Why Support Canada's Supply Management System?

Perhaps it's time for Canada's Governments and politicians consider the consequences for Canada and all Canadians from the dysfunctional and corrupt Supply Management System running amok.


 The Federal Government, all Provincial Governments of Canada, and all MP's unanimously support Supply Management ("SM") for dairy, chicken, turkey, eggs, & more.

If the SM system has morphed into a negligent, dysfunctional, and corrupt system that hurts Canada and Canadians, why do all of them continue to support SM?

SM is a small, yet extremely powerful, and well connected special interest group.  Members of SM, and their lobbyists have the ear of all politicians and the mandarins in the civil service.

Agricultural lobbyists are the biggest fraction, best funded, and most intense of all Ottawa lobbyists.  Like being addicted to heroin, the habit is hard to break.

Please consider signing our petition on Change.org

 Kill Canada's Supply Management System Now !

The Supply Management Fortune Teller

Back in 1971 when this Supply Management ("SM") fiasco was launched, did anybody know the method, reasons, scope and magnitude of the SM disaster that was being released upon Canadians?

Previously, I tried to give our ancestors the benefit of the doubt.  Perhaps they truly didn't know.  Perhaps something needed to be done, they knew SM wasn't perfect, but that was the best idea they could come up with.

There was only one way to know for sure.  In preparation for our Small Claims Court lawsuit (see

• SFPFC takes #ChickenMafia to Court over Bogus FCR and
• The Legal ball in the court of the #ChickenMafia

I went back to the best historic source to find out.  I've been told this info might be useful as collaborating evidence in this pending lawsuit.  Obviously, it was the MP's who had the primary responsibilities to review the draft Bill, make sure it was feasible and in the best interest of Canada before passing it into law.

Dr. Paul Yewchuk, MP for
Athabaska AB

I subsequently stumbled my way around Parliament's website, eventually found Hansard, and by some miracle I have been unable to subsequently duplicate, I found myself reading a debate on Dec. 28, 1971.

After many dozens of pages of fine print, I finally discovered Dr. Paul Yewchuk, Progressive Conservative MP for the riding of Athabaska AB

Unfortunately, the image quality of the jpg image of Hansards is readable, but too poor to get OCR (Optical Character Recognition) to work, so I had to spend some time to re-type all of it.  For you, my faithful Blog-Dogs, I spare no expense or effort.

I learned that there was originally Bill C-176 around 1969, but it had stirred up such a hornets nest for 2 years, the government had to drop it, and lick its wounds for a while.  They then had the bravery (or stupidity, depending on who's side you're on) to bring that SM Zombie Bill back to life as Bill C-197 in 1971.  Even then, there were numerous problems, and many screams of horror about the end of the world (after all, there were SM Zomies loose in the Halls of Parliament).  Forced to perform CPR on their Bill (Euuuuh!, putting your CPR lips to a Zombie's lips, how gross), the government collected over 2 dozen amendments to the Bill during Canada-wide hearings with much screaming and crying (boy, can us Canadians carry on when we're cranky and upset).

By Dec. 1971, the SM Zombie Bill C-197 is still alive, barely.  Everybody on Parliament Hill and all of Ottawa have gone home for Christmas with their families, but the MP's had to stay after school because they hadn't yet finished their lessons on how to screw up Canada with SM.

As we open the curtain on our Parliamentary stage of woe, we find the House debating amendments No. 1, 5, and 22 to the Trudeau Liberal government's SM Zombie Bill C-197, also known as the future Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act.

Here is what Dr. Yewchuk had to say back on the afternoon of Dec. 28, 1971 at page 10789 in Hansard's:

"...It is recognized from the above points [Feb. 1971 comments by Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce] that marketing boards could play an important role in expansion of product promotion, quality standardization, and some form of collective marketing. But in the context of the free enterprise economy, supply management, which suggests limiting the inputs used by the producer or limiting the quantity of output by the producer, is a regressive move, inconsistent with the realities of international and inter-provincial trade. This kind of supply management in the long run would damage the agricultural industry because it suggests too many controls and a negative approach to increasing produce prices. It would seriously curtail the growth of efficiency within the industry. It would also limit severely the entry of new and possibly more efficient producers into the business of agriculture and at the same time maintain inefficient ones not otherwise able to compete on an economic basis. I think the point concerning possible limitation of entry of new producers is a very important once since it takes away from Canadians the freedom to choose the kind of life's work which they desire.

