The Tribunal has made its decision on our Appeal. Now it is time for Small Flockers and their friends to make our decision.
The Tribunal's decision on CFO's Motion to Dismiss our appeal is available here: Tribunal's Decision.
Small Flockers need to decide if we abandon our fight for freedom and affordable food, or continue our fight for truth, justice, and pragmatic solutions.
I just sent an email to all members of Small Flockers, and a few key agriculture media contacts. That emailed letter is reproduced here.
As requested in this letter, if you have any feedback, I'd like to receive it too. Call, email, or post your comments below, whether pro or con.
* * *
Begin Email Letter
To: Members of Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada
c.c. Agriculture Media
As a member, supporter, or follower of Small Flocker Poultry Farmers
of Canada, you need to know that we are at an important decision
point for Small Flockers, and I seek your advice.
Attached, you will find the Tribunal's decision on my appeal, where
I was acting as proxy for all other Small Flockers in Ontario, and
the rest of Canada.
The Appeals Tribunal has rejected all of our issues raised, except
for one: the 300 birds/yr grow limit imposed on Small Flockers by
CFO (Chicken Farmers of Ontario), and our request to have the limit
raised to 2,000 birds per year, in line with most other Provinces.
The Tribunal has invited me to file an amended Notice of Appeal on
this one issue. I need to decide if I should give up now, or file
the abridged appeal.
In my mind, the #1 issue was, and remains, whether CFO is a power
unto themselves. CFO seems to feel they can do as they please with
the government powers delegated & vested in them, to feather
their own nest at the expense of everybody else in Ontario. If we
solve this one issue about CFO's role, most or all other issues in
chicken supply management will automatically (more or less) solve
themselves. This is why safe, affordable food for all Ontario
families is the second most important issue that we hoped to address
in this appeal.
Today, Health Canada reports that 7.6% of Canadian families can't
afford the food they need to feed themselves. In our have-not
Province of Ontario, food insecurity is 11% worse than the Canadian
average. Will this be an election issue? Is there any hope of
solving or improving this issue if we abandon our appeal at this
point in time?
If I file the amended appeal, the Tribunal may have to rule on that
central core issue (ie. Does CFO have a duty to do what is in the
best interest of the public?), but the Tribunal could also refuse
again to address that important issue, deciding the 300 vs. 2,000
bird limit question based on other facts. I believe we can show on
the balance of probabilities that strengthening and expanding small
flockers would be in the public's best interest, and would be more
fair to small flockers. CFO has again stated that the 300 bird
limit was not set, and has no need to be set at a level that is
commercially viable (ie. it is not necessary that a small flocker
has a reasonable expectation of making a profit).
I expect that if I go forward, most or all of the cost, time, and
effort will likely have to come from me personally. For that
reason, I seek your advice, but reserve the final decision to me
alone. In other words, I reserve the right to accept or reject the
advice of the majority of Small Flock members, and each individual.
However, I would greatly appreciate receiving your advice, and more
important yet, the REASONS behind your advice.
There is no guarantee that we will win or achieve anything if I do
all the work of re-filing a new, revised version of an appeal, and
go back to the Tribunal again.
I suggest that CFO would be very glad to sweep all of this under the
carpet. By making this appeal a tough and drawn out process, CFO
likely hopes to wear us down, so that all sane people give up before
getting anywhere close to the finish line. In that way, CFO wins by
default, and the status quo continues in CFO's advantage. There is
no guarantee that CFO won't file another Motion to Dismiss
to my revised Notice of Appeal.
Personally, all or most of my issues have been swept aside; gone,
deemed outside of the chosen jurisdiction of Tribunal by this
decision.
On the other hand, it is usual for Courts and Tribunals to decide or
comment on only the minimum number of issues necessary to make the
decision at hand. The Tribunal was asked to dismiss or contain the
issues in the appeal. That is the decision that they have made.
If we go forward by filing the amended Notice of Appeal, the
Tribunal may have to decide on some of these other collateral issues
too. That would be the best possible outcome, where some or all of
these other important issues get decided by the Tribunal as
collateral benefits that come with the Tribunal's future decision
about the 300 vs. 2000 bird limit. Perhaps we can enter by the back
door after having been refused entrance by the front door.
The Tribunal suggest I should ask for a Public Inquiry on all of the
issues raised. What's the chances of getting the Fed or Prov.
government to hold a public inquiry? What a joke. Snowball's
chance in Hell, in my opinion. Perhaps I am wrong on this, but I am
not prepared to spend 1 second of effort on that impossible dream.
