The Rats Run For Cover

BC Farm Industry Review Board (BCFIRB) doesn't want to get involved in the messy subject of weaponized chicken manure, such as was done in 3 British Columbia ("BC") cities (Abbotsford, Surrey, and Port Coquitlam).

I previously posted about biohazardous chicken manure used as a weapon against the homeless in British Columbia (see Abuse of BC Homeless Persons via Chicken Manure ).

I emailed 9 questions to the various organizations running and supervising the BC chicken Supply Management ("SM") system in BC.

So far, I have heard back from BC Farm Industry Review Board (BCFIRB), who disavow any knowledge or responsibility or authority for weaponized chicken manure that appears to have originated from one or more BC chicken farm operating under the Supply Management System:

Dear Mr. Black:

I reply on behalf of the BC Farm Industry Review Board (BCFIRB), which also is the provincial agency responsible for the supervision of the BC Chicken Marketing Board.

Let it be clear – although on-farm manure management and disposal is an important part of a poultry operation for a number of reasons, manure itself is not a regulated product under the Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act and the BC Chicken Marketing Scheme, 1961. Consequently, neither the Chicken Board or BCFIRB can assume responsibility for actions of individuals outside the scope of their authority. Regardless of how the boards might regard such actions or conduct.

I suggest it would be more appropriate to raise any concerns you may have directly with the authorities involved in the incidents.

Yours truly,

Jim Collins

Executive Director

BC Farm Industry Review Board

Figure 1: The Chain of Command for
BC's Supply Management System
for Chicken, showing BCFIRB's jaded and
self-serving opinion on who has
responsibility & authority (or lack
thereof) for the weaponized chicken
manure used against the homeless
in 3 BC cities.

My Analysis

 To be sure we're all on the same page, Figure 1 to the right is a diagram of the Chain of Command in BC's Chicken Supply Management system as I understand it.  BC's Ministry of Agriculture is the Big Boss, and every SM chicken farmer is the pawn who must obey all those above him.

OK so far?

Per the email response from BCFIRB shown above, BCFIRB gives themselves and the BC Chicken Marketing Board an absolute discharge from any responsibility, and heaps all the blame on some unknown SM chicken farmer.

No doubt these two SM angels will also stonewall, obscure, hide, and foot drag any attempt to identify or censure the SM chicken farmer(s) that supplied the biohazardous chicken manure for this disgraceful attack on the homeless.  If they happen to know or suspect who did it, they will likely refuse to disclose this information, as it will be classified as "Top Secret" under the SM confidentiality system.

I wonder if the BC Ministry of Agriculture, and the Honourable Norm Letnick support the position of BCFIRB that BCFIRB gives themselves and the BC Chicken Marketing Board angel wings of purity that protect them from the weaponized chicken manure.

Perhaps all of us should ask Minister Letnick if he supports BCFIRB's position, and perhaps he claims a pair of angel wings for himself and his Ministry too.  We'll only know if we ask.

Time for You to take Action

Here is the suggested email, and the link:  Pre-formated Email to BC Ag Minister Letnick

Feel free to customize this to fit your exact thoughts & feelings:

Dear Minister Letnick:  In a 2015/10/22 email to SFPFC, BCFIRB states that they themselves and the BC Chicken Marketing Board have neither responsibility nor authority (ie. prevention, prohibition, auditing, investigating, censuring, etc.) for preventing the weaponization of chicken manure that allegedly originated on BC Supply Management chicken farm(s), and was subsequently used against the homeless in 3 cities of BC.

Do you and your Ministry support this position of BCFIRB?  If you agree with BCFIRB, who does have responsibility and authority ? 

My Suggested Answer

I had hoped (and still do) that BCFIRB had responded better.  I responded in part, as follows:

I therefore conclude that there is a need in the most general sense to require that all those under BCFIRB's supervision must:

1. Define and document the stated & implied needs and expectation of all upstream and downstream stakeholders in the SM supply chain, up to and including the ultimate retail customer.
2. Do what's legal, moral, effective, and right; consistently meeting those needs & expectations agreed upon between the various parties within the SM supply chain.
3. Understand, define, document, communicate, and serve the social license granted to SM;
4. Understand, define, document, communicate, and serve the greater good of the general public.
5. Design all policies, principles, procedures, rules, priorities, actions, budgeting, resource allocation, key performance measurements, inspections, audits, and reporting systems so that they can accurately determine the effectiveness and consistency of meeting these 4 primary mandates
6. Report on all 7 of these primary mandates to all stakeholders on a regular, comprehensive, timely, open, transparent, and accountable manner.
7. Every person has a personal duty to:  a) identify any risks, conflicts of interest, bad faith, or non-compliance to these 7 principles; and   b) report any known or reasonably suspected matters; and   c) If they are so authorized and capable, take immediate corrective action to resolve the risk or non-compliance; otherwise bring the matter to the attention of that person's immediate supervisor as well as those that are directly responsible for the matter.

