Ag ministers discuss trade, insurance and emergency support

© AgMedia Inc.

Description (Tag): 

Comments

It's no surprise that, like trained seals, the Ministers all chant the mantra of supply management, even when it's fundamentally-obvious that supply management gouges consumers, and is increasingly pitting farmers against one another, a point made painfully clear by two pieces in this week's Ontario Farmer newspaper.
More to the point, it's gallingly-stupid that the Ministers would spend so much time expounding the benefits of trade to Canadian agriculture, and yet paradoxically expound the benefits of supply management which does everything to prevent trade. Only in Canada would people twist themselves into knots claiming that we benefit from policies that increase trade, as well as benefit from policies that restrict trade. Is there any wonder why agriculture is becoming increasingly-irrelevant, and even seen to be a laughing stock, by people who don't own quota?
More to the point, is there any wonder why agriculture isn't attracting the best-and-brightest? We're attracting people who are OK, but who are obviously too dumb to realize we're on a collision course with economic reality which is, by definition, nothing more than common sense.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Finally! Someone who knows what he's talking about. If only government would listen to common sense instead of buying votes from the supply management groups

It's a slow process, but when the Practical Farmers of Ontario was formed, in large part, to "do something about" supply management, and when Ontario Pork, at its 2013 annual general meeting, voted overwhelmingly to urge government to place trade ahead of protectionism, even the dumbest farm politician (of which there's a seemingly-endless supply) can't help but note that, as one of my friends who was at the Ontario Pork meeting observed - "Farmers are getting restless".
The problem is two-fold - supply management has an endless supply of money (gouged from consumers) to lobby government, and since supply management appeals to older farmers, and since farm organizations are all "old-boy networks", politicians aren't getting the message from younger farmers that supply management is a significant problem.
We are, thankfully, starting to see significant cracks in the support for supply management at the farm level, and will see far-more when the last half of the Generation X farmers (now in their 30s) and the Generation Y farmers (now in their 20s), both groups who hate supply management with a passion, assume positions of responsibility, and clout, in various farm organizations.
Supply managed farmers, and all of the traditional "old-boy" farm organizations, are soon going to learn, to their horror, that no amount of money spent on lobbying can ever overcome the constantly-advancing demographic profile of farmers themselves.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

That's the trouble with the Non-Supply Management sectors...absolutely no foresight, like they thought the Canadian Dollar was always going to stay at 87cents/US or the price of corn was always going to be 2-$3.00/bu or the US was always going to be a willing recipient of everything we wanted to send their way, when every other Country in the world was tightening their borders.l have always said when you put the health of your industry in the hands of a foreign Country you are doomed but they don't seem to understand that in this Country, so they will plug on with their insurance and their emergency handouts and their desparate trade missions to no where!

If you learn more about factors that influence the value of our dollar, it should never be on par with the USA. Currently, with major economic countries using QE, what is happening is they are attempting to deflate the value of their dollar against competing ccountries to give them an advantage. Or in other words, with all things being equal(no QE), our dollar should always be less than the USA,s. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the SM industry always used this to their advantage when our dollar was at 65-70 cents to claim that they were not ripping off Canadians. Raube Beuerman

When given lemons , make lemonade .
Not good to whine like sour grapes .

All of the nonsense such as "make lemonade", "some people have to win, some people have to lose", "lack of foresight", and all the rest of the patronizing and dismissive drivel coming from supply management supporters, is going to be tossed right back at them when, not if, supply management folds. It's like this, dairy and poultry types, if you're not prepared to hear it tossed back at you later, don't dish it out now.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I see many on here who are all for new things , and thinking outside the box but it seems like more than ever there are so many who are looking for some one else to blame for their problems rather than doing some thing for them selves . Is this a sign of the leadership we have today or just the fact that the thinking out side the box is all smoke and mirrors and could not be further from the truth ? I could really see it if it was Gov who was throwing out the smoke screen and thinking they are out smarting the tax payer . Just ask and rural liberal how well that has been working !

