In health care, a public service paid for by our tax dollars, virtually every Doctor, Nurse, PSW, and Administrator realize that the patients must be provided timely, accurate medical information so that they can make an informed medical decision. Whether the health care provider agrees with the patient's decision, or the patient followed or ignored their expert medical advice, once the patient has made the decision, those health care providers are responsible to enable and facilitate that patient's decision, whether they agree or not.
The legislation and regulations of Supply Management created a monopoly for everyone in the Supply Management system. Consumers now have the "privilege" to pay up to 300% for chicken so as to support this artificial monopoly. Shouldn't that give the consumers some rights beyond "take it or leave it"?
I posted previously on this Blog about the 7 questions for which I seek answers by the Ministry of Agriculture's Appeal Tribunal (see "Tribunal Time" ). Since then, the list has expanded to 8 questions.
Today, let's take a detailed look at Question #3:
3. Under Section 7.(2).(a) of Farm Products Agency Act and Section 12.(2) of Farm Products Marketing Act, the majority of producers for an agricultural commodity must agree for that commodity to come under Supply Management. The Appellant alleges that the 13,000 Small Flockers in Ontario were never consulted on this question. In spite of this, both the Federal and Ontario governments have approved the 1,400 member minority to enter Supply Management, and approved the minority to pass onerous regulations that favour the minority and oppress the majority. In a free and democratic country, is there sufficient constitutional authority for a 1,400 member minority to be given unilateral authority to rule and control both the 1,400 minority and the 13,000 majority, thereby creating a Chicken Apartheid?The governments of Canada have their powers limited to "peace, order, and good government" according to Section 91 of the Canadian Constitution.
Canada is a free and democratic country, as the Supreme Court of Canada likes to keep reminding us. That means that government must work for the greater good of all (the majority, or as close to "all" as we can get), while protecting the rights of the minorities.
So how did their lobbyists slip this by everybody so as to construct a Chicken Apartheid where 1,400 chicken farmers rule the roost, and decide on what's best for them, at the expense of the other 13.5 Million people in Ontario?
Small Flockers weren't consulted on this choice of Supply Management for Ontario chicken. Why were the rights of the 13,000 majority of chicken farmers violated, contrary to the protections and safeguards in the Acts?
Like any good trick by a magician, you can watch him do the trick time and again, but may never figure out how he did it.
Fortunately, it's easy to figure out that the end result is just plain wrong. It's like finding out that the magician includes a pick pocketing demonstration in his stage magical act. The pick pocketing magician works the whole crowd, amassing a stolen fortune in watches, rings, and wallets.
Unfortunately, this particular magician refuses to return anything to their rightful owners. At what point does the crowd stop applauding the slight of hand, and start demanding to get their property back?
You can only let that kleptocracy (ie. a bureaucracy that steals) go on for so long before it's no longer funny.
Perhaps a similar moment is soon to arrive in Canada for the Chicken Mafia.