I would suggest that these 7 principles can be enacted as mandatory requirements for BCFIRB and all those under your supervision.  It immediately prohibits, (and hopefully soon thereafter terminates) any sharp dealing, plausible deniability, bad faith, conflict of interest, turning a blind eye, going with the flow, and other dysfunctional behaviours.
To test this proposal out, pick some jobs at random points in the SM supply chain (eg. janitor, CEO, MPP, DVM, clerk, truck driver, retail meat counter clerk, etc.).  Assume that they just learned about the plan to spray homeless people in BC with fresh chicken manure from a BC farm operating under SM.  Assuming that this person has been properly trained and made responsible under these 7 principles, what should we expect to occur next?  Now try it again with some other crazy scheme that would equally rupture SM's social contract when the public eventually learns the gory details.
Does BCFIRB sense that the entire Supply Management ("SM") system, including BCFIRB, operates under a social license from the people (ie. all Canadians)?  If SM were to mutate into a greater & greater parasite upon society, how long will SM's social license continue?  Provincial and Federal governments under the Canadian constitution have their powers limited by, and a duty imposed upon them to do what is in the best interest (ie. greater good) of the citizens.  I respectfully suggest that since virtually all of SM's powers and responsibilities (including those of BCFIRB) are derived from these governments, then those duties and restrictions necessarily travel with the powers delegated to BCFIRB, and all other branches of SM.

Well readers, what do you think?  Is it better for Canada and Canadians that the entire SM system is blind & deaf, and SM farmers can do as they please, including the selling of biohazardous chicken manure for use as a weapon against homeless persons?

Do you see some value (or problems) in what I propose?  Either way, please comment below, and send your emails in to Minister Letnick (see link above).

The Complaint & The Solution

The governments have declared time & again that they are 100% committed to their broken, ineffective, and dangerous Supply Management System.  Here is a complaint about one aspect of this crazy Supply Management System, and a proposed solution for all of the current problems.

We have a number of problems with our Supply Management System in Canada for food production of eggs, chickens, turkeys, and dairy.  This Blog, through the 387 postings and in-depth investigations over the last 2.3 years have repeatedly shown the flaws in this SM system, and some proposed solutions.

The government is responsible for ensuring that this system adequately serves Canadians.

The government is responsible, through its legislation and regulations, are responsible for clearly and comprehensively describing what is expected, ensure adequate resources are available to achieve those expectations, and a framework for achieving those goals in an effective manner.

Poor legislation causes confusion and misinterpretation of what can and should be done.  The latest case in point is the mis-use of antimicrobials, primarily in CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) farms operated under the SM system.

Small Flockers believe the government has responsibility to:

1. Ensure there are clear expectations (what must be done, what is prohibited)
2. Ensure there are adequate resources (eg. responsibility, authority, money, personnel, equipment, tools, infrastructure, training, policies, procedures, etc.) to achieve those expectations.
3. Ensure that the system (and the people in it) are adequately aware of the expectations, the actual results achieved, and the methods used.
4. Ensure that where there is a gap (ie. non-compliance or ineffectiveness) between the expectations and the actual outcomes, that gap is closed and eliminated in a timely and effective manner so that this particular gap and all similar gaps never occur again.

Dr. Joseph Juran (1904-2008), Professor,
Consultant, & Author.  Dr. Juran was a
Quality Assurance Guru, one of the
leaders of the World-wide Quality
Revolution.

Four simple rules, based on Dr. Joseph Juran's teachings on Quality Assurance.  Dr. Juran is one of my personal heros.

It's unfortunate that the government hasn't seen the light so far.

Since the SM System has run amok for way too long, they will need remedial training and guidance on what those 4 simple rules mean.  We have to spell it out for them in a little more detail.  That is why we proposed 10 clarifications for the SM legislation and regulations in Canada (see Superbugs: CAFO-Induced Infections, and a 10-step solution 

Here is our letter of complaint to the Federal Government, Ontario Government, and the Chicken Supply Management System.  The same goes for all the other Provinces, Territories, and SM commodities, but for now we choose to focus our efforts at the epicenter of need.

Email:   Small Flocker's Complaint & Proposed Solution

Federal-Provincial Chicken Deal

I previously Blogged about how governments signed the Federal-Provincial Agreement for Chicken 2001 on how they will run the chicken supply management system in Canada, and the duties of the Chicken Farmers of Canada ("CFC") under that deal.  To ensure agreement and compliance, a total of 33 organizations signed on that agreement, binding them to follow the mutually agreed rules.

