by SUSAN MANN
Practical Farmers of Ontario president Sean McGivern vows the organization will continue fighting to convince Chicken Farmers of Ontario to increase the number of meat birds farmers can raise without quota.
McGivern says he received a letter by email Friday night from Chicken Farmers denying the Practical Farmers’ request to increase the number of birds to 2,000 from 300 and to allow farmers to sell their product beyond the farm gate. The decision was made after Practical Farmers attended a Chicken Farmers’ hearing Dec. 20 to present its request.
“We thought this was probably how they were going to deal with us,” says McGivern. But “we’re 100 per cent confident this was the wrong way for them to deal with us because this is going to create a lot more media attention.”
Chicken Farmers representatives couldn’t be reached for comment.
A Jan. 18 letter addressed to McGivern and signed by Chris Horbász, Chicken Farmers’ director, policy and external relations, says “in objecting to the small flock program on the basis of it being insufficient for commercial purposes, PFO (Practical Farmers of Ontario) has essentially misinterpreted the point of the program.”
The letter concludes: “Mr. McGivern chose to adopt a confrontational posture in stating that if the PFO request was declined, then Directors would be evidencing no respect for small farmers. However, the local board did not take this into account in considering the merits of the PFO submission.”
McGivern says Practical Farmers will file an appeal with the Ontario Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.
“I just really feel small farmers are being abused and taken advantage of by the system and our organization is not going to stop” pushing for changes, he says.
Practical Farmers has met with Chicken Farmers of Canada about its request and plans to talk by phone with federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz. The group also plans to present a related petition with more than 800 signatures to Ontario Agriculture Minister Ted McMeekin and to the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission.
McGivern says they have a good case because “we’re not asking for anything different than what farmers in other provinces are already allowed to do.”
He was referring to rules in other provinces that enable farmers there to raise a much higher number of meat birds without quota than their Ontario counterparts. He says Ontario’s amount under the small flock program is the lowest across Canada.
The small flock program was introduced in 2007 after extensive negotiations between Chicken Farmers and the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg and Chick Commission, which coordinated amendments to permit hatcheries to sell up to 300 chicks a year to non-quota holders. Before the small flock program began, Chicken Farmers’ regulations stipulated farmers could only raise 100 birds quota free annually and only for home consumption.
Until the small flock regulation was enacted in Ontario, farmers couldn’t market chicken produced without quota.
There are about 13,000 small flock growers in Ontario and about two-thirds of them have 50 birds of less. Chicken Farmers says its statistics show the majority of small flock growers produce chicken for their own consumption.
McGivern says Practical Farmers doesn’t have any way to confirm the information on small flock sizes. “A lot of people we talked to said they’re only raising 25 or 50 chickens right now because it’s not financially viable to do it. If they could do a larger number (of chicken) and make it more feasible, then they definitely would.”
McGivern says Chicken Farmers’ rules are so restrictive small flock growers are prohibited from advertising their chicken for sale, which makes it difficult for growers to sell their chicken.
Chicken Farmers says in its six-page letter to McGivern that the small flock grower program is functioning appropriately and achieving its established purpose, “namely to permit persons to produce and, if they desire, to market at the farm gate a limited number of chickens per year without the requirement of obtaining quota.”
Chicken Farmers small flock regulation continues to be in harmony with the hatching egg and chick commission’s regulations on chick sales and to parallel Egg Farmers of Ontario exemptions to farm gate egg sales, the letter says.
“The number of registrants of small flock growers has remained relatively stable since the inception of the program and the magnitude of the numbers strongly indicates that the program continues to present a worthwhile avenue for interested persons,” the letter says. In addition, the purpose of the small flock program wasn’t to create a commercially viable alternative avenue for chicken production and marketing “such that it would have a displacement effect for commercial chicken production and marketing.”
As part of the commercial chicken production and marketing system which requires farmers to hold a minimum of 14,000 quota units, Chicken Farmers has in the past granted exemptions to the minimum amount of quota rule, the letter says. “Particularly in the context of servicing niche or specialty production markets, such as organic production.”