The various restrictions I am referring to go completely against the grain of the philosophy in which farmers believe. There is no need to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that a very large segment of our population in Canada is here precisely to get away from too many restrictions, too many controls and too much government. Many people who immigrated to Canada came here because this has been a land, at least until now, where individual initiative, individual ambition and hard work are respected virtues which can only be practiced fully in an environment of freedom to make one’s own decisions, and freedom from bureaucratic control which has the effect of telling the producer what to do and in so doing would destroy his initiative and his right to make his own decisions.

Since supply management on a national basis requires quota allocations by provinces, regional economic differences would not be taken into account, resulting in decreased efficiency. Such locked in inefficiencies would result in artificially increased prices which could price us out of international markets and which, at the same time, would require import restrictions to protect our domestic market. Ultimately, the consumer would bear the cost resulting from a reduced supply.

With regard to collective marketing by marketing boards, there is also a danger in that the pooling of prices removes incentives from the individual producer and fails to recognize differences in quality of products. However, it is recognized that by pooling, severe fluctuations in prices which are unforeseen can be prevented in respect of individual producers. The question is, then, is the Canadian economy best served by an industry that resolves its differences and adjusts its resources primarily by political rather than economic processes?

This bill is a good example of the government's assuming omnipotent capabilities to solve problems by technocratic manipulations. It fails to perceive the consequences of the balkanization and retrenching of local interests. It fails to perceive the handicap to young people wishing to enter agriculture because of capitalization required in supply management. It fails to perceive the fact that politicization of an industry by way of supply management historically leads to misallocation of resources and further inefficiencies, ultimately resulting in lower prices for the farmer for farm produce and higher prices for the consumer. For the small farmer that is a double cut. He gets less for his product but must pay more for his own food.

Of course, the general direction which this government is taking is to remove small producers. This bill provides statutory power to further this kind of adjustment. In other words, it would remove some 200,000 farmers from agriculture. I think we must look to other kinds of solutions to the problem of decreasing farm income. We must look to development rather than to removal from the industry of masses of people and masses of small farms. The effect of this bill would be greater and greater shrinkage of Canada's agriculture population. I say this would be unproductive and inhumane. Economically, it is retrograde.

In addition, it is certainly impossible to say that Bill C-176 is an anti-poverty weapon. The concept of this bill originally was to control marketing of chickens and eggs. Perhaps that is all it should do. Certainly other producers, particularly cattlemen, have persistently indicated that they want no part of this kind of program since this bill could create a small class of privileged farmers by sacrificing the smaller producer and the young people of rural Canada. It differs from provincial marketing legislation because provincial marketing legislation does not have the dangerous powers which would be given to agencies under this bill.

For these reasons and many others, Mr. Speaker, we must conclude that the bill as it now stands is not in the best interests of the agricultural industry and that these amendments, namely, amendments No. 1, 5 and 22 would go a long way towards improving the bill. It has been said that there is agreement by the provinces that only chickens and eggs should be included. There are dangers in that as well, the same dangers I have already discussed. Chicken and egg production in certain provinces is in the hands of very few individuals. It is natural that these few individuals would want to keep out all other producers and potential producers. That, I think, at best could be described as selfish interest. However, I would probably be willing to go along with it if other amendments put forward by our party were accepted.

As has been mentioned before, this bill through the formation of marketing boards would restrict free trade of farm products. This poses a danger for the Atlantic and prairie regions. The potential for future and continued prosperity of these have-not areas is absolutely dependent upon their being permitted free and unrestricted access to all markets in Canada as well as outside Canada. With free trade of farm products, efficient production of farm products is assured. Without extensive markets a rationalization of Canadian agriculture is impossible.

The provincial markets of the Prairie and Atlantic provinces can never be large enough to supply the demand necessary to absorb the increased farm output which would result if agriculture was revitalized. Unless farm output is rationalized and unless free access to markets is guaranteed, the income generating potential of rural Canada will be severely curtailed. With the curtailment of this vital source of growth, the have-not regions of Canada will become more unequal participants in confederation. The very essence of confederation was to guarantee free access to the entire domestic market no matter where the particular product was produced. The effect of the marketing boards will be to protect local producers from outside-of-province competition. Such protection can only be damaging since it forces retaliation by other provinces.

The result of balkanization is the complete disintegration of the Canadian economy. Under the guise of efficiency, the Canadian government will strip certain areas of a strong agricultural sector. It will require other areas to attempt to be self-sufficient in respect of farm products. Such an attempt can only lead to higher prices for consumers, inefficient use of resources by the agriculture sector and reduced income for all but a few big farms. Every farming organization and every friend of the farmer should resist the passage of this bill in its present form. If passed, Bill C-176 will mean the end of a dynamic rural community and possibly the end of confederation as we know it today.

