Talk:Dairy and poultry supply management in Canada/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

POV Issue

Article is misleading. Paints a negative picture of Supply Management. All agriculture has gotten expensive to enter for new producers, not only Supply Managed industries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.224.126.153 (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Which parts specifically do you think are inaccurate? Do you have neutral sources to back it up? Oreo Priest ^talk 10:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

→ Another anon commenter here, and not one with time to currently dig up the neutral sources to do the editing, but this is a hugely opinionated slam against supply management. For example, the section on Price Setting is intemperate, and ignores the work that the Canadian Dairy Commission does to factor the Consumer Price Index and other indicators of consumer economics when establishing support prices for industrial milk. It also ignores the fact that the percentage of income that Canadians spend on groceries is declining. That's recently been reported here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/food-eats-up-less-of-our-spending-but-costs-us-more-1.1054574. It's housing and education costs that cause Canadians a world of hurt, not the price of milk or eggs!

Furthermore, consumer price comparisons of Canadian milk against the price of milk in other countries are often skewed. If you use the price of a pint, quart or gallon of 3.25% homogenized milk as the standard of comparison, that ignores the fact that Canadians overwhelmingly purchase 2% or 1% partially skimmed milk in 4-litre packages of our rather unique 1.3 litre milk bags. Our milk bags are an internet meme! Plus a round of Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations has been successfully concluded, with Canada currently opening up only 3.25% of our dairy market. The CETA negotiations with Europe would increase non-tarrif cheese imports from 5% of our market to 9%, roughly. These are significant concessions but not system-breaking ones. While of course trading partners press for access to markets as a general principle, successful trade deals are being ratified with supply management still in place. Supply managed industries aren't the huge stumbling block to trade deals that neoliberal critics claim they are.

Countries like New Zealand are always pushing for access to our dairy market, but dairy trade with New Zealand is a bit of a joke, not to disparage any other aspect of a truly wonderful country, and one that I wouldn't mind living in for the half of the year where Canada get pretty frosty! They are always beating the trade drum because dairy constitutes about 25% of their total exports, but they have a population of under 4.5 million people. That's fewer people than the Greater Toronto Area. You could fit the population of New Zealand 3 times into southern Ontario alone! They gain hugely from trade, but how attractive are their markets for us in return? And they have supply management too, but it isn't called that. Their entire dairy industry, from the cow to up to the dairy food processor, the exporter and even the global exchange their products are sold on, belong to a single organization, the Fonterra co-op, which actually absorbed their version of our Canadian Dairy Commission in their Dairy Restructuring Act of 2001. So their industry is also co-ordinated by policy and regulation. It is just the internal policies and regulations of a single organization, instead of multiparty policies and regulations in a federated system like Canada's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.86.16 (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

As is so often the case with proponents of supply management, arguments based on distraction from the core of the matter are being waved around here. For an article on supply management, it does not matter what percentage of the household budget is spent on other groceries, housing or education; it matters what the cost of supply management is for the average family, and this is currently stated. It likewise does not matter that the bags of milk sold in (Eastern) Canada are an internet meme, nor that Canadians buy milk in larger units, and you have provided no evidence whatsoever that the analysis of price differences cited in this article didn't take that into account. Once more, it does not matter what the population of New Zealand is; what matters is that they do not subsidize their farmers with explicit subsidies or with supply management, yet they can produce milk so efficiently that they can ship dairy products tens of thousands of kilometers across the Pacific Ocean to Canada, and still have them be so much cheaper than Canadian (supply management) dairy that massive tariffs are required to keep them out. If this massive change in efficiency compared to when they still had their own supply management isn't from exactly that, then what is it from? Something magic in the water?

As for the trade agreements, you can easily find dozens of articles, Canadian and international, that explicitly point to Canada's defence of supply management as a serious sticking point in trade negotiations. On the other hand, it's true that that section is a bit out of date now, and some of the figures need to be updated in light of the concessions made in the recently signed trade agreements. Oreo Priest ^talk 13:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Source Issues

Currently the first paragraph contains the line: "The regulated and restricted domestic supply and lack of foreign product increases prices for the end consumer, estimated to be 38% to 300% higher retail prices than what is paid in most other countries for the same commodities." But the source ("The price of eggs and the Throne Speech". The Globe and Mail. October 15, 2013. Retrieved October 19, 2013.) does not seem to support this claim. (Further, the source seems to be an opinion piece.)

