The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada
Free up our food supply: Phase out farm quotas
There is an editoral comment in the National Post titled Free up our food supply: Phase out farm quotas. It was written by William B.P. Robson and Colin Busby. William B.P. Robson is president and CEO of the C.D. Howe Institute and Colin Busby is a policy analyst at the Institute.
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/0...
I have a few questions for the gentlemen.
Quoted in the article: "The initial allocation of quotas in the 1970s was free; today,..."
Quota is essentially a license with a quantitative value.
The source determines the nature of the rights. Will you please publicly state the true source of the marketing licenses? Ultimately, who distributes those licenses?
Could they please explain to the public WHY quota was given free? Who really owns the marketing licenses? Constitutionally speaking, who can really own those licenses to trade? Why were marketing rights given to agriculture (long before the 70's) for free? Why, how and by whom were sovereign marketing licenses issued before the farm commission was even formed through legislation? Are there legal requirements for the free distribution of marketing licenses that has been conveniently ignored by the CD Howe Institute?
The licenses to trade are buried in the constitution to protect the interests of the domestic peoples. What does the Howe Institute recommend in regards to those old treaties? And how does it affect the Crowns' right to possession of the soil?
They further note: "At $28-billion in 2008, the aggregate value of production quotas in Canada".
That is an interesting line because there has been written requests to the former and present Ontario Minister of Agriculture asking for the value of agriculture marketing licences. Neither has responded to date. Aside from that, could the CD Howe Institute please explain why and how quota valuations came about? Who benefited the most (collectively) from quota valuations the last 60 years?
Quota is security. Security may be assigned a value and the Province of Ontario did just that in the late 1950's to transfer a portion of education taxes onto the backs of farmers. How does the CD Howe Institute propose to pay for the farmers' securities if they recommend the phase out of quota's.
Isn't denying any person the right and liberty of their security fraud?
I will assume the CD Howe Institute must be aware that laws pertaining to the marketing of agricultural commodities do not apply equally to all commodities. On that assumption, could the CD Howe Institute please explain why they conveniently ignored the rights some commodities have to ALL ROADS in Ontario? If the CD Howe Institute wishes to phase out old constitutionally protected marketing licenses, how does that best serve the public when commodities lose their sovereign right to transport? Transportation on water and rails is a matter of discussion under the guise of Safety, Security and Prosperity.
If the commentators could please answer those few questions, I believe we can have a more informed public discussion on the future of agricultural production and marketing. After all, agriculture in Ontario is a Public Trust and if the Howe Institute recommends making constitutional changes in regards to the marketing of agricultural commodities, then the public has the right to an open, honest and complete discussion of farmers rights.
How can the publics' interest be validated if social justice to farmers are ignored and trampled on?
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/0...
I have a few questions for the gentlemen.
Quoted in the article: "The initial allocation of quotas in the 1970s was free; today,..."
Quota is essentially a license with a quantitative value.
The source determines the nature of the rights. Will you please publicly state the true source of the marketing licenses? Ultimately, who distributes those licenses?
Could they please explain to the public WHY quota was given free? Who really owns the marketing licenses? Constitutionally speaking, who can really own those licenses to trade? Why were marketing rights given to agriculture (long before the 70's) for free? Why, how and by whom were sovereign marketing licenses issued before the farm commission was even formed through legislation? Are there legal requirements for the free distribution of marketing licenses that has been conveniently ignored by the CD Howe Institute?
The licenses to trade are buried in the constitution to protect the interests of the domestic peoples. What does the Howe Institute recommend in regards to those old treaties? And how does it affect the Crowns' right to possession of the soil?
They further note: "At $28-billion in 2008, the aggregate value of production quotas in Canada".
That is an interesting line because there has been written requests to the former and present Ontario Minister of Agriculture asking for the value of agriculture marketing licences. Neither has responded to date. Aside from that, could the CD Howe Institute please explain why and how quota valuations came about? Who benefited the most (collectively) from quota valuations the last 60 years?