When life hands you lemons, make lemonade, BUT
when somebody pees in your glass, no amount of sugar is going to turn it into lemonade.

It must be koolaid . Best to pass it to the person at the front of the room and tell them to drink it .

To error is human . To blame some one else is more human .

The reason we have "desperate trade missions to nowhere" is because we're not prepared to budge an inch on our totally-stupid defense of supply management, and its ability to screw consumers, non-supply managed farmers, and all of our export-reliant industries, and all at the same time. That's why Ontario Pork passed the resolution about placing trade ahead of protectionism at its 2013 annual general meeting.
Furthermore, the rest of the world is not "tightening their borders" - we have NAFTA, we are part of WTO, but are on the irrelevant sidelines because of our stupidity about supply management, and we are on the cusp of being part of the TPP, but risk being shut out of it because of our intransigence on supply management. When it comes to double standards about trade, Canada stands alone - nobody else has anything like supply management, and for abundant-good reasons like consumers being forced to pay almost 38% more than consumers in another country less than a mile away.
And, your double standards about doom show vividly - far worse than placing any industry in non-domestic hands (when was the last time we ran out of, and/or were poisoned by bananas or orange juice?) is placing it in the hands of extortionist domestic farmers, the way we have with our dairy and poultry industries. I can't think of any doom worse for Canadian consumers, and non-supply managed farmers, than the doom forced on them by supply management, and the "everything for me, nothing for you" attitude so-clearly, and so-often, expressed by supply managed farmers.
Finally, nobody beats supply managed farmers when it comes to lack of foresight. For example, when former federal Ag Minister, Chuck Strahl, asked dairy farmers what their Plan B was in case supply management ended, not only did they not have a Plan B, they didn't even understand the concept. When supply managed farmers come crying for a bailout when supply management crashes, many, many, many, people will quite-appropriately say - "that's the trouble with the supply managed sector... absolutely no foresight"

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

You are the one with the Crystal ball when it comes to forecasting the oncoming fall of farmland values,l am surprised that you couldn't tell the Beef and Pork sectors a decade ago of higher feed prices and rise in our dollar, it could have maybe saved a few.You could have also told them back in 2009 that COOL would be still going strong 4 years later depite what any WTO tribunal thinks.That is the whole problem that some people just can't seem to understand in this Country,that the US of A does what it wants,when it wants to do it and no WTO,NAFTA or TPP will tell them how to operate, that rules only apply to "other" countries....and this is the country that if we gave up Supply Management would go the excat same route as COOL in finding some way to block Diary and Poultry products from going south and you wonder why our Politicians support SM so much,its because its the one sector of Agriculture they don't have to worry about Trade missions or Insurance or Emergency funding or continued illegal trade hassles with the US.

Supply management, to any economist, is so wrong, for so many reasons, it simply defies all logic as to why it was ever implemented, let alone why it has lasted for so long. The only thing the economics profession has been consistently wrong about when it comes to supply management, is that it has lasted so long in spite of the obvious harm it does to consumers, non-supply managed farmers, and our far-larger export oriented sector.
Supply management supporters can delude themselves all they want about how wonderful it is to gouge consumers up to almost 38% on price compared to US consumers, but the next generation of non-supply managed farmers is making it abundantly clear they not only have no intention of spending their entire lives seeing supply management get everything, while they get nothing, but they also have no intention of spending their entire lives being told, by supply managed farmers, that they're "losers".
Finally, supply managed farmers are living in a fool's paradise because they just don't understand our trade hassles with the US are almost entirely because we've been poking Uncle Sam in the eye for forty years with a stick called supply management - for example, anyone who thinks Country of Origin Labelling is in no way a response to supply management, is dreaming in technicolour.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Thats the great thing about Supply Management we can either look across the border or our own Agriculture sectors and see the reasons why our fathers chose the path they did.You mention "poking Uncle Sam",well back in 2009 when world milk prices were at all time lows and small US dairy farms where disappearing faster than crab legs at a chinese Buffet there where a lot of Uncle Sam's wishing they had something called Supply Management.That itself is one problem with the US dairy system (and you can apply it to almost every Non-SM sector) that their solution for lower milk prices is the same for higher milk prices..milk more cows!..and then the Gov't moves in a bails them out.