Currently the second paragraph contains the line: "Instead, consumers subsidize farmers in these sectors through the significantly higher supply managed prices paid for the end products." This seems to be a non-neutral reinterpretation of the source (Kline, Jesse (September 20, 2013). "Help consumers. End supply management". National Post. Retrieved October 19, 2013.) though it should be noted that this source seems to be an opinion piece from an arguably biased paper whose source is a broken link. It would likely be better to replace this line with a neutral statement based on a primary source, like the intended source of the above article, a copy of which can be found here: https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/supply-management-hall-findlay.pdf or here: https://www.scribd.com/document/97726207/m-Hall-Findlay-Supply-Mgmt-Final, or preferably, a source that compares prices of a more relevant product (such as 2%) rather than whole milk, and/or compares a larger cross section of countries, and takes into account other relevant details, like hormone use, which this source does not.

Currently the 'Control of Supply' section says "the median gross income for a dairy farmer is C$250,000 a year". The source is broken, the stated number doesn't seem credible, and even if it were, gross income wouldn't be the appropriate indicator, especially for farmers, as their gross incomes tend to be particularly inflated relative to their net incomes. A better source would be Stats Canada, for example here: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/agri118j-eng.htm where it can be seen that the above number seems... suspicious, and a more accurate figure would likely be at most less than a third of the above.

naturalnumber (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This article seems to be restatement of "SUPPLY MANAGEMENT: PROBLEMS, POLITICS – AND POSSIBILITIES" by Martha Hall Findlay

The above can be found here https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/supply-management-hall-findlay.pdf or here: https://www.scribd.com/document/97726207/m-Hall-Findlay-Supply-Mgmt-Final, and is currently source number 4 in the article.

At present in the article there are, by my count, 39 citations, 16 of which site the above, and 5 cite one of three sources ("The price of eggs and the Throne Speech". The Globe and Mail; "Help consumers. End supply management". National Post; "The statist's guide to supply management". The National Post) which cite the above as their sole or primary source.

Thus, by my count, 53% (21/39) of the citations refer to the above source, 23% (9/39) are unsourced opinion pieces from ideologically opposed sources that echo the above source sufficiently to likely have used it as a source, ("The $25,000 cow" by Andrew Coyne; "Tear down the supply management wall in Canada" by Ian Lee) and the remainder, all used only once, are largely used to establish secondary details and may just be there to make this article look more researched than it is. It should also be noted that if the multiple uncited statements and paragraphs in this article were cited, this would likely be even more biased towards the above source, as these statements and paragraphs seem to echo this source.

This is extra galling because three of the one use sources ("Analysis of the Potential Impacts of the End of Supply Management in the Canadian Dairy Industry". Boston Consulting Group.; "Supply management in Canada: Why politicians defend farm marketing boards". CBC News.; "WTO and Agriculture — Supply management". GO5) are rather long and detailed sources that are full of information that contradicts the ideological position of this article.

For example, "Analysis of the Potential Impacts of the End of Supply Management in the Canadian Dairy Industry" from the Boston Consulting Group, which is only used to establish that Australia and New Zealand have 'deregulated', notes: NZ likely isn't the model of deregulation this article supposes due to how it deregulated, Fonterra, etc.; Opening the market largely hasn't lead to expected industry growth; Many of the markets used in comparison with Canada required significant market intervention through subsidies, which is not usually mentioned when discussing deregulation.; Deregulation leads to market concentration, which some see (justifiably) as a negative.; Retailers, not consumers, benefit most from deregulation; "Little value is passed on to the consumer, and the impact on total consumption is minimal."; "... an opening of the system would represent a risk of net loss of $2.1 to 3.5 B for the Canadian GDP and would threaten 24,000 direct jobs"

Another example, "Supply management in Canada: Why politicians defend farm marketing boards" from CBC News, used only to establish the total value of dairy quota, includes the following: "Price comparisons for food can be fraught due to variable factors like transportation costs and retail competitiveness. But some studies suggest Canadians don't pay any more for milk than consumers in unregulated markets. When Australia ended supply management, the consumer price for milk went up. Other studies find small price differences. But unregulated farm prices in the U.S., for example, make taxpayers pay twice: the last major farm bill passed in Congress authorized some $1 trillion US in subsidies to keep American agriculture afloat." as well as: "A 2014 study from the Conference Board of Canada proposed a ten-year phase out, based on book value, not market-value calculations. But even that could cost between $3.6 billion and $4.7 billion for the dairy sector alone."