I conclude by saying that I think many of the comments made by the hon. member fro Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) are complete nonsense. He tried to imply that this bill would help small producers and small farmers. I have had a close look at the bill as well as at the many briefs which were presented and I fail to see any facts to substantiate the comments made by the hon. member."

Uncanny, don't you think.  Here we are, 43 years later, exactly where Dr. Yewchuk said we would be with a diseased system of SM doing continuous Zombie attacks on the terrorized Canadian public.


However Dr. Yewchuk showed the power and intelligence of the individual, and the often occurring stupidity of dysfunctional groups.  I have always said that when you get 20 or more reasonable, every day people in a room, somebody will have the right answer to the problem.  The difficulty is determining which person has the right answer this time.


On Dec. 28, 1971, it was obviously Dr. Yewchuk, MP for Athabaska AB who was the star of the show.  Unfortunately, too few people were prepared to listen to Dr. Yewchuk's sage advice.


Is history repeating itself today?

Who is it this time that has the sage advice that all or most are ignoring?  Place your vote in the comments below.

AIT to the Rescue!

Perhaps AIT can save all us Canadians from purgatory (Chicken Hell) that we were cast into by the #ChickenMafia.

AIT (Agreement on Internal Trade) is a Canada-wide trade agreement between all the Provinces, Territories, and the Federal Government.  AIT was born out of the 1999 Social Union Framework Agreement, Prime Minister Cretian's legacy for us all.

AIT is an intergovernmental trade agreement signed by Canadian First Ministers that came into force in 1995. Its purpose is to reduce and eliminate, to the extent possible, barriers to the free movement of persons, goods, services, and investment within Canada and to establish an open, efficient, and stable domestic market.

So far, only fluid milk has used AIT to escape from the infinite gravity of the Black Hole of Supply Management.

To make sure nobody else tries to escape, let alone being successful, the wording in the AIT agreement was tightened and made more explicit that nobody else will get out alive.

Fortunately, the AIG agreement has had many edits in the past, and more will come in the future.  There is hope, for AIT's Committee on Internal Trade advises all Canadian governments on both AIT, and what should be set as AIT's next priority.

To me, it's obvious that the laser beam gun sight needs to be trained on the Chicken Mafia, and helping all Canadians, for all Canadians eat, and about 90% eat chicken.

It's an easy win for all governments:

• 2,700 Chicken Mafia members get upset;
• 31.41 million Canadians cheer (90% of our 34.9 million population, the chicken eaters in Canada).

So like all good muckrakers, I sent all members of the Committee on Internal Trade an email asking them to act in the best interest of all Canadians, rather than bowing to the power and lobbying pressures of the Chicken Mafia.  You can read my email, and forward a copy to your MP, your MPP, Mother-in-law, and anybody else you can think of.

Let's see what happens next.

Small Flockers go to Ottawa

My dear wife had to go to Ottawa this week for a conference.  Fortunately, she agreed to give me a lift to Ottawa.  I wanted to go speak to the MP's, Chicken Farmers of Canada ("CFC"), and anybody else who would listen to our cause.

Calling Chicken Farmers of Canada
On the way to Ottawa, we called Chicken Farmers of Canada ("CFC").  CFC was very nice on the phone.  They asked who was calling.  After we introduced ourselves, you could here some clicking in the background.  CFC explained that we were being checked out on the Internet to make sure we weren't animal rights activists.  I asked for an appointment to learn about Canada's supply management system for chicken, and ask some questions.  They didn't want to be bothered by us, suggesting we speak with CFO.  I explained we had done that already, and were interested in the Canada-wide chicken management systems.  I was eventually switched to Michael Dungate, Executive Director of CFC.

Mr. Dungate explained that he was trying to finish his preparations for a whirl-wind Canada-wide tour of the chicken Marketing Board meetings next week, and was too busy to speak with me.  He suggested I send a letter with my questions, which I agreed to do.  The resulting letter to CFC is posted here.

Meeting Request with Hon. Minister Ritz, Minister of Ag & Ag.-Foods
The next day, I wrote a letter to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Honorable Gerald Ritz, requesting a brief meeting to deliver our Grievances and Pleas for Relief.

Ideas To Guide Us
I returned numerous phone calls and emails from farmers and others who had been reading the Blog. Fortunately, I'm gaining many advisors on where this Small Flocker campaign needs to go next, and things to watch out for.  If you have some ideas you are willing to share, either in public or private, I'd appreciate hearing from you.