Moreover, a new entrant program allows a successful applicant to obtain up to 10,000 units of quota in conjunction with acquiring 4,000 units on their own, the letter adds. The board-allotted quota must be replaced on a specific schedule with quota the new entrant buys. Chicken Farmers has committed 20,000 units of quota annually to the program. The first recipients are to be announced this year.
As for other provinces’ rules and their bird numbers for quota free production, Chicken Farmers says each province has its reasons for the level of quota-exempt production it allows. Chicken Farmers didn’t design its small flock program to parallel other provinces. Instead it determined the small flock program it developed was appropriate for Ontario and that “continues to be the case.” BF
Comments
I seem to recall that, every now and then, Chicken Farmers award themselves a certain percentage of new, free, quota, and I believe one recent awarding was in the 3% range. This 3% increase in overall quota, plus the 20,000 units of quota wasted annually on the new entrant program which is public relations puffery at its worst, would go a long way to addressing the concerns of the PFO. This decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario, would appear to be the epitome of the adage - "Penny wise, and pound foolish" because all it does is give non-supply managed farmers just all that much more reason, and determination, to get rid of supply management completely.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
If standing up for the rights of Ontario's small farmers is seen as a "confrontational posture" then i am a very confronational person, I guess the CFO is use to people bowing at there feet but i am not into idol worship. But in most circles people know me as a person with integrity who is willing to do anything to support a fair and just system that allows farmers the right to make a living from THEIR FARM,
Please read their whole letter on our web site www.practicalfarmersontario.ca
Sean McGivern
PFO
CFO chooses to describe Mr. McGivern as "confrontational", yet ignores the fact that supply management is, by definition, not only "confrontational" to consumers and non-supply managed farmers, it is outright abusive to consumers and non-supply managed farmers - a classic, yet appalling, example of public relations "spin" which shows CFO knows how to dish it out, but doesn't know how to look in the mirror, or understand the meaning of the term -"the pot calling the kettle black". More importantly, CFO demonstrates exactly why non-supply managed farmers under the age of 40 completely detest supply management. We really don't need these type of people, or that kind of dismissive attitude, anywhere in agriculture - we'd be well-rid of both, and the soon the better.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
CFO will never share any of the golden goose $ that SM. has given them. I still buy my SM products in US. Milk yesterday,regular price $2.59 USD for 3.78 l . Let the family farms raise a few thousnd birds or laying hens if they want or face the end of SM sooner than you think
There's probably a whole lot of truth to the claim that if Windsor and Essex County residents weren't so-busy going to the US to buy dairy and poultry products, there wouldn't be the need for a second bridge to Detroit. Therefore, supply management does cost taxpayers money - in this case it's the cost of that bridge.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Did you pick up some other parts while you were there ?
Just got told this week of parts here that were $50.00 and the same company,box and parts was $10.00 in Michigan . More lube please !!
Before I point out the specific absurdities in your comparison, you would appear to be claiming it is perfectly OK for Canadian dairy and poultry farmers to use the 200% tariff barriers available to them, and them alone, in order to receive almost 38% more for their products than US farmers, even though Canadian hog and beef farmers receive less than US farmers because our beef and pork is priced, at the farm level, on an export basis. What's worse is that you obviously don't understand, and seemingly don't care, that this double standard, by definition, pits Canadian farmers against one another.
What's even worse than that is that you clearly don't understand:
(1) there is no tariff forcing everybody to pay more for these parts, all the time.
(2) supply managed farmers pay the same price for these parts as non-supply managed farmers, and therefore, no farmer gets pitted against one-another.
(3) unlike in supply management, price fixing is illegal, so there is nothing, in law, to prevent a dealer, any dealer, from selling for less.
(4) unlike in supply management, there is nothing to stifle competition - any competitor could, as A&I, or Loewen, did, set up business, even in Canada, to manufacture parts which sell for less.
(5) unlike in supply management, you could choose another manufacturer.
(6) dairy farmers aren't whining about it being un-patriotic to go to the US to buy parts.
(7) dairy farmers aren't whining about the US parts being un-safe and/or unfit to use.
(8) dairy farmers are the first to fall all over themselves to force others to "buy Canadian", but at the same time they hypocritically boast about the good deals they got by importing this, that, or the other.