Quota is security. Security may be assigned a value and the Province of Ontario did just that in the late 1950's to transfer a portion of education taxes onto the backs of farmers. How does the CD Howe Institute propose to pay for the farmers' securities if they recommend the phase out of quota's.
Isn't denying any person the right and liberty of their security fraud?
I will assume the CD Howe Institute must be aware that laws pertaining to the marketing of agricultural commodities do not apply equally to all commodities. On that assumption, could the CD Howe Institute please explain why they conveniently ignored the rights some commodities have to ALL ROADS in Ontario? If the CD Howe Institute wishes to phase out old constitutionally protected marketing licenses, how does that best serve the public when commodities lose their sovereign right to transport? Transportation on water and rails is a matter of discussion under the guise of Safety, Security and Prosperity.
If the commentators could please answer those few questions, I believe we can have a more informed public discussion on the future of agricultural production and marketing. After all, agriculture in Ontario is a Public Trust and if the Howe Institute recommends making constitutional changes in regards to the marketing of agricultural commodities, then the public has the right to an open, honest and complete discussion of farmers rights.
How can the publics' interest be validated if social justice to farmers are ignored and trampled on?
Views: 69
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Joe Dales on
-
Interesting discussion topic....I checked out the CD Howe website and found the full report the National Post authors wrote...
Here is the link:
http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/backgrounder_128.pdf
-
Permalink Reply by Joann on -
Thank you, Joe, I will review the paper. I made the comments based on the editorial in the National Post as the commentators are also the authors of the paper.
At a glance, it would appear the recent article has some considerable resemblances to another paper presented by the OECD called 'MODERNISING CANADA'S AGRICULTURE POLICIES' ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT WORKING PAPER No. 629
http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2008doc.nsf/linkto/eco-wkp%282008%2937
The 2008 paper, in my opinion, is biased and slanted. What is not in either paper is truly disturbing.
Not all quota was created equally. Not all supply laws in Canada were created equally. The OECD does not make any mention of the source of rights. Is that an intention omission or one of ignorance?
No where does the OECD mention that quota legally existed outside of government legislation .... even before OFPMC existed. How does the Howe Institute explain that? Quota that was issued free as stipulated in the constitution. What is the significance of that clause in the constitution?
Where do farmers marketing rights come from?
If the Howe Institute wants to phase out sovereign marketing rights.... cancel farmers securities .... why do they not also suggest that the farmers be released from their sovereign obligations to the public?
It appears the Institute wants to misappropriate farmers benefits but continue to indenture farmers with obligations.......
-
Permalink Reply by Joann on
-
Date: Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 2:09 PM
Subject: letter to the editor
To: kmcparland@nationalpost.com
Cc: cdhowe@cdhowe.org
Re: Free up our food supply; Phase out farm quotas posted April 8, 2010
William B.P. Robson and Colin Busby of the C.D. Howe Institute discussed obstacles and restrictions of agricultural “cartels” with fervent recommendations to phase-out the present quota system in favour of a new Government income supplementing license fees for the continuance of farm commerce in a recent commentary.
While the C.D. Howe Institute claims “Independent- Reasoned- Relevant” on each page of their backgrounder paper, I question the logical sequence of facts used to reach the determined conclusion.
To understand the issues at hand, a number of misconceptions must be clarified first.
Agriculture is defined as “a class of people that till the soil a/o raise stock”. It is about “persons” working in conjunction with natural resources. Agriculture consists of two components. It is comprised of the liberty and security of “property” interconnected with liberty and security of “persons”.
Agriculture is not a zoning. Agriculture is not an industry.
Quota is a license with a quantitative value. Our country was founded and built on a myriad of licenses that extend to many sectors in our society.
Licenses are contracts. Contracts are securities. Securities may be assigned values.
The head of our Dominion, Queen Elizabeth 11, has final rights to all lands in Ontario or more explicitly, final rights to all things “of” the soil.
When Upper Canada was being settled, land grants were awarded exclusively to qualifying farmers directly from the Crown under an ancient system called Free and Common Socage. The land patents are Sacred Covenants with rights, duties and obligations that are consistent with full and complete enjoyment of properties as defined by ancient servitudes. The Sacred Covenants were assigned forever to the farmer, his heirs a/o assigns. The signed, Sealed and registered contracts are agricultural “securities”.