Another example, "WTO and Agriculture — Supply management" from GO5, used to establish that "Proponents of supply management claim that it is effective at keeping small family farms viable instead of having them crowded out by large factory farms." supports this by saying: "Supply management helps preserve the smallest farms: the average dairy farm in Québec has 55 cows, whereas the average dairy farm in the United States has 140 and in California, 660. In the table eggs sector, the average farm in Québec has around 35,000 laying hens, whereas in the United States there are farms with 8 million laying hens." but such evidence is never used. Further: "A Québec dairy farmer does not receive any subsidy to support his or her income. In the United States, a dairy farmer would receive $76,000, while a French farmer would receive $54,000 in aid as part of the new Politique agricole commune (PAC)." "Canadian dairy farmers obtain roughly 50% of the price paid by consumers for a basket of dairy products, compared to 20% for American farmers." "Civil society farming associations and organizations in Canada, India, Brazil and many countries in Africa met in Ottawa on May 16, 2005 and declared their strong interest "in preserving and promoting producer-led orderly marketing mechanisms, such as supply management, collective marketing, farmer cooperatives and single desk selling, which are currently under threat for all countries in the Doha negotiations.""

Any of these already 'used' sources could likely be used to provide a more neutral point of view to this article.

If other sources and points of view aren't added to this article, and it continues to be a summary of Martha Hall Findlay's ideologically motivated paper, perhaps this article would be better off deleted.

naturalnumber (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

'Cartel' loaded language

I removed this from the lead because it is a term used by only one side of the debate on supply management. I also removed it as a category. If I understand correctly a number of editors have expressed concern about the NPOV tone of the article. Obanwinter (talk), Naturalnumber (talk), 104.224.126.153 (talk) I am working on improving the balance.

Ottawa11(talk) has reinserted this sentence in the lead and added the category 'cartel' which I had removed. I am quite happy to contribute to this article which includes a lot of technical reading, but I appreciate a courteous tone and consultation on controversial reverts and deletions considering that there is not a consensus among editors. The end goal is a balanced article that has no maintenance templates and that describes what supply management is based on RS. This is a team project. The debate section can include arguments based on RS by authors from both sides. When presenting the debate, it is useful to not say "experts" etc but to also cite the name of the author. The lead should not be based on the debate section and should not present opinions as facts. I had included a section on supply management in New Zealand as many of the comparisons about the two countries and their dairy industries are enlightening. But they need to be updated with current prices and a survey of New Zealand's "success". I am going to add it again and would like a broader discussion on its inclusion. I disagree with talk:Ottawa11, who removed the maintenance template, that this article is ready to have the neutrality maintenance template removed. Your thoughts? Kind regards.Oceanflynn (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It has been called a "cartel" because it restricts the supply of these products by controlling the amount produced domestically and limiting imports with high tariffs (e.g. 285% import tariff on some supply managed commodities). Unsigned, undated

References

Hall Findlay

Hall Findlay is a high-profile politician in Canada with an impressive career in trade, and is now president and CEO of the Calgary-based Canada West Foundation (CWF), one of Canada's most influential think tanks along with Vancouver-based Fraser Institute, the Toronto-based C. D. Howe Institute. Her research and writing on this topic carry a lot of weight. It is Hall Findlay who labels SM as a "cartel" and her arguments are widely cited (but not necessarily widely shared?). In an effort to separate facts from opinions, I think it is important to acknowledge RS. For example, there are now 9 articles from Maclean's magazine, many of which did not name the author, ex, Hall Findlay. Maclean's, which according to the Wikipedia article under new management in the 2000s "brought a right-wing focus to the magazine, bringing in conservative columnist Mark Steyn, hiring Andrew Coyne away from the [National] Post, and rehiring Barbara Amiel." I am not saying this a "bad thing", just noting the need for redress. I am in the process of adding the names of authors to the Macleans's articles. At this point the reading is awkward and I invite fellow editors to make changes to improve them. I planted a tree yesterday so today I can wiki.Oceanflynn (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

According to Martha Hall Findlay, now president and CEO of the Canada West Foundation (CWF), whose 2012 report "Supply Management: Problems, Politics – And Possibilities", was criticized by the Dairy Farmers of Canada as flawed, these represent about 13,000 dairy farmers, about about 2,700 poultry farmers, and fewer than 1,000 egg farmers. It impacts around 133,032 to 189,278 Canadians (or 67,000 to 79,000 households).

