binding on the board anyways.

If general farm organizations are too "weenie", go public and organize a protest on Parliament Hill, or go radical and do what Huron County's local hero, Steve Webster, did in 2006 - lived in his car at Queens Park during March of that year.

Although my "Equity with US farmers" trailer has long-since gone for scrap, I have two more completely-roadworthy trailers that could easily be painted "Equity with supply management". I got the 8/92 Detroit and an "Equity" trailer to the front gates of Parliament Hill at 7AM once, I could easily do it again.

But, please, if organizing any sort of protest/demonstration, don't lie to people the way supply management lies to people about supply management not raising the price of food, but rather, expose supply management for being the duplicitous manipulators they are.

The trouble with all of this is that it will never happen because anonymous posters are, by definition, too "weenie" to ever do anything.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Editor: Comment will be published if resubmitted and signed.

The above anonymous poster obviously can't tell the difference between an "admission" and a "claim".

WHAT I ADMITTED:
(1) my original "equity" trailer has gone for scrap - however, I can provide the names of at least 4 people who were here to help load it on the trailer to haul it away
(2) I got the original trailer to Parliament Hill at 7AM - and I can provide the name of the farmer from near Glen Tay who ran interference for me along the Queensway and who blocked interesections so that I could make semi-legal left turns in downtown Ottawa (on what definitely were red lights by the time I got through them), and who took me for breakfast once the truck was parked in the spot pointed out to me by the RCMP officers on Parliament Hill.

WHAT I CLAIMED:
(1) Stephen Webster is a local hero - and that's a matter of public record because he won the Huron Federation of Agriculture award that year.
(2) I have two more road-worthy "equity" tanker-trailers - that's also a matter of record because of their safety stickers.
(3) I can do it again, at least according to the results of the MTO physical I had last week.
(4) Supply management lies to people about supply management not increasing the price of food because if the increased farm gate revenue derived from supply management doesn't come from government, where else but from increased prices to consumers can it possibly come?
(5) Anonymous posters are too "weenie" to do anything (except possibly be "weenies")

Therefore, my admissions and my claims are either entirely-supportable or entirely self-evident, neither of which is ever the case with anonymous posters.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I was at the Parliament Hill 40,000 strong Supply Management rally back in the 90's and your talking about someone parking their car by the front gates in protest ??
The thing l always remember about that rally was there were only 3 actual producers on our full bus.Two in Dairy and one in Chickens, the rest were bankers,equipment dealers,seed salesmen...even an accountant.

If the above poster was at the 1992 rally, he/she is part of the last generation and, therefore, has no idea about the problems faced by the current generation of non-supply managed farmers.

I didn't go to the rally, but have talked to many who did and all of them, to a person, except those who are now over 90 and/or who currently still own quota, say "Never again" because once supply management was saved, dairy and poultry farmers continued to be, and still are, financial bullies in the farm community.

1992 was a generation ago, attitudes have changed and have definitely hardened against supply management, the support for which lessens one funeral at a time.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

While supply management may have been "saved" by TPP, there appears to be little, if anything, to save supply management from itself, particularly when it comes to the detestable claims it continues to make, particularly the claims made by the Dairy Farmers of Canada (DFC).

(1) For example, in early October, DFC President, Wally Smith, went on national TV to claim that it was a myth that supply management increased the price of food. Really, Mr. Smith, if the increased farm gate revenue derived from supply management doesn't come from government, where else but from consumers can it possibly come?

(2) For four decades, supply management has boasted that it receives no government subsidies, yet neatly ignores the fact that the World Trade Organization deems it to be a subsidy and also neatly ignores the obvious fact that supply management is a subsidy paid by consumers. In addition, supply management falls all over itself at every opportunity to claim that dairy farmers are subsidized everywhere else but in Canada because these farmers receive government funding but Canadian farmers do not. Yet, now that Canada is about to subsidize dairy and poultry farmers, DFC's Wally Smith falls all over himself to claim this government funding isn't a subsidy, but "compensation".

Really, Mr. Smith, you can't have it both ways - if the $4.3 billion in promised government money isn't a subsidy, then the money foreign governments pay their dairy farmers isn't a subsidy either. And if dairy farmers in other countries aren't subsidized, why then do we need supply management?

Either way, the semantics and double-standards on the part of Canada's dairy lobby make it very easy to detest supply management. Many people already do and many more soon will.

And by not having other farmers object, all of us look bad.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

With meat prices rising 5 times as fast as overall inflation in Canada most consumers would agree with Mr. Smith.

Remember your the person that wants to live in the present not the past and the future of TPP is far from certainty.

You're a little behind I think...meat prices in our area are down the last few months!

So now you agree that other countries like the USA do subsidize their dairy farmers ! What the H !

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.