Those securities are farmers Sovereign licenses to production.
Individual rights were awarded to farmers directly from the Crown long before the collective rights of municipalities were established. Individual rights trump collective rights.
The land grants in Upper Canada were docketed by the Auditor General. As the contracts are public documents, copies may be obtained from the Land Patents Office in Peterborough for confirmation. The Sealed contracts are legally valid.
The securities were validated by Lt. Governor Simoce in a speech to the Parliament of Upper Canada, on September 18th, 1792 when he proclaimed “…I trust that your fostering care will improve the favorable situation; and that a numerous and agricultural people will speedily take possession of the soil and climate, which under the British laws…”. Lt. Gov. Simcoe was speaking about farmers property rights.
In essence the Crowns’ representative categorically stated legal arrangements, whereby control over property/possession such as the soil and the climate was transferred to farmers. Queen Elizabeth ll maintains legal “agreements” with Ontario farmers under Crown Seal.
In essence, it is solid evidence of the foundational elements of Agricultural “Public trusts” in Ontario.
Throughout this, we need to remember in 1660 the Crown surrendered rights in exchange for a form of compensation attached as a condition of Socage. It was recognized as a constitutional shift away from feudalism as the last of the slavish conditions of Socage were abolished. In exchange, the Crown received an annual fixed payment to be raised by means of Excise.
But Excise is more than a tax. In the 13th century it was originally a statute for the regulation and control of weights and measures or prices of commodities in the market. Agricultural commodities were the original currencies and Assise was a means to protect currency valuation. I believe this is the very foundation of the federal Farm Income Protection Act, a means to guarantee the farmers at least Cost of Production for their commodities. If that is incorrect, please advise.
Production is one matter protected by Sovereign contracts but taking agricultural products past the farm gate is entirely another matter with other provisos Ontario/Quebec farmers must abide to.
By Royal Proclamation (not repealed to date) the Crown ordained farmers to acquire marketing licenses so to protect the Crown’s interest, namely things ‘OF’ the soil. The Crown wanted to protects its’ interest of Excise, an entrenched part of land grants.
The Royal Proclamation states that every person that engages in trade with the domestic peoples “do take out a Licence for carrying on such Trade…” and that the Commander-in-Chief “to grant such Licences without Fee or Reward…”
Trade means the act or process of buying, selling commodities.
The buying and selling of goods is commerce.
Commerce is the buying and selling of goods which involves transportation from place to place. Commerce is marketing.
Buried in the constitution, Ontario farmers’ Sovereign Marketing Licences can be found.
By Royal Proclamations, the Crown controlled the movement (marketing) of many agricultural commodities throughout history. Most of the Crown controlled marketing laws have been rescinded over time but NOT all have been revoked. Queen Elizabeth 11 still retains marketing rights on some commodities. The licenses to ‘trade’ those regulated commodities are truly Sovereign.
Which brings us to other important ‘Public Trusts’ found under the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission (OFPMC).
Trusts can be monopolies or near-monopolies with the ability to control prices.
Ontario agricultural societies, associations and boards were legal corporate entities formed through legislation before confederation and given Assent by the Crown. Agricultural boards under OFPMC are corporations formed by Royal Assent.
Legislative corporations are contracts with the Crown.
The boards act as legal guardians and are trustees of the farmers’ sovereign production rights and the “licences to trade”. The marketing licences are registered securities of which the Crown corporations safeguard.
The Crown corporations under OFPMC have a fiduciary responsibility to the Public in regards to the marketing of regulated commodities. The boards, under OFPMC, are Public Trusts.
As marketing licences were added security to qualifying farm properties, the Province of Ontario in the late 1950’s, applied a value to the licences against the advice of the farmers. The Province of Ontario knew the licences were securities when applying special assessments to certain farm lands… lands with marketing rights. The province exercised its’ right to assign a value to the securities the farmers received from the Queens’ representative.