On Mar. 7 2013, I  asked CFC to provide me objective evidence of their on-going compliance with that Fed-Prov Chicken Agreement.  It's been a month now, and no answer yet.  I wonder why?

To be fair to stakeholders and effective, we need 4 minimum requirements in an agreement such as this:

Mandatory Requirements

1. People have to know what is expected
2. They have to have adequate resources (time, $, technology, knowledge, training, etc.) so that they can implement the various tasks so as to meet the expectations.
3. They have to be able to make timely and accurate measurements of what they achieved, and compare that to what was expected (see Item #1 above).
4. They have to be able to close any gap between what was expected, and what actually occurred.
   

Requirement #1:   Clear Expectations

Of all the Supply Management Systems in Canada for chicken, I like this agreement.  It's well written, and seems to recognize the rights of Canadians, and the duty of the system to serve the public.  For example, it seems to clearly state the expectations, per Requirement #1 above:

1.00 Purpose and Objectives
1.01 This Agreement provides for an orderly marketing system for chicken coordinated in a flexible and market responsive manner having appropriate safeguards so as to provide consistency, predictability and stability in accordance with the following objectives:
a) to optimize sustainable economic activity in the chicken industry;
b) to pursue opportunities in both domestic and international markets;
c) to enhance competitiveness and efficiency in the chicken industry; and
d) to work in the balanced interest of producers, industry stakeholders and consumers. 

One thing that is missing is "continuous improvement", but that is certainly implied by sustainable, optimize, enhance, and efficiency; all of which are in the Agreement.

A second thing is that the Agreement implies, but doesn't specifically state, that all signatory parties have a shared responsibility for acting in a diligent manner so as to achieve the agreed-upon Purpose and Objectives of the Agreement.  For example, we could have a problem if everybody agreed to what was supposed to occur, but everybody assumed that the others would do all or most of the work.

Section 2.01 requires that the Federal and Provincial Ministers recommend legislation so that the Agreement can be implemented.  There is a somewhat ambiguous requirement of these same Ministers to see that the Agreement is effectively implemented.

Section 2.04 requires the Federal and Provincial Ministers to delegate authority to the various Supervisory Boards and Marketing Boards so as to fully implement and maintain the Agreement.

It is unfortunate that this Agreement did not have these same Supervisory Boards and Marketing Boards agree to accept the delegated powers described in Section 2.04, and to apply their best efforts to implement those delegated responsibilities, and to achieve the Purposes and Objectives of this Agreement.

Section 2.05 comes close to assigning responsibility, but close isn't good enough to my way of thinking:

2.05 CFC, the Provincial Supervisory Boards, and
the Provincial Commodity Boards each agree,
within their own jurisdictions and pursuant to
delegated authority, to:
a) exercise or cooperate in the exercise of
legislative powers with respect to the
enactment of marketing plans, regulations
or orders; and
b) establish or cooperate in the establishment
of agreements and policies required to fully
implement and maintain this Agreement.

I see a world of difference between:

• Agreeing to enact &/or establish marketing plans, regulations, orders, agreements, and policies (ie. "define the system"); and
• Applying best efforts and necessary resources to "implement the system".

Unfortunately, the Agreement doesn't require all parties to do their very best to achieve the Agreement's Purposes and Objectives.

Since both CFC and CFO were signatories to this Agreement, I assume they know about all of the Agreement's Purposes and Objectives.

While the words are simple to write, implementing those same words on a consistent basis is much more difficult.  That is what Requirement #2 is all about.


Requirement #2: Necessary Resources

Since CFC is able to charge levies to all chicken farmers and all Provincial Marketing Boards, they have the ability to obtain the necessary funding.  With that funding, they can hire the necessary people, buy the office space, computers, books, and everything else they need so that they have the necessary resources (or can readily get them).  I therefore think that Item #2 can be met.

The same ability of ordering levies is available to Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO"), and I assume the same for all the other Provincial Marketing Boards.

While they could do Item #2 if they wanted to do so, I don't know as of yet how well they actually implemented that part of their responsibilities.


Requirement #3: Measure Results

In Section 3.01 (c), each of the Provincial Commodity Boards are responsible for ensuring that their systems for quota allotment are auditable by CFC.

In Section 4.01 (b), CFC is made responsible for auditing all Provincial quota allocations.

I see a world of difference between auditing quota allocations, and the measuring of compliance to the entire Agreement by all the parties thereto.

Perhaps this is where the governments failed.  There is a lack of openness, accountability, and transparency.

Do you think us mere mortals might get to see the audit results if we ask really nicely for full disclosure?


Requirement #4: Corrective Action

If you don't know how well the Agreement is being implemented, how can you implement corrective actions for non-compliances or inefficiencies or continuous improvement?  You can't.

