The title refers to two different court decisions, one by justice Lynn-Smith the other by chief justice Brennan. A broiler and an egg producer attempted to argue for their right to produce and serve their established organic markets under the provisions of the Natural Products Marketing Act. Their percieved competition argued that it is only an existing producer that has the right to a new market and only the established agency can determine the conditions of entry for a new product. Based on the finding that all chickens are the same, the totalitarian control over market and production was given to the private interest groups representing the status quo. Brad Reid was coerced to become a member in the association, which has been trying to shut him down for several years. Fred Reid was ordered to join the BC Egg Producers and pay levies for services that were never rendered, unless harassment can be considered a service.
Given all the inputs we had, a sensible and diplomatic solution could be found to please the establishment and the new growers without resorting to litigation. Whether a chicken is a chicken could be answered in any kindergarten class, without involving lawyers and judges. The working agreements between the two parties should not have taken longer to write than the following pages. Regulated marketing and supply management are a contentious matter for political economists, lawyers and affected farmers. For most consumers it means nothing. If I explain to my clients what makes me an illegal in the eyes of ‘the system,’ Stalinism comes to most people’s mind. Human factors combined with technology led to cutthroat pricing and the call for government intervention in the 1960s. Within a year of its introduction in 1969 (in the case of eggs) those same follies overvalued a system that served fewer and fewer people. Some of these commodity producers invested to eliminate the competition by auctioning for quota. The practice has been questionable, also seldom challenged for being the ‘rule of law’. An earlier review questioned the regulated marketing system but a successful lobbying effort convinced the government to shelve the report. Now you might understand why the system is so fiercely defended. It has very little to do with the desire to farm locally and produce a regional, sustainable, socially acceptable food product in the public interest. It is time for this government to take at least a stand on this issue. It is no longer acceptable to have the supervisors in the role of spectators only. A government should realize that it is not in power to protect only the “first born.” The antics of the BCEP always remind me of the cartoon chosen by Emory Griffin for his book cover.The United States and Soviet Union delivered proof that centralization stinks. Mandatory membership in an alien organization should sound at least weird to Canadians if not unconstitutional. So why are the members of the BCEP insisting to impose their practices as being ‘the system’ and the only legitimate way of accessing the Canadian market? Since 1999, organic growers have been trying to establish a functional relationship of coexistence with the BC Egg Producers. From my point of view, BCEP was, and still is, self-serving. It was the government’s job to step in and create peace in the valley, if they cared for it. Why is the government asking BCEP to review itself again now? The whole regulated marketing system of BC was reviewed in 2002 by the George Morris Centre and many times before that. Is John van Dongen buying time?
For about 4 years we have been pussyfooting around supply management, the holy cow of regulated marketing. A lot of regulated producers have taken a more pragmatic approach in dealing with new realities in the market place, without alienating the participants too much. The BC Vegetable Marketing Commission did recognize several agents for similar products; the mushroom growers got rid of single desk selling and all the hogwash around it. Under the framework of the same federal Natural Products Marketing Act, a single-minded approach insists among chicken growers (most likely not all of them) that their board orders are the LAW. The regulated marketing system is very little understood even by participants, which is one of the most aggravating factors in this sanguine dispute over rights. For instance, concentrating more production into fewer hands over the years has made the BC Egg Producers association an autocratic, protectionist, selfish, single-minded bureau. The interests are located within a small community making it very easy for an acceptable practice to become the rule. The worst thing is that this rule is proclaimed as government policy. Ribbon cutting and shoulder patting with the major players in the industry was more important to most ministers than the loss of agrarian democracy and the independent family farm with a right to prosperity. (In BC 80% of so called family farms exist only due to off farm income.). Unfortunately, most people in the government did not pay attention to these developments. I shall say absolutely nothing about politicians, for now.
The special status given to a legalized monopoly does require public supervision of the various agencies. Control was always inefficient because of the existing ‘buddy system.’ It should appear as strange that the ‘egg board’ (and others) would call on the government for help one day and tell it not to meddle in their affairs the next. All reviews recommending change are successfully shelved.