When the province levied a value on marketing ‘rights’ attached to farmland the Province transferred costs such as education onto the backs of farmers. Through the assessed value of marketing rights on farmland, farmers subsidized the Ontario public.
But the Province did not stop there. In the early 1960’s the Province mandated marketing “rights” be removed from the land and made those “rights” mobile. The rights became attached to ‘persons’ only as opposed to originally attached to ‘property’ and ‘persons’. The Province, again, stood to gain financially as they captured Capital Gains on the sale of quota.
The Province of Ontario has been, by all intents and purposes, the largest single benefactor of agricultural quota valuation over the last half century. If that is incorrect, please advise.
In conclusion, if the Howe Institute proposes changes to constitutionally protected agricultural rights, could they please address a few more concerns so to make the discussion relevant?
Using the word ‘cartel’ gives rise to implications meaning "written agreement between challengers". Is the manipulation of the word appropriate when it is patently obvious that agriculture in Ontario is legally a Public Trust? Farmers have rights, duties and obligations under Sealed contracts with the Crown. How does one conclude that pooling sovereign production and marketing licenses under Crown corporations with a fiduciary relationship with the Public to be “cartels”? By that definition, licensed doctors, nurses, lawyers, accountants, etc., are all party to cartels. Why is the Institute singling out agriculture with harsh wording?
Agriculture is a legal Public Trust. Farmers have guarantees to cost of production under the Farm Income Protection Act. How does the Institute guarantee profit to service debt and to afford generational roll-over for the continuance of the success of the agricultural Public Trusts as mandated under FIPA?
Where is the constitutional authority to empower the Government to charge a fee for farmers to obtain marketing licenses?
I will assume the Howe Institute is aware that laws pertaining to the marketing of agricultural commodities do not apply equally to all commodities. On that assumption, could the CD Howe Institute please explain why they conveniently ignored the rights some commodities have to all roads in Ontario, which includes rail and water? If the CD Howe Institute wishes to phase out old constitutionally protected marketing licenses, how does that best serve the public when commodities lose their entrenched sovereign right to transport?
How many sovereign licenses exist in Ontario/Quebec today and what is the value of those licenses? How does the Institute propose to pay for the securities farmers own today? What is the true cost to the public to phase out the old marketing licenses?
Under present legislation farmers need licenses to market regulated commodities, such as wheat. Although wheat licenses do not have a value today, they are indeed valid existing licenses which allow for the movement of the commodity. These current licenses do not have expiry dates like many of the other agricultural licenses. How does the Howe Institute address agricultural securities with no current monetary value but maintains a transportation value to the farmer for domestic supply?
Who can deny farmers the right and liberties of their securities without proper consent and compensation?
If the Institute proposes to phase out the current licensing systems in Ontario, suggesting the rights of farmers be dissolved without compensation, will the Institute also recommend the obligations the farmers have to the Public be dissolved also? It appears the Institute wants to misappropriate farmers’ benefits but continue to indenture farmers with sovereign obligations.
The signed, sealed and registered Sovereign contracts farmers possess today are entrenched agricultural property rights. These property rights enfranchise the farmers to the soil and the climate enabling wealth creation through rights, liberties and securities. By protecting entrenched sovereign agricultural rights, we protect the Public.
How can the paper the Howe Institute prepared be termed relevant when it appears to be selective in the facts presented for Public consideration?
-
Permalink Reply by JoAnne Caughill on
-
Why knock something that is working for farmers? Right now non-supply managed sectors are envious with their supply-managed neighbours having their costs covered - something we can only wish for.
-
Permalink Reply by Joann on
-
I don't believe the Howe Institute is knocking Canada's entrenched Sovereign domestic food supply laws as much as they are trying to garner public support for the government's agenda to broaden free trade. There are some very important meetings upcoming, the Canada-EU summit next week and the G-8 and then the G-20 in June which is a forum for international economic cooperation with unprecedented security.
When Mr. Harper was at the G-8 earlier this year, he made some very stunning comments.