(9) Why would dairy and poultry farmers even care in the first place? - their cost-of-production formulae are based on what these parts cost in Canada.
(10) unlike in supply management, there is not-only a used-parts market, but it also has no barriers to entry, and no tariff barriers.
In short, your analogy is both absurd, and self-serving - it's like this, the dairy and poultry lobby is becoming increasingly desperate, and grasping at continually shorter straws to try to defend their gravy-boat. The more people keep coming up with these insane reasons to defend supply management, the more I'll just keep demolishing them - but why bother in the first place? Why not just accept supply management for the horribly abusive, and unbalanced system that it is, and get rid of it?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
And you still don't get it that it is not only the SM that is priced higher in this country . If there is no tariff forcing to pay more then why are we getting screwed on this side of the border ? You keep going to comparisons that make no sense like A&I and Lowen when you have to get OEM not might works .
Unlike the US we are more regulated here . You do not manufacture milk . Real milk is produced by cows only . You manufacture a copy of like a dairy drink .
And some one boasting about a good deal is like you telling every one that we must keep all of the current programs so that book keepers like your self can keep making more money off of the backs of farmers . You talk of net negatives .... When you have your accountant tell you that you don't qualify and you get a bill , That is a Net Negative !!
Comment modified by editor
The only point is, and always has been, the job-sucking and net-negative 200% tariff barriers which are available only to dairy and poultry farmers, period. Nobody else gets them except dairy and poultry farmers. Why can't dairy farmers understand that Canadian hog and livestock farmers don't enjoy a higher price than US farmers for what they sell? - therefore, why is it so vitally important that Canadian dairy farmers be able to enjoy an absolute advantage over their US counterparts, while Canadian hog and livestock farmers do not? I just don't get it - for forty years, dairy farmers boasted about cross border retail price equivalency, yet now that the retail price equivalency argument is shot full of holes, dairy farmers have gone 180 degrees in the other direction and are just as hammer-headed in their belief that supply management is just as good for consumers now that milk costs almost 38% more here, as it was when it supposedly cost nothing more. More to the point, our dairy farmers are acting like self-centred pre-teens claiming - "But, Mom, everybody else is doing it". It wasn't a good argument when you were 12, it's even worse when you're five times that age. In addition, what is it about the special rights dairy and poultry farmers have to take unfair advantage of consumers and fellow farmers that you can't seem to understand? Finally, unlike the captive market enjoyed by dairy and poultry farmers, there's no reason why any farmer can't prepare his/her own farm program applications, and many do. Also, unlike the leech and barnacle attitude prevailing in supply management, if I charge anything at all to fill out a farm assistance program application, I definitely do NOT charge on a "cost-of-production" basis, and most often, I charge nothing at all because, unlike supply managed farmers, I value my clients/customers.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Stick to my piont and not twist every thing into a SM bash party Even if SM products were priced the same as the US you would then blame them for being too cheap and causing child obesity .
Also SM likely creates jobs and more jobs because of the tariff . Have to keep some one checking all the time .
We would have far more jobs here in Canada with out supply management,
I always hear supply management suporters saying that we have the best milk and feather products in the world if thats the case and i am not saying its not, then we should be run off our feet supplying the world with them, But we cant because of supply management,
Sean McGivern
PFO
I can't believe any thing you post ever since you posted that you don't take or accept gov. programs or subsidies .
The Farm Tax Rebate is a program . Is a subsidy to agraiculture .
Tariffs, such as the ones propping up supply management, are, by the first principles of economics, net-negative for both jobs and economic activity. It's one of the most basic, and most undeniable principles of economics, and one which is open to neither discussion, nor denial.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
If someone is driving across to the states to buy their milk and say they are saving big time I got to wonder if there is something wrong on their math .
How can you spend on the bridge fees, gas and your time to save a couple of dollars on your milk and say your saving money? I guess many I should go back to school and learn how I can save doing that.