As for me personally, my barn can only grow 100 meat birds at a
time. At a max. of 6 grow sessions per year (think of the energy
bill in -40 deg. C weather), I can do a max of 600 birds per year if
I don't build a new barn. If I restrict my growing to those that I
can do economically, I can grow 4 sessions per year @ 100 birds per
session= 400 birds per year. There isn't much difference between
300 (current CFO limit by Ontario Regulation) vs 400 birds per year
limit (the physical restraint of my barn). I can't justify all the
effort to fight this David Vs. Goliath battle for 100 more chickens
per year that I would grow personally. CFO's data says that 50% of
small flockers have 60 birds or less at present. It would appear
that most Small Flockers in Ontario are similar to me at present.
There is the possibility that after 10 or 20 years with the 2,000
bird limit, more and more Small Flockers will start growing more
chicken because it has become economically feasible to do so. That
is the hope, but mostly speculation whether it would actually
occur. Nobody knows for sure.
The current 300 birds/yr. limit allows one farmer to produce enough
chicken to feed 5.5 families for a year.
Alternatively, there are about 100 families in my small village. If
I focus on feeding them, that is about 250 people. Assuming 38 kg
of chicken consumed per person per year, that is a total of 9,500 kg
per year of chicken required. At 2 kg per eviscerated chicken, that
is 4,750 birds per year. With a 2,000 bird limit, I would be able
to feed about 42% of my remote village for their annual chicken
consumption. That would seem to be reasonable in my particular
case. Perhaps there are many Small Flockers who have a similar duty
or opportunity so as to achieve safe, nutritious, locally produced
chicken for their community. Perhaps this is sufficient reason to
continue the fight.
On the other hand, this revised grow limit [of] 2,000 birds per year
might allow for the creation of mid-sized regional chicken
producers, possibly adding a middle tier into the current 2 tier
system (ie. currently just quota farmers and small flock farmers).
I'd be doing all the work for a very few individuals who would
benefit from being able to become a regional chicken producer. In
the future, will these regional producers align themselves with the
small flockers and the consumers, or will they choose to align
themselves with the big boys (ie. the millionaire quota chicken
farmers and producers) so that they get free crumbs from the
master's table? I am not highly motivated to help splinter and add
to the opposition forces (ie. possibly similar to chopping a star
fish in half so as to get rid of them, but you end up with twice as
many star fishes, as each piece re-grows into a whole star fish). On
the positive side, perhaps this new middle tier of chicken producers
will help apprentice & ease in new chicken farmers to our
industry, rather than the current trans-Atlantic jump that is
required from small flock (easy for everybody to do) to full minimum
quota size (ie. a multi-million dollar operation). Therefore a
3-tier system might be good for Ontario in the long run.
If I stop now, I will have failed in my purpose, as Jim Rohnman said
yesterday in his Blog
http://agri007.blogspot.ca/2014/05/black-loses-appeal.html
Perhaps I have poisoned the well, and it is better if I toss the
ball into the air, yell "Free Throw", and hope somebody else jumps
up, grabs the ball, and runs with it.
I don't like the thought of being a quitter, nor of being a failure,
nor admitting to have wasted the huge effort I expended over the
last 3 years on these issues. However, it would be an even greater
disaster to ignore this setback, then blunder on to an even greater
waste of time and effort, or the further polarization and
entrenchment between the CFO and Small Flocker factions.
If I go forward, I have little to no personal skin in the game. It
will be mainly "for the good of all Ontario" and the new regional
chicken producers who would gain from my efforts if I choose to
proceed. Perhaps in the long term there might be some advantages to
what we have done so far; it's hard to know.
It's a tough decision. That's why I need your advice. Please call
or email me with your thoughts; pro or con.
Yours truly,
Glenn
--
Glenn Black
President
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada
c/o 576 Firehall Rd. P.O. Box 101
Providence Bay ON P0P 1T0
Phone (705)-377-4039
cdn.small.flockers@gmail.com
Blog: http://canadiansmallflockers.blogspot.ca/
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to communicate, discuss, and advocate for the civil rights and important role that small flock poultry farmers can play (and should play) in Canadian Society.
* * *
End Email Letter
If you have any feedback, I'd like to receive it too. Call, email, or post your comments below, whether pro or con.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Off-topic commercial spam that's posted so as to help sell your wares will be deleted.
On-topic comments, where you behave yourself and play nicely, will remain posted; whether they are pro or con. Everybody needs to fully understand all points of view so that we can find a solution that encompasses everybody's concerns. Give it your best shot.
If you decide to post, your posting becomes part of the public record, and SFPFC has full rights to use it (or not) in any reasonable manner or medium that suits our purposes.
Before posting, please proofread, and correct as necessary. If you subsequently discover a need to fix your previous posting, make an additional posting that refers to the original posting, then set the record straight.