Quote from Harper when speaking about economic trade "Less about narrow self-interest in sovereignty’s name, than an expanded view of mutual-interest in which there is room for all to grow and prosper. Enlightened sovereignty, then, the natural extension of enlightened self-interest". ...."So I say, notions rooted in a narrow view of sovereignty and national self-interest must be reconsidered." when he spoke of trade strategies of the 1930's of which Sovereign agricultural marketing boards were formed. Not all of the marketing boards operated under Government legislation either. Marketing licenses directly from the Queens' representative are very special and, I believe, the very foundation of our Sovereign domestic food supply laws in Canada.
I don't believe for one second the Howe Institute cares about the well-being of domestic farmers. We are expendable and replaceable (in the minds of politicans) by farmers in other countries with lower input costs... hence having the ability to provide cheaper food. It's more about economics than social responsibility.
It is of course ironic. July 2007 Harper said in reference to human rights in China “I think Canadians want us to promote our trade relations worldwide, and we do that, but I don’t think Canadians want us to sell out important Canadian values,” Harper said. “They don’t want us to sell that out to the almighty dollar.”
It would appear Harper has no problem selling out Canadian farmers' rights for the almighty dollar. By selling out farmers' rights, he is in effect, selling out the public's' right to domestic food rights.
Its' about taking the sovereign control out of farmers hands and transferring that control to government hands. Its about controlling the movement of food.
JoAnne Caughill said:Why knock something that is working for farmers? Right now non-supply managed sectors are envious with their supply-managed neighbours having their costs covered - something we can only wish for.
-
Permalink Reply by Joann on
-
Never saw the rebuttal printed in the National Post.
Never received a reply from the C.D. How Institute.
The Institute is either embarrassed or arrogant.... would be my guess... how else to explain silence when challenged on an obviously biased paper? If they react in a similar fashion of the OECD, namely Dr. Jarrett, in regards to a few basic question about Ontario farmers' rights... then I would say ......stunningly arrogant.
Joann said:Date: Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 2:09 PM
Subject: letter to the editor
To: kmcparland@nationalpost.com
Cc: cdhowe@cdhowe.org
Re: Free up our food supply; Phase out farm quotas posted April 8, 2010
William B.P. Robson and Colin Busby of the C.D. Howe Institute discussed obstacles and restrictions of agricultural “cartels” with fervent recommendations to phase-out the present quota system in favour of a new Government income supplementing license fees for the continuance of farm commerce in a recent commentary.
While the C.D. Howe Institute claims “Independent- Reasoned- Relevant” on each page of their backgrounder paper, I question the logical sequence of facts used to reach the determined conclusion.
To understand the issues at hand, a number of misconceptions must be clarified first.
Agriculture is defined as “a class of people that till the soil a/o raise stock”. It is about “persons” working in conjunction with natural resources. Agriculture consists of two components. It is comprised of the liberty and security of “property” interconnected with liberty and security of “persons”.
Agriculture is not a zoning. Agriculture is not an industry.
Quota is a license with a quantitative value. Our country was founded and built on a myriad of licenses that extend to many sectors in our society.
Licenses are contracts. Contracts are securities. Securities may be assigned values.
The head of our Dominion, Queen Elizabeth 11, has final rights to all lands in Ontario or more explicitly, final rights to all things “of” the soil.
When Upper Canada was being settled, land grants were awarded exclusively to qualifying farmers directly from the Crown under an ancient system called Free and Common Socage. The land patents are Sacred Covenants with rights, duties and obligations that are consistent with full and complete enjoyment of properties as defined by ancient servitudes. The Sacred Covenants were assigned forever to the farmer, his heirs a/o assigns. The signed, Sealed and registered contracts are agricultural “securities”.
Those securities are farmers Sovereign licenses to production.
Individual rights were awarded to farmers directly from the Crown long before the collective rights of municipalities were established. Individual rights trump collective rights.
The land grants in Upper Canada were docketed by the Auditor General. As the contracts are public documents, copies may be obtained from the Land Patents Office in Peterborough for confirmation. The Sealed contracts are legally valid.