With respect, instead of returning to school to study math, spending ten minutes reading what you find when you Google "Corn Laws" would serve you far-better. Although I'm not a fan of the term "opportunity cost", it does apply to the multiplier effect on our economy of the jobs created, and the economic activity generated, if consumers could put the extra they are forced to pay for dairy and poultry products into something which actually benefits the economy, instead of having it become "dead money" in the form of quota hoarded by millionaire dairy and poultry farmers. In addition, when the the average Canadian shopper goes to the US to stock up on all those things produced by supply management, even two-dozen eggs, and a jug of milk goes a long way towrd paying the bridge tolls and any incremental fuel costs. For example, when my son was a University co-op student living in Sarnia two years ago, he, and his St. Clair College roomies, made regular trips State-side for their dairy and poultry staples - and in a house of six young men, the savings per trip quickly added up because the bridge fee is per car, not per occupant. My son, of course, used his savings to help pay his next semester's tuition, which, for all of you who claim "everything" costs more in Canada, absolutely does not.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
So it is O.K. for some one to go across and get butter , milk and eggs but yet in an earlier post you claim it would be unpatriotic if you went over to save on farm equipment parts .
Dairy and poultry farmers fall all over themselves to brand people who disagree with supply management, including those who cross the border to buy dairy and poultry products, as being somehow "unpatriotic". Yet, dairy and poultry farmers are the first to give Canadian retailers and suppliers the shaft if they can buy something for a penny cheaper outside the country. My point is that dairy and poultry farmers have a highly-selective view of patriotism, depending whether they are buying, or selling.
My point about farm machinery parts is that
(1) all Canadian farmers are treated the same
(2) there is no tariff protecting Canadian producers
(3) there is nothing to prevent retailers selling for less
(4) there is nothing to prevent somebody from manufacturing the parts here
I really don't know what your point is - I can only surmise that you are somehow upset, but that you can't figure out why. Either way, you're obviously not a non-supply managed farmer under the age of 40 from Huron County.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Is there people going over to buy just milk and poultry , wow must really love the drive or milk and poultry. I think but am not 100% sure because they would not allow me to stand and go through every ones bags to see what they buy. Maybe a full tank of gas perhaps new tires maybe some new clothes or some building materials in the back of there truck maybe the one they bought over there. That is likely a small lists which they drive over there for yes read the farm papers where the farmers and consumers go over to pick up their products they ordered ship free to a UPS depot and they drive across to pick them up and its not a jug of milk or a chicken or 2 its not even grocery. I guess I have to get my eyes checked we seem to read completely different papers of what people not just farmers are going across the Ontario border for. Where,s my glasses?
It's about the 200% tariffs which apply only to dairy and poultry products, and nothing else. These tariffs are the only thing which government can really do something about, but they seem to be blind to 30 million consumers and the 90% of farmers who have to compete with the incomes and purchasing power available only to dairy and poultry farmers. It is also about the fact that, thanks to government legislation, 30 million consumers and non-supply managed farmers are economic slaves to 15,000 dairy and poultry farmers. And thirdly, it's about the hypocrisy of dairy farmers who are trying to make people believe the arithmetic impossibility that supply management is just as good for them now that they are paying almost 38% more for milk, as they were when they were supposedly paying nothing more. And sorry, people, the debate is about food, and tariffs on food - everything else, including building materials, is, in this context, irrelevant because it isn't food, and there are no tariffs levied.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
All that matters is that sm farmers are protected by EXTREMELY high tariffs, and nobody else in Canada is. Period.
Any time somebody, or something, which like supply management, has a legislated advantage nobody else has, it always produces evil. One of the biggest evils of any sort of legislated entitlement is that it always produces an outraged, and extremely well-funded, chorus of denials from the entitled. Many of our ancestors came here to get away from the legislated entitlements held by the English aristocracy, while some, whose descendents are also Ontario farmers, came here to get away from the legislated entitlements accruing to slave owners in the pre-civil war US South. Supply management has, sadly, produced exactly the same sense of aristocratic entitlement, and therefore, it too, is evil.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
People who have never milked cows solely to make a living never know how much work goes into for the money you receive ,lots of hours for the pay which by the way is 7 -24. Go to work 40 hours a week with weekends off and 2-5 week holidays besides and benefits, compare and see who is making more hour per hour. I don,t get it you say but I look and say you don,t get it go and work 7-24 and say in the end that you should not have a fair living for what you do. In the end look at the amount of income tax you pay and receive no benefits.