References

Under construction template

I added the 'under construction maintenance template' temporarily, not to prevent edits from others, but because the lead has become quite awkward. Since I am in the process of editing, other editors may get an edit conflict notice. If I am in an edit conflict I will logout, wait for the other editor and resume my edits when they are finished. I want to work on content in the sections first, leaving the lead as it is for awhile. I do not want to delete content created by previous editors. The lead now has citations and I want to move these to the sections and eventually remove all citations from the lead. Any comments, concerns? Oceanflynn (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the template for now. Any suggestions on improving section and subsection headings?Oceanflynn (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Confusing statement

I moved this confusing statement from the article.

"It impacts around 133,032 to 189,278 Canadians (or 67,000 to 79,000 households)." This comment below on the article page was added by User:204.187.100.213, and removed by User: Aspening if I understand correctly.

Obviously that statement is wrong. There are more than 36 million Canadians and far more than 189,278 Canadians use dairy, eggs, chicken, and turkey. The person that wrote that used "effected" when the correct word would be "affected". I don't need to provide a reference that says that more than 189,278 Canadians use dairy products because it is obvious. For simplicity, parts of this article will focus on the dairy industry, though the general principles apply to the other two industries as well.<ref name="MHF"/>

Any thoughts on this? Does anyone know what this refers to?Oceanflynn (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Removed content: Comments?

I removed this from the lead and placed this sentence in article "Only the Libertarian Party of Canada has openly opposed the system". Any comments?Oceanflynn (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

"Only the Libertarian Party of Canada has openly opposed the system. "Eliminating supply management would save the average Canadian family more than $500 each and every year. Standing up to the cartels and protecting the pocketbooks of 35 million Canadians is the right plan. We would follow the Australian model, with a gradual phase-out and compensation for farmers."

References

A Wikipedia essay on negative criticism

Criticism

This article was originally written as a negative critique of SM. In an effort to present differing viewpoints, this Wikipedia essay may have some useful suggestions.Oceanflynn (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

"Under Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, articles must present differing viewpoints on the subject matter fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Articles should include both positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources, without giving undue weight to particular viewpoints, either negative or positive. The policy of verifiability requires attributing all viewpoints to reliable, published sources, with appropriate citations....In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias."Oceanflynn (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Requesting care when editing

In the edit by User 2620:22:4000:110:1ffe:4a72:99f3:2250, one quotation was replaced by a very similar quotation to "keep it neutral." The RS was also replaced by another with the result that the sentence had grammatical errors, omissions, improper spacing and no longer made sense. It was also factually incorrect with the new reference. I merged the two RS in the article.Oceanflynn (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

In a June 15, 2018 news conference on the NAFTA negotiations, as Canadian Federal Agriculture Minister Lawrence MacAulay hosted U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue at MacAulay family’s farm in Midgell, Prince Edward Island, Purdue said that, "[W]e’re not here though to dictate to Canada … to do away with its supply management system." Purdue said that he would like to see the SM system regulated so it "does not depress world prices." Upon his return to the US, Purdue said that, "[I]t’s unlikely an agreement will be reached unless they get rid of Class 7... [T]hey can't use their supply management system to negatively affect our dairy producers south of the border." Purdue said that Canada should not use SM to "flood world markets."

References

Legality subsection

Are there enough RS that support the claim that SM is illegal? The RS below is an opinion piece in the Financial Post.

I removed the following for discussion here. Please use MDY.Oceanflynn (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not saying that it is illegal but price mechanism underneath the SM is seen as illegal in industry that the government does not protect but since the government supports SM it is legal.

Is the case mentioned below the 2012 R v. Maxzone Auto Parts (Canada) Corp. case? Does it have any relevance to this article?

Michael Osborne stated that, "In a 2012 decision, Federal Court Judge Paul Crampton described price-fixing cartels as “an assault on our open-market economy.Supply management may be lawful, but it is undoubtedly an equal assault on the market."