I guess none of the 33 signatories thought about this.  I wonder why? Most unfortunate.


Fixing the Problems

Under Section 9.01, changes to the Agreement require the unanimous agreement of all parties.  How easy is it going to be to achieve agreement on the comprehensive auditing on a periodic basis for the Agreement and the roles played by all signatory parties?

Maybe that's why this was left out of the Agreement.  Perhaps someone tried to add accountability, but one or more of the parties to the Agreement balked at openness and accountability.

Perhaps with the passing of 12 years, some additional maturity for the parties, and the dire needs felt by Canadians,perhaps now we can seek to fix these shortcomings in the Agreement.

We can only ask, and hope.

People! Please Pamper our Prince

We have a problem with chicken in Canada.  It's way too expensive.  We aren't maximizing the available benefits by growing lots of Canadian chicken for exporting around the world.  The current chicken system is unhealthy for both the chicken, and for us.

Why won't the government listen to the people and their complaints, and change the systems for the better? The problem doesn't stop with chicken.  There are many other evils in our society today that are within our control to change for the better.  So why don't the improvements occur?

I suggest there are really good reasons for the government refusing to act, which I will share with you later in this Blog posting.  First however, have patience while I give you some background info you will need later on so that you can better understand the answer.

"...A prince can never secure himself against a hostile people, because of their being too many, whilst from the nobles he can secure himself, as they are few in number." 

The Prince (1513), Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 - 1527)

Machiavelli was speaking about the ancient societies of Greece, Macedonia, and Rome, and the 1500's of Florence Italy.  Today, our society has significant differences from those historic times, but there is still much wisdom in his words, and many similarities for today.

Today, the "Princes" are the elected officials and their bureaucratic mandarins (ie. the civil service).  The "Nobles" are today's equivalent of the large corporations and wealthy individuals (ie. the 1%'ers).

Most people think Machiavelli was evil, the devil incarnate.  His name is now used as a label by psychiatrists for describing one of the three major personality disorders (The Dark Triad).  Does Machiavelli deserve this bad reputation?

Some feel Machiavelli got a bad rap, because he blabbed the secrets of the Princes, telling the people how "the system" really works.  The Princes already knew how to take and hold power against the people, no matter what; they didn't need Machiavelli telling them how to do it.  It was the people who were previously ignorant, until The Prince was published.  These students of history believe that the Princes never forgave Machiavelli for whistle-blowing on the Princes, so the Princes started up their propaganda machinery against Machiavelli, making him the scapegoat.  The rest, as they say, is history.

So Machiavelli suggests that the government needs to fear the people.  Machiavelli isn't the only one to realize this.

"Where the people fear the government you have tyranny.
Where the government fears the people you have liberty."

                                              John Basil Barnhill, 1914.

This quote is often wrongly attributed to Thomas Jefferson.  Hollywood punched this quotation up some more for the 2005 movie V for Vendetta by the The Wachowski Brothers 

“People should not be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people"

OK, so for the moment, let's assume government should be quaking in their boots.  If this is true, then why won't the the government act to make things better for the people?

Sometimes the crowd is desperate to get something from the government because they have been whipped into a frenzy by manipulators and evil persons.  The crowd ends up demanding something that is not in their best interest.  Witness Pontius Pilot who found Jesus innocent, but sentenced him to crucifixion in spite of innocence, due to the riotous demands of the crowd.  We have all heard the following:

“Be careful what you wish for,  for you may get it."

So I suggest that governments will respond, even when they shouldn't, if the public makes it clearly known that this is what the crowd wants.

For the good of all, the crowd should check to make sure that neither I nor others are manipulating the crowd for ulterior motives.  DO your homework, for you may get stuck with what you ask for.

If the crowd has not found its voice, then the government will continue on with those who make their voice known and heard, the default condition.

The bureaucrats want more regulations, for this creates good paying jobs and job security for their members in the civil service.  The hiring of lobbyists for the wealthy and the corporations is easily afforded by the rich and powerful.  These lobbyists tirelessly press and push their master's special interests, seeking greater wealth and power at the expense of the masses.  These are the default powers who control the political puppets, until the public speaks.

Realize also, the government is very wary of acting too soon, or based only on a few noisy voices.  For Machiavelli also said,

"It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them."

The Prince (1513), Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 - 1527)

So I conclude that the government fails to act because of you and me.

It is all our fault.

It is all the sleeping citizens, those who continue to sleep through their lives as the world spins out of control, those are the ones who are to blame.

We have nobody but ourselves to blame.

I have finally awoken after many decades of sleeping, just as you sleep today.  I found a terrible mess when I was finally awake.  I am ringing the alarm bell so all can wake up, see the mess, and ask government to fix it soon.

When will you hear the alarm, wake up, and raise your voice too?