The securities were validated by Lt. Governor Simoce in a speech to the Parliament of Upper Canada, on September 18th, 1792 when he proclaimed “…I trust that your fostering care will improve the favorable situation; and that a numerous and agricultural people will speedily take possession of the soil and climate, which under the British laws…”. Lt. Gov. Simcoe was speaking about farmers property rights.
In essence the Crowns’ representative categorically stated legal arrangements, whereby control over property/possession such as the soil and the climate was transferred to farmers. Queen Elizabeth ll maintains legal “agreements” with Ontario farmers under Crown Seal.
In essence, it is solid evidence of the foundational elements of Agricultural “Public trusts” in Ontario.
Throughout this, we need to remember in 1660 the Crown surrendered rights in exchange for a form of compensation attached as a condition of Socage. It was recognized as a constitutional shift away from feudalism as the last of the slavish conditions of Socage were abolished. In exchange, the Crown received an annual fixed payment to be raised by means of Excise.
But Excise is more than a tax. In the 13th century it was originally a statute for the regulation and control of weights and measures or prices of commodities in the market. Agricultural commodities were the original currencies and Assise was a means to protect currency valuation. I believe this is the very foundation of the federal Farm Income Protection Act, a means to guarantee the farmers at least Cost of Production for their commodities. If that is incorrect, please advise.
Production is one matter protected by Sovereign contracts but taking agricultural products past the farm gate is entirely another matter with other provisos Ontario/Quebec farmers must abide to.
By Royal Proclamation (not repealed to date) the Crown ordained farmers to acquire marketing licenses so to protect the Crown’s interest, namely things ‘OF’ the soil. The Crown wanted to protects its’ interest of Excise, an entrenched part of land grants.
The Royal Proclamation states that every person that engages in trade with the domestic peoples “do take out a Licence for carrying on such Trade…” and that the Commander-in-Chief “to grant such Licences without Fee or Reward…”
Trade means the act or process of buying, selling commodities.
The buying and selling of goods is commerce.
Commerce is the buying and selling of goods which involves transportation from place to place. Commerce is marketing.
Buried in the constitution, Ontario farmers’ Sovereign Marketing Licences can be found.
By Royal Proclamations, the Crown controlled the movement (marketing) of many agricultural commodities throughout history. Most of the Crown controlled marketing laws have been rescinded over time but NOT all have been revoked. Queen Elizabeth 11 still retains marketing rights on some commodities. The licenses to ‘trade’ those regulated commodities are truly Sovereign.
Which brings us to other important ‘Public Trusts’ found under the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission (OFPMC).
Trusts can be monopolies or near-monopolies with the ability to control prices.
Ontario agricultural societies, associations and boards were legal corporate entities formed through legislation before confederation and given Assent by the Crown. Agricultural boards under OFPMC are corporations formed by Royal Assent.
Legislative corporations are contracts with the Crown.
The boards act as legal guardians and are trustees of the farmers’ sovereign production rights and the “licences to trade”. The marketing licences are registered securities of which the Crown corporations safeguard.
The Crown corporations under OFPMC have a fiduciary responsibility to the Public in regards to the marketing of regulated commodities. The boards, under OFPMC, are Public Trusts.
As marketing licences were added security to qualifying farm properties, the Province of Ontario in the late 1950’s, applied a value to the licences against the advice of the farmers. The Province of Ontario knew the licences were securities when applying special assessments to certain farm lands… lands with marketing rights. The province exercised its’ right to assign a value to the securities the farmers received from the Queens’ representative.
When the province levied a value on marketing ‘rights’ attached to farmland the Province transferred costs such as education onto the backs of farmers. Through the assessed value of marketing rights on farmland, farmers subsidized the Ontario public.
But the Province did not stop there. In the early 1960’s the Province mandated marketing “rights” be removed from the land and made those “rights” mobile. The rights became attached to ‘persons’ only as opposed to originally attached to ‘property’ and ‘persons’. The Province, again, stood to gain financially as they captured Capital Gains on the sale of quota.