"a lot of Uncle Sam's wishing they had something called Supply Management". Sure, so that they could sell their quota for a "king's ransom" and go do something else...at the expense of consumers.
Maybe you should take a look, all the "smaller" dairy farms are disappearing in Canada too!

So lets get this straight, 1. an economists prediction can not tell "when". Isn't that about as useless as a weather report constantly saying its going to rain? "When" is the big question.

2. how does COOL get in the mix with supply management? Only an economist could take two totally unrelated subjects and add them together to get a new life form.

I think you been using too much Windex on your crystal balls. It throws most good common sense out the window.

COOL is not an SM back lash . It is a way for them to identify US meat . No different than here with putting a red maple leaf on pork or beef here . The only difference is that "there" they would not dare to lable something as being USA when it wasn't . Can't say that for here in Canada .
Also why would they care about a product that we do not export and compete with them on ? Milk is not competition over there . Beef and Pork are !

Techniclour my ass . Your Cheech and Chong logic does not cut it ! Open the window and get some air !

Americans care about milk because they can't sell any to us - that's the stick we've been poking in their eye for over four decades. We have the nerve to tell the US we need to export more beef and pork to them, but we won't open our borders to them for milk and dairy products in exchange.
Look at it this way, my obtuse friend, if you were a US dairy farmer, you'd completely support COOL simply because it would be a way of getting back at those wretched Canadians who refuse to buy US dairy products.
Therefore, COOL has everything to do with supply management, and Ontario Pork knows it all-too-well - one doesn't need technicolour to see the connection, it's black-and-white.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I remember with particular clarity a rusty old trailer hailing from Clinton with big hand painted letters stating "Parity with US farmers." I do not recall any discussion or debate that the wrong message was being put forward asking for a COP program. I don't recount any mention that the real problem was supply management. For that matter I do not recall anyone saying send those despicable supply managed farmers home.

I just wonder when you were so anointed with the wisdom of Solomon when your message was exactly the same as all the others you now so fondly scorn.

I seldom read this site as I find this repetitive (SM) refrain both insulting and belittling to those that once realized there was a need to address a problem united while you seem never done with bashing. What a shame

Where is written that the economist is the divine leader in brains , in knowing what is the best for all Canadians. Was it written in the comic section of our newspaper. People where saying for the last 40 years that SM was on the way out but its still here and looks like it will be here for some time in the future.

Gabrielle Gallant, spokesperson for Ontario Premier and Agriculture Minister Kathleen Wynne, says by email that in light of the increasing extreme weather occurrences “the ministers reaffirmed the need for effective and responsive risk management programs including supply management.”
IT APPEARSGABBRIELLEBGALIANT IS THE REAL minister of AGRICULTURE
Were did he come from and what is his background knowledge

As far as the risk management program the conservative government is justified not supporting it because farmer are jacking up the price of land to over$12000 per acre and then when the price of corn beans go bust farmers want help
Short memory we have of the 80s

A good part of the reason for RMP was to help us compete with the wretched excesses in incomes and purchasing power given to supply managed farmers. If we didn't have to compete with supply management for land, the need for RMP would be just that much less. It's too bad our farm organizations, and politicians, can't see the cause/effect relationships everybody without quota has to face every day.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Why would they care now after they gutted the RMP down . I am sure there is no plan to do what has to be done although we will hear about it at election time with more meaningless promises with a vote for me attached to it .

Also is or could Gabrielle be any worse for minster material than what we have ? She might be better than we think .

not a "he" .... not in Wynns camp ;)

Ritz and others are talking out of both sides of their mouths. They claim exports are valueable to Canadian agriculture yet they support supply management. And to top it off they say they support supply management while they are across seas pursuing trade deals. Stop procrastinating on these trade deals. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON

Too little too late! How can these ministers be sucking and blowing at the same time. Time to think outside the box.

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.