We ended up with today’s situation because the BCEP did not consider the organic market of interest until it reached a certain size. According to them, BC would not have the access to organic eggs it enjoys now. First they ridiculed this market as a passing fad. Than they try to shut us down, take over and declare our pursuit illegal. What school did they go to? It is my understanding that nobody but the consumer decides over the size of the market for any given product. What role does the BCEP take on when deciding whose certified organic eggs should be on what shelf at what price? Is this not a direct interference with consumer choice? ‘The system’ has consistently sneered at life style and attitude changes in the consumer. Conventional farmers despise diversification. Some of us organic farmers have responded with an open mind and provided the production to fill the demand. This was not that easy and had a cost attached to it. It’s always years later that the conventional minds face reality and then have the nerve to call themselves the responsive supplier. How can a court coerce me to accept the BCEP as the custodian to protect my interests? Has the judge not heard about the conflicting views? We are opposites in production methods and BCEP does not tolerate dissenting views. This is like appointing an atheist as church administrator. I checked, it does not work the other way either.
Interestingly enough, it seems sufficient to have eggs, broilers, turkeys and milk only under supply management in order to protect the public interest. What about cookies? What about coffee and doughnuts? Are they not vital to Canadians? What rationale permits a government to allow for 6 coffee houses, 3 shoe stores and numerous other businesses to compete against each other for a consumer dollar within a block on Robson Street but insists that all eggs have to be in the BCEP basket? How can Canadians have 4 competing government regulated gas stations at one intersection? Why is only one agency allowed to deal with eggs? Every gas station sells a multitude of candy bars, not all of them from Philip Morris, and the Fraser Valley chicken farmers don’t lobby for change. They also choose from a number of feed mills, equipment suppliers and car dealers that have to compete on the open market. This benefits the poultry industry, so it’s OK. The same freedom is denied to their clients, to me and to my customers. I simply do not understand the logic of politicians to support this type of hypocrisy.
I agree that it was bad in 1965. But let us not forget why greed was the major contributing factor. I know that they see value in their assets. The 80-year-old question is “have these values any basis in principle, any constant relation to social service, any absolute standard? We find that they have not.”
What’s this deal about supply management? Is not every umbrella maker, car manufacturer, farmer, grocer, businessperson or jobber trying to be in demand and selling the products of his/her labour with profit? Are we not all balancing to achieve textbook margins, without being accused of screwing the customer? Most Canadian economists are not in favour of marketing boards or regulated production. Am I a complete idiot to resist partaking in the Mecca of chicken farming?
The most controversial aspect is quota and levy within the ‘feather industry’. (The term is another indication of their cocksure nature of being all-inclusive, with total disregard to ducks, geese, quails, squabs, pheasants etc. They could all be potential competitors to the domestic hen.) All quotas were allocated free according to the corresponding markets. That a farmer decides to buy his neighbour or cousin out is a personal choice. The price paid is the opportunity cost he accepted in order to dominate over a larger market share. To my knowledge, no government can force a person to invest into an elusive value. If I am wrong, maybe the liberal government can set me straight on this.
Indeed I operate without a license. Conditions to get one require me to sign an agreement to buy quota from an existing producer. This makes very little sense since I respond with growth to a different clientele. His allocation was the right to produce and supply an existing or potential market for a different class of product. That same right to allocation is denied to others and to me. What I still don’t understand is the science and law supporting the dogma. Did Seattle’s Best Coffee come in and buy market share from Starbucks, who in turn bought it from White Spot who bought it from Murchie’s?
Why did the government hand over licensing to a private interest group in the first place? And why not revoke it? The Royal Bank does not determine what other bank can operate on the Canadian market, nor does it limit the service or set rates. The phone companies do not license each other. They have a right to object to a newcomer, but it is not their decision to prevent it. Should not a commission, rather than the management of a producer association evaluates licensing requirements for eggs? So let us no longer focus on compliance with board orders, before we carefully examined them for validity. This is where chief justice Brennan erred when he ruled that Olera has to join his opponents or quit production. The question was whether a producer or group of producers has a right to earn their livelihood exempted from mandatory membership in an established producer group, hostile to their interest. A.J.Toynbee cautioned not to treat “the familiar as the absolute, the be-all and end-all of value in a system.” Separation in this case would be ideal. Amalgamation would be at a cost to both camps with a lot of irreconcilable differences brought to the general meetings. Only a zealot would try the union.
The scope of the federal Natural Products Marketing Act was supposed to better the position of the individual producer faced by adverse market conditions. The adversity now comes from a dogmatic interest group. They cannot be prosecutor, judge and jury. The BC Marketing Board has supported the BCEP position thus accepting the tail to wag the dog.