You seem to have a selective view of work - consumers work hard too, yet you seem to have no hesitation forcing over 30 million of them to pay almost 38% more than necessary, simply to pamper 15,000 quota-owning millionaires who, in all-too-many cases, don't work at all. In addition, US dairy farmers work hard too, so why should Ontario dairy farmers be entitled to receive, what DFO noted in late 2010, was a farm gate price of milk which was within pennies per liter of the US retail price? And, according to your "logic", it is perfectly OK for Canadian dairy farmers to continue to have an absolute advantage over every non-supply managed farmer, because dairy farmers work harder. Sorry, but your "logic" is exactly why non-supply managed farmers under the age of 40, many who work harder than any dairy farmer, but who are always going to be second-class farmers/slaves as long as supply management exists, really don't like supply management. Who could blame them?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I said nothing about slavery so why is it you have to put words in my mouth. The young people don,t have to go into dairy or other sm farming so why should you bash a dairy farmer because he had the nerve to take dairy farming up and not sit on the sideline throwing stones at them.
If I'm "putting words in your mouth" it's because you're trying not to say them. Anyone who defends his/her ability to use enabling legislation, legislation which isn't available to anyone but dairy and poultry farmers, to enslave not just consumers (what else would you call forcing them to pay almost 38% more than US consumers?) but also their fellow farmers who will never enjoy the incomes and purchasing power available to a select few dairy and poultry farmers, deserves to have stones thrown at them for trying to defend a rural aristocracy at the clear expense of almost everyone else in our society.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I would like to know what you call the wind turbine companies who are ripping off consumers by getting a subsidy to produce power at rates not even competitve with nukes or hydro . Power we are selling/exporting at a loss . Oh and don't forget that they will get paid not to produce power also . But then gov tells us we are not paying the true cost of hydro . Then you go stupid over a system that does pay COP . Hhmmmm
Wind energy is poor economics, but two wrongs don't make a right.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
One right thing said does not make it so that all things you say are right !
Excellent points Stephen Thompson. You have a remarkable ability to say things exactly how they are, as opposed to what the SM folks would otherwise have others and themselves believe otherwise.
Are you a wolf in sheep clothing? 38% wow . SM must be bad , if you look at the prices at other places they are higher then we pay here.
You've got to remember this almost 38% came from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, and for them to admit a number this damaging to their cause, had to be only because they realized it could have easily been a whole-lot worse, and they were trying, after forty years boasting about cross-border retail price equivalency, to paint the "least-worst" scenario. There is, I suggest, something which smells really-bad at DFO for trying to make us believe we are just as well off when paying almost 38% more for milk as we were when we were supposedly paying nothing more. I mean, really, why don't dairy farmers just accept that when even DFO's own numbers show Ontario consumers are being gouged by supply management, that it is gouging?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Just seen a piece in our farm mag. that said milk consumption per cap. is going down in the states and one reason is rise in price. If they gave it away people could afford it ? There is people that will pay 1$ for a bottle of water over a glass of milk anytime , people are trying to lose weight or staying in shape and figure that milk products is to fattening. So in the end how low do the price of milk got to go so people will take it over water and all the sports drinks that is already a lot more money than milk ever thought of being. Go to a beer store and see the line up, or a game and see how many is drinking a beer and not a glass of milk.
With milk consumption dropping in the US even at their cheap price it does not bode well for for their producers . They soon too will realize we in Canada here have a system that works . Perfect maybe not , but works . But that being said their dairy producers will just get a bigger piece of the subsidy pie . If they do come up with a program comparable to , they will call it trade friendly !!
Beer and milk can hardly be said or looked at in the same light . Beer is a pleasure drink and children are not allowed unless their parents would give it to them . And Thompson would have to switch to some thing else to have with his brazilian chicken wings . Which by the way became so popular because it was considered a waste portion of the bird and some got the idea to sell cheap unwanted meat at a loss and make it up on beer sales to help pay subsidies with more tax dollar collection .
Now if you dropped the price of milk I am sure some SM bashers on this site would then blaim it for the cause of child obesity .
How many people can afford the milk or milk products if they didn,t drink their beer or smoke? My pleasure drink is milk.