Getting Into Parliament
Next, it was time for Mr. Black to approach Parliament. I walked up the main walkway on Capital Hill, where there was a half dozen protesters with their signs.  I considered joining them, but pressed on.  I went up to the main entrance, the same one used by the Queen in her Landau carriage when she comes to Parliament.  They had a sign indicating that door is only for the staff, so I next tried the door at the side of the House of Commons building.

An RCMP Officer questioned me as to my intent as I approached the side entrance.  I explained that I wanted to see my MP.  The Mountie was standing by the door, but had no mount in sight.  The RCMP Officer quickly asked, "Do you have an appointment?"

"Not yet", I said.

The RCMP smile quickly disappeared.

He said, "You'll have to go in by the tour group entrance, go through security, then go to the security desk and ask to call your MP's office.  You know,... the MP's are busy working.  They don't have time to be interrupted by people dropping by unannounced."

"Oh......", I said, trying to sound surprised but submissive.  I thanked him for his free advice, then pushed on with determination and a quivering lip.

MP Carol Hughes, NDP

Finally inside Parliament, I called for MP Carol Hughes, NDP for Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing.  Her staff answered, took my info, and informed me it would soon be Question Period, and their boss would be busy with that important duty for the rest of the day.

When I hung up the phone, I asked if the public gallery was available to see Question Period.

"Do you have a reservation?", the two burly, yet smiling security guards asked.

"No, I don't", was my whimpered reply.

"Oh....", they said.  "In that case, you'll have to go down that hallway, past security, upstairs, through security, then wait in line.  You may not get a seat, but you can try."

I did as I was ordered.

Public Gallery at Question Period
When I lined up for the pubic gallery, I was in the line just in front of three representatives from the Canadian Food Grains Bank.  They had reservations, evidenced by a faint blue card, tightly clutched.  We had a very nice conversation as we waited. I learned that it was the Bank's 30th anniversary.  I secretly slipped them a copy of my Petition for helping Small Flock Poultry Farmers.

The Sergeant-At-Arms went by with his long silver sword and day coat, then the line started to move forward.  Through another security checkpoint we all went.  We had to leave behind our coats, hats, books, pens, paper, and cell phones with the 6 guards; lest we be tempted to throw them at the MP's.

I got a seat in the gallery!  Everybody else did too.  The acoustics inside the Chamber are extremely poor.  Fortunately, every seat is equipped with a small speaker.  My speaker transmitted in French, even when the MP was speaking in English.  When Question Period was half over, I finally figured out how all the buttons on the sound system control panel worked, and got simulcast English, even when the MP switched back and forth between both Official Languages.

After scanning the floor of the House, I finally spotted my MP, Carol Hughes, for Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing.  A few minutes later, I received a tap on my shoulder, and my MP sat down in the gallery row in front of me.  Wow!  Was I surprised.

Arrangements were quickly made for us to meet downstairs after Question Period.  I was soon introduced to Camilla, an International Student from London England who is studying at University of Toronto.  Camilla was doing a two day job shadowing with my MP, to learn about the Canadian knock-off to the Mother of All Parliaments in London England.  We all marched around the corner with my MP Carol Hughes in the lead.  I noticed a respectful nod of the heads by all security personnel as we marched by.

NDP Caucus Meeting with Small Flockers

MP Malcolm Allen, NDP

Sitting down, we were soon joined by Mr. Malcolm Allen, NDP MP for Welland, and Agriculture Critic for the Loyal Opposition.  We all went over the Petition together, then our Grievances, and our Plea for Relief.  I disclosed my plan to get to see Hon. Gerry Ritz, Minister of Agriculture.  Malcolm informed me that Mr. Ritz was on a trade mission in Japan, so I changed my goal to meeting with one of the Minister's Policy Analysts.

Mr. Allen asked me if we supported Canada's Supply Management System.  I said, "Small Flock Poultry Farmers support Canada's Supply Management System as long as it is the most effective system for serving the needs of Canadians.  If the system has some problems, then we need to identify those problems and get them fixed, rather than denying that the problems exist."

Mr. Allen seemed satisfied with that answer.  He promised to review our documents, and make some inquiries,  He said we weren't the only ones with complaints against the chicken supply management system.  He informed me that the CAMI slaughter plant that was recently cut off from receiving Ontario chickens is in his riding.

"Most unfortunate, what is being done to them", I said.