A comment by Jack McCloy, a farmer and former president of the National Farmers Union, describes this situation already in 1975. “The formation of a producer board creates an atmosphere for the development of political organizations (commodity groups) whose objective narrows down to self interest, regardless of the effect on fellow farmers producing a related product. This process tends to pit farmer against farmer, depending on the nature of their production, rather than joining together as farmers to resolve their common problem.”
A while ago the BCEP started a guerilla war. Trying to collect a levy and enforce mandatory membership from one organic farmer had the sole intent of closing down a grading station used collectively by a number of farmers supplying an established and loyal customer base. During negotiations, the wizards of supply management allowed a 100% increase of organic eggs from their own quarters into the market. The same people then complained that we caused flooding of the market, over supply and bad prices. And nobody dares to accuse them of misrepresentation. Is it not time to revoke their special status, the schemes and orders?
When Diefenbaker said, “in Canada we believe in strong fences,” I’m sure he did not mean one big, bloody fence. Show us real government, dear Liberals. Draw up the fence lines. Enforce orderly competition, not compliance with doctrines. Alternatively, the government might as well legislate consumer behaviour, if it supports the flat Earth theories of certain lobbyists. It is important to me to find the government and public position on this. For the past 2 years, the cabinet has already been ignoring 7000 consumer signatures. Other farmers and I responded to the challenges for agriculture in the 1990s, as called for in a publicly sponsored workshop held at the facilities of the Ministry of Agriculture in Abbotsford. What was all the talk about repositioning, being responsive to changing consumer demands, alternative markets, becoming more entrepreneurial, diverse, distinct? In the August 2002, issue of AgriDigest (page 2), John van Dongen wrote about competitiveness, challenges, opportunities and prosperity. I’m punished for heeding the call?
The shut down of Olera Farm by a court order is also closing down Biota Farm. This further limits consumer choice to what they wish to support with their dollar as socially acceptable practice. Only 3 farms in BC hold the SPCA certification, regarding animal welfare: Olera, Biota and Rabbit River. I stress this since some clients’ support goes beyond an organic label. Government approved means little, coming from the same people that approved Agent Orange. We grew into this market and believed in conversion to alternative farming for a reason, not to fill a niche! My mind is committed to organic living. My home fridge could be certified organic. How can I function in a group opposed to my ideals? My right to earn a living outside of an existing organization is a provision in the NPMA. The Natural Product Marketing Act is good for one gander but not for another. I don’t get it.
By 2010 British Columbians want to present a supernatural province to the world. Do you think that all jaws will drop in awe of the super barns housing 20,000 hens in cages, fed a scientifically formulated diet with GMOi contaminated grains and other substances outlawed in Europe? A lot of Asians value a free-range bird and diversity on a farm more than the meat and potato heads of certain other cultures. By 2007 caged layer production will be outlawed in Germany and is already no longer tolerated in other countries. Maximum farm size is 6000 birds. Are we going to spend more money erecting Potemkin villages to camouflage the reality of agro industry? (This program is in place!) Do we consider adopting some European progressive thought? It might help with trade. Has anybody considered that we could have a leg up on the feared influx from mass-produced US eggs if the consumer rather than the complicated political-legal agreement would be the natural barrier to unwanted imports?
And if everybody agrees that an egg is an egg it might as well come from the Midwest. Should I care?
P.S. Fred Reid exposed himself like this while negotiating on behalf of an entire group. As an individual he could have signed a sweet deal for himself any time. I was offered a compromised solution for myself while still in negotiation for an entire group. That is one more reason for me not to associate with the BCEP whose board has driven a wedge between me and other producers.
My right to earn a livelihood means nothing to all the bystanders. Can I try much longer a diplomatic approach? After all, we were ready to barter and accept compromises that would have left the phony system of schemes and orders unchallenged. I’d like to end with a quote from Hans J. Morgenthal to illustrate, among other things, that my take on the subject does not come from the local coffee shop only: “a diplomacy that thinks in legalistic and propagandistic terms is particularly tempted to insist on the letter of the law, as it interprets the law, and to lose sight of the consequences such insistence may have for its own nation and for humanity. Since there are rights to be defended, this kind of diplomacy thinks that the issue cannot be compromised. Yet the choice that confronts the diplomat is not between legality and illegality, but between political wisdom and political folly. “The question with me”, said Edmund Burke, “is not whether you have a right to render your people miserable, but whether it is not in your best interest to make them happy. It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do, but what humanity, reason and justice tell me I ought to do.””
karlhann@shaw.ca
I have a lot of background information on this subject for anyone interested in details.