The Province of Ontario has been, by all intents and purposes, the largest single benefactor of agricultural quota valuation over the last half century. If that is incorrect, please advise.
In conclusion, if the Howe Institute proposes changes to constitutionally protected agricultural rights, could they please address a few more concerns so to make the discussion relevant?
Using the word ‘cartel’ gives rise to implications meaning "written agreement between challengers". Is the manipulation of the word appropriate when it is patently obvious that agriculture in Ontario is legally a Public Trust? Farmers have rights, duties and obligations under Sealed contracts with the Crown. How does one conclude that pooling sovereign production and marketing licenses under Crown corporations with a fiduciary relationship with the Public to be “cartels”? By that definition, licensed doctors, nurses, lawyers, accountants, etc., are all party to cartels. Why is the Institute singling out agriculture with harsh wording?
Agriculture is a legal Public Trust. Farmers have guarantees to cost of production under the Farm Income Protection Act. How does the Institute guarantee profit to service debt and to afford generational roll-over for the continuance of the success of the agricultural Public Trusts as mandated under FIPA?
Where is the constitutional authority to empower the Government to charge a fee for farmers to obtain marketing licenses?
I will assume the Howe Institute is aware that laws pertaining to the marketing of agricultural commodities do not apply equally to all commodities. On that assumption, could the CD Howe Institute please explain why they conveniently ignored the rights some commodities have to all roads in Ontario, which includes rail and water? If the CD Howe Institute wishes to phase out old constitutionally protected marketing licenses, how does that best serve the public when commodities lose their entrenched sovereign right to transport?
How many sovereign licenses exist in Ontario/Quebec today and what is the value of those licenses? How does the Institute propose to pay for the securities farmers own today? What is the true cost to the public to phase out the old marketing licenses?
Under present legislation farmers need licenses to market regulated commodities, such as wheat. Although wheat licenses do not have a value today, they are indeed valid existing licenses which allow for the movement of the commodity. These current licenses do not have expiry dates like many of the other agricultural licenses. How does the Howe Institute address agricultural securities with no current monetary value but maintains a transportation value to the farmer for domestic supply?
Who can deny farmers the right and liberties of their securities without proper consent and compensation?
If the Institute proposes to phase out the current licensing systems in Ontario, suggesting the rights of farmers be dissolved without compensation, will the Institute also recommend the obligations the farmers have to the Public be dissolved also? It appears the Institute wants to misappropriate farmers’ benefits but continue to indenture farmers with sovereign obligations.
The signed, sealed and registered Sovereign contracts farmers possess today are entrenched agricultural property rights. These property rights enfranchise the farmers to the soil and the climate enabling wealth creation through rights, liberties and securities. By protecting entrenched sovereign agricultural rights, we protect the Public.
How can the paper the Howe Institute prepared be termed relevant when it appears to be selective in the facts presented for Public consideration?
-
Permalink Reply by littlelamb on
-
JoAnne Caughill said:Why knock something that is working for farmers? Right now non-supply managed sectors are envious with their supply-managed neighbours having their costs covered - something we can only wish for.
The only people that it covers the cost for are people who were given the quotas so many years ago. We tried to build a chicken barn and fill it with the minimum quota needed (1.2mil later) by the chicken board of ON and it no matter what it would not pencil out to a profit without both of us working full time off the farm for about the first 10 years and my husband has owned the family farm for 15 years and with only a small debt load left. Ask any young farmer wanting to farm, they can't afford to farm unless the farm and quota is handed down to them.
Then, most farm lenders wouldn't even consider the quota as security for the loan. We would have had to completely put our farm on the line and if quota went away, we would have been completely screwed.
Then the Boards have all the say, can't grow a free range chicken, have it federally processed and sell it to a restaurant. The health unit sees no issue with this as it is federally processed, but the CFO is telling us, that restaurants can't use it. They don't make it easy for the public to have a choice without driving all over creation to get local food.
Down the road, there won't be any food from Canada, it will all be imported because there are no young farmers taking over.
At least my kids will have a farm and be able to grown their own food.
© 2019 Created by Darren Marsland.
Powered by