References

Blog post relevance?

Removed this comment.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Though it has lead to debate if these agreements are truly “free”.

References

Sub-section on dairy-related industries

In a good faith attempt at improving the article one subsection, sentence by sentence, here on the talk page.

Can we elaborate on this point without using the words supporters or critics?

Remember as editors we cannot "take sides". We are not trying to win an argument.

Let's avoid overusing the Hall Findlay 2012 article or media that cites the article as the major source. There has already been criticism that this article cites this directly c. 16 times and indirectly countless times. Many people have written about SM.Oceanflynn (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

This section should cover dairy-industry related jobs that are positively or negatively impacted by SM policies, past and present? It can also cover reports analyzing how this might improve or deteriorate as SM is abolished? An overview of the actual numbers, types of jobs, impacted situated by dates would be useful.

As mentioned above, "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism Under Wikipedia's] neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, articles must present differing viewpoints on the subject matter fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Articles should include both positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources, without giving undue weight to particular viewpoints, either negative or positive." Also please use MDY.

The subsection as it now appears is copied below sentence by sentence:

Dairy industry-related jobs

According to their 2015 Boston Consulting Group comprehensive report, there are about 12,000 dairy farms in Canada that produce about 8 billion litres of milk annually which is sent for "treatment and processing to approximately 450 dairy plants".

:Critics state supply management can be used to deter manufacturing jobs away from Canada. 

Needs a rewrite. Suggestions? This is an important point. It is repeated often. What is the most reliable source for this with solid facts regarding types of jobs, examples, numbers.

In 2010, 22,650 people were employed in the dairy processing sector. Critics state that number could be, and should be, much higher.

Another study stated an estimate for dairy input costs of Canadian manufacturers, which produce everything from frozen pizza to ready-made lasagna, to be between five and 30 percent higher than those of U.S. companies.

In 2015 there was an "unprecedented" demand for butter and Canada "experienced a severe butter shortage" that some blamed on supply management.

This is glossing over a very specific and temporary situation. There was a global unprecedented increase in demand. Break down what arguments were used to claim that SM caused a butter shortage? What is the other side of this? Is this the place for this statement? It was in the section on Background. Does it need to be here too in this section on dairy-industry related jobs?Oceanflynn (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

By April 2017, "domestic butterfat output has already grown more than enough to meet demand." that has changed.

In 2017, the Chinese corporation, Feihe International, invested $225 million to construct a infant formula plant in Kingston, Ontario in 2017, citing one of the main reasons for choosing Canada, was the supply management system though it was mainly for the quality of milk.

In 2013, Chobani, a yogurt maker from the USA, abandoned plans to build a $76 million plant in Kingston, which would have created 1,300 direct and indirect jobs based on quota limitation.

Critics state that the high cost associated with supply management had led to Canada’s food processing industry bleeding market share to U.S. competitors and several major companies such as Campbell Soup Co, Kraft Heinz Co., and Kellogg Co. closing Canadian plants in recent years.

In addition, they state that dairy processors establish operations outside the country to meet global demand due saturation in the Canadian market caused by the tariffs.

References

Relevant topics not discussed

At present this article seems to avoid several relevant topics that should probably be included in any relevant discussion on the topic of supply management. These include: The difficulties of deregulation (costs, effects, requirement of federal and provincial support), food sovereignty/market centralization, milk quality issues (in particular hormone use in the US, which likely contributes to their milk being cheaper), the Canadian public's general support for supply management, and dumping as it associates with deregulation.

Thoughts on their inclusion?

naturalnumber (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi naturalnumber (talk). I think these suggested topics remain relevant and should be part of the article. There have been a number of heavy-handed reverts in the main article. Could you suggest content and/or RS here that could eventually be added to the article? That way it won't be lost. Thanks.Oceanflynn (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Difficulties of deregulation (costs, effects, requirement of federal and provincial support)

Food sovereignty/market centralization

The Gambling MA spoke to this. It has a lot of excellent references of course.

Milk quality issues

Dumping (deregulation)

Canadian public's general support for supply management

Wikify

The phrase "must not cave" should be replaced. We do not need another statement from Hall Findlay who is already cited too often in this article. This statement about Trump is a vague threat? Is it necessary in this article? Please use MDY.Oceanflynn (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

"A bi-partisan cohort of more than 60 members of Congress says the United States must not cave on its demands for more dairy access to Canada in an updated NAFTA agreement. Hall Findlay has stated “We should dismantle supply management — not because Trump says so, but because it’s in Canada’s best interests. (Only because of Trump, right now would be a good time.)”