MP Thomas Mulcair, NDP

Honorable Thomas Mulcair, Leader of the NDP walked by, and soon enough, I was introduced to him as well.

MP Libby Davies, NDP

MP Libby Davies, NDP was hosting a reception for her new Bill C-460: Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada.  I was introduced to Libby, we had some interesting discussions about the Bill, and soon enough, I was invited to the reception so that we could continue the discussions.

At the reception, I also met with Ms. Janet Gray of CARP (Canadian Association of Retired Persons), who informed me that over 91% of CARP's members supported the Bill.

Bland, Salty Chicken
At the reception, I got to meet Dr. Andrew Pipe of the University of Ottawa, one of the supporters of the Bill.  Dr. Pipe informed me that most Canadians were eating more than twice the dietary salt recommended.  CBC conducted additional Canadian consumer market research which showed that processed chicken was even higher in salt content.  I found that interesting.  I eventually got an opportunity to share some data research I had conducted that showed 7.67 birds per 10,000 birds (ie. 0.0767%) of Ontario chickens were condemned at the slaughter plant by CFIA for ascites (ie. abdominal oedema).  Pushing the bird's growth too fast usually caused the malady, and I postulated that this might have something to do with producing a very bland tasting chicken (if some were unfit to eat and therefore condemned, perhaps the rest were bland due to excess fluid); so bland that it requires large amounts of salt for the chicken meat to be palatable.  Dr. Pipe seemed intrigued by my theory.

Like Cinderella, I had to quickly run after the reception, run down Parliament's steps, run past the numerous RCMP Officers who watched to see if somebody was chasing me.  I hoped to get to my car before rush hour terminated my parking privileges, and the towing began.  Fortunately, my fleet feet got me there with 2 minutes to spare.  My day at Parliament Hill came to an end.

Carol Hughes, MP for Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing and her staff were instrumental in the success of my visit to the Hill.  Thank-you Carol, and please thank your staff as well.

I two-finger typed into the wee hours to add a few more items to my questions for CFC, and emailed it off to them.

Will we ever Meet?
Next, I made a number of attempts to re-contact the office of the Minister of Agriculture, trying to get a brief meeting to deliver our Grievances and Plea for Relief.  No luck.

Home We Go
Friday AM, I sent off an email to my MP Carol Hughes, breaking the news that I was unsuccessful for this ultimate goal.  My ride was leaving at 8:00 AM Friday, but I still hadn't connected with anybody at the Minister's office.  While we were enroute home, the cell phone rang.  When I answered it, I was pleased to learn I was invited to meet with Ms Karla Barnes, a Policy Advisor for Minister Ritz.  I did a U-turn and headed back to Ottawa.


Ministry of Agriculture Meeting
Karla, Policy Advisor for the Minister and I met.  I gave her a copy of our Briefing Note, our Petition, our Complaints and Pleadings for Relief, our Complaint to CFO, our letter to Premier Wynne requesting changes to the Meat Regulations, and our letter to CFC.

We then reviewed the major points.  Canada is losing its farmers and its farming communities.  In the last 15 years, the number of farmers who are 35 years old and younger has dropped by 70%.  I said that the 300 bird limit in Ontario prevents us from reaching our $7,000 income requirement to become and stay an official farmer under Canadian Revenue Agency rules.  With an estimated 35,000 small flockers across Canada, we could quickly stem the tide of attrition that was decimating the farmer's ranks.

I showed Karla the proposed form that the small flock farmer could quickly fill in, providing the farm-gate customer with full disclosure, from egg to slaughter.  "You can't get this kind of info from the big guys in chicken (ie. quota farmers).  The small flockers want to provide full disclosure on how those birds were raised."

Karla listened carefully.  At one point, she said, "You seem to be primarily focused on Ontario.  Does your organization represent just Ontario farmers, or all of Canada?"

I responded, "Ontario is the most important right now, because that is where there is the greatest pain.  Once we have this Ontario solution starting to roll forward, we'll be able to broaden our gaze wider, for all of Canada."

Karla informed me that there was full separation between the Supply Management System and the Ministry, so they are unable to do anything on the Supply Management side.  I agreed, saying we only wanted to keep all stakeholders informed, so that is why I was sharing my letter to CFC.

Karla agreed to request CFIA to review our proposals for self-slaughtering and farm-gate sale of poultry.  I said that would be wonderful.

Conclusion
So that was my week in Ottawa.  Overall, I'd say it was successful in bringing attention to the small flockers and their issues.

Next, we have to get some action on our requests.

That is where the rest of you come in.  Stay tuned.