The "sin taxes" collected by government on the sales of alcohol and tobacco, unlike supply management, don't go to wealthy dairy and poultry farmers, but go to finance welfare payments so that the poorest group of consumers can afford to buy dairy and poultry products. I mean, come on really, supply management supporters, are you really so-desperately, and so-completely, out of arguments to support your cause, that you can't even think about what you post, before you post it?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Many of those dollars go to programs so rich greedy companies can rape the consumer . Look at all of the Non Canadian companies lined up to rape the citizens of this province with the GEA . Do you think consumers aren't paying more times than enough now ? Also with welfare dollars every one knows that most of that money goes back through the system via the liquor store , corner store for smokes unless they get to the reserve , and for some the local habit dealer . If you have ever had the pleasure of welfare recipients living next door you would know . The food they buy is not good food . It is the children who suffer . But at least many get help from SM through school breakfast programs .
If dairy and poultry farmers weren't so badly screwing consumers, there would be just that much less need for school breakfast programs in the first place. Only dairy and poultry farmers would have the nerve to try to take credit for helping solve a problem they steadfastly deny having helped create in the first place.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Be sure to catch the last of the Lang and O'leary exchange. The CEO of Pizza Pizza is on as a guest star, and they talk briefly about how an industry like theirs and many others are at a disadvantage because of supply management. So apparently is is not just us "3" who feel this way. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
If you are going to eat Pizza Pizza you might as well eat frozen . It is crap .
As for any thing on facts said by .... Its about the Money !! Even when it is not !!
The reality is that EVERY fresh pizza maker in Canada is forced to pay more than they need to pay for cheese, the most expensive ingredient in any pizza, solely to benefit about 12,000 greedy dairy farmers. When Paul Goddard, the CEO of Pizza Pizza, publicly trashes supply management on national TV, most people would pay attention, especially when there's a good chance there are more fresh pizza outlets in Canada than dairy farmers. And, ditto when it comes to "anything on facts said by the dairy lobby.....it's always about the money". LOL! It's good to see somebody stand up to the dairy lobby and tell it like it is. The next time I'm near a Pizza Pizza outlet, I'm going to buy a pizza in support of Goddard's stand against supply management.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Pizza Pizza is the number one pizza franchise in Canada. Isn't frozen pizza U.S cheese?
Last night thousands of people were educated. For years sm did a good job of flying under the radar. People know that dairy and poultry are the most expensive foods in the grocery store, but many didn't know why. Thanks to TV, Lang and O'leary viewer's, who didn't already know, found out last night. Thanks to liberal leadership hopeful, Martha Hall-Findlay, travelling across the country on her campaign path, many more will know. The governing bodies in sm are all crooked and self serving, and processor's are gaining the upper hand with plant supply quota.(Yogurt) Higher sales, exports? Forget it. The milk boards job is protecting tha Canadian market for these processors. SM farmer's should have been the first ones asking for serious reform in the system, but that ship has sailed. Thank your lobby groups. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
Make your own pizza and have the best pizza you will ever have and you put how much and whatever on it. We bought some frozen pizza so when we have the kids over and we are busy and would never buy them again and same as buying one if we are away and would like a pizza to hit the spot and it is junk just like the frozen. I don,t watch those shows nothing but millionaires who made theirs wealth off the back of others people sweat. Well look at the CEO he likely won,t eat his own pizza and if the 3 like them by all means go ahead and enjoy, I for one like the home made .
You are, of course, ignoring the fact that, declining or not, US milk consumption is still well-above Canadian consumption, thanks entirely to the restrictions imposed by supply managment. You are also ignoring the fact that US fresh pizza makers don't have to pay more for their cheese than frozen pizza makers. You are also ignoring the fact that DFO admitted in late 2010 that the farm gate price of milk in Ontario was within pennies per liter of the US retail price, meaning that only a fanatic could still claim supply management "works", yet we obviously have 15,000 quota owners still fanatic about defending the indefensible.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton, ON
It was on this site that mr. McGivern said he would use his own dollars to fight SM . Now he is using PFO dollars for the fight . PORKY !!!
I am not sure what PFO dollars i am using to fight this campaign with please do inform me and the rest of my organization ???
Sean McGivern
PFO
Post new comment