References

The point was to broaden the NAFTA negotiation and ad a side where some Canadians want SM gone

The sentence above "The point..." was unsigned. It is incoherent. Who wants to broaden the NAFTA negotiation? What is "ad a side"? What purpose does this statement serve? There is already a lot of content on the theme of "some Canadians want SM gone" but that is not the role of a Wikipedia article.Oceanflynn (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Citation overkill

Citation overkill essay has some useful points that would improve this article.Oceanflynn (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Mystery shopper is not RS

Ottawa11 (talk) Hi Ottawa11. Regarding your edit:

The CTV article you use as RS does not include any of your content. It does not mention a Mystery shopping app Field Agent survey. A Mystery shopping app Field Agent survey would not on its own be RS. The word 'stating' is misspelled. Starting a sentence with "though" is grammatically incorrect. The phrase "suggested that American prices were cheaper" is not useful. Please visit the this article's talk page re previous errors.Oceanflynn (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Though Mystery shopping app Field Agent conducted a survey stateing that the average national price per litre of 2 per cent milk when purchased in a four-litre container is $1.22 but suggested that American prices were cheaper.

References

Oceanflynn (talk)

Hi OceanFlynn, I did not write the sentence. However, I moved it from debates to retail price of milk because I thought it would be the appropriate place.Ottawa11 (talk)

Hi Ottawa11 (talk). Sorry about that. My mistake.Oceanflynn (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The edit was made by 2620:22:4000:110:1ffe:4a72:99f3:2250 (talk) on July 11, 2018. I prefer to copy content I delete to the talk page to avoid reverts in the main page article.Oceanflynn (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Dairy Farmers of Ontario invited to speak to Wisconsin farmers, Senator etc about supply management

New user 2605:b100:fc45:76ae:5d6c:4e45:929a:7c17 (talk) User: 2605:b100:fc45:76ae:5d6c:4e45:929a:7c17 deleted the following because (This seems more apporiate on the American diary wiki page).

I have reverted the edit. Please discuss below.Oceanflynn (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

In March 2018, the Wisconsin Farmers Union (WFU) hosted events for Wisconsin dairy farmers, the State Senator, and lawmakers in five Wisconsin cities in which Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) representatives explained Canada's dairy supply management system. At the end of the presentation, by a show of hands 70 to 80% of participants indicated that there were elements of Canada's SM "that would make sense in the U.S." When asked if they believed Canada caused the "challenges dairy farmers in the U.S. [were] experiencing, there were "no hands raised at any of the five meetings."

References

A sentence to rework or remove

This sentence citing a 2012 editorial opinion piece repeats previous statements about TRQs, etc. I have removed the sentence but kept the reference.Oceanflynn (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It was reported in 2012, that with the domestic controls on supply and price, the high tariffs on imported products were put in place to protect Canadian producers from competition, and keep foreign imports to very low levels.

References

Deletions

The following was deleted by Ottawa11(talk) with comment (Moved it to an appropriate place). Ottawa11 moved the content to Union des producteurs agricoles. Oceanflynn (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the deletion temporarily. Bernier's frontal attack on supply management, which was his major platform in his political campaign, along with that of Hall Findlay in hers, are turning points. This article is the place to discuss that. For now I am adding detailed content to avoid NPOV.Oceanflynn (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

A 2015 Maclean's article, "Why the dairy lobby is so powerful", described an incident during the September 28, 2015 federal leaders Munk Debate on foreign affairs, then-NDP Leader Tom Mulcair asked Stephen Harper if they could assure the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec (UPA) President Marcel Groleau, reached out to the New Democrats, Liberals and Bloc Québécois, of his full support for supply management. Harper immediately complied. In his chapter on supply management in his on-line political memoir, Maxime Bernier groups together supporters of supply-managed sectors under a combined dairy lobby. Bernier describes the UPA as an "extension" of Québec's Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. [He] wrote that the combined dairy lobby funds millions of dollars in university graduate programs and research on "collective marketing of agricultural products" across the country in support of SM policies.

References