Election 2015

[17to85]

sweet, dairy prices don't seem to be going down. I  like paying twice what the Americans do for dairy.

Americans subsidize the crap out of their dairy industry though so what's the actual cost when you factor in the taxes being paid. 

[Fraser]

Look it up. They are expensive because no one can import from anywhere, not just the US and this agreement changes little.

New Zealand wants to export dairy to us, do they subsidize too?

If anyone should be against the commie farm practices in canada it should be you.

[The Unknown Poster]

My guess is that anti-Harper crowd will find some things to complain about in this TPP deal and make it seem like the worst idea ever.  Everyone else will accept it as a deal Canada had to do.  Ive seen very, very little negative news coverage of this.  Even CJOB had multiple "experts" on the other day and they were all in agreement about it being a "must do" deal that regardless of not being perfect, Canada had to have a seat at the table

[kelownabomberfan]

sweet, dairy prices don't seem to be going down. I  like paying twice what the Americans do for dairy.

 

how much milk do you drink?

[Fraser]

sweet, dairy prices don't seem to be going down. I like paying twice what the Americans do for dairy.

how much milk do you drink?

It's not even about how much dairy I consume. Its about all the money our health care system wastes treating people with lifestly diseases (type 2 diabetes) when milk is 5 bucks a litre or more, artifically above demand due to commie practices and soda is a buck a litre

A lot of healthy food gets destroyed and prices are kept above what they should to protect the interests of a few

[The Unknown Poster]

 

sweet, dairy prices don't seem to be going down. I  like paying twice what the Americans do for dairy.

 

how much milk do you drink?

 

Realistically, unless you are a baby you shouldnt be drinking any milk.  And even then it should be human milk.  Dont get me wrong, I love some milk when I have some warm cookies to dip in them or cereal.  But humans drinking milk is silly (and I say that as a reformed milk addict).

[The Unknown Poster]

 

 

sweet, dairy prices don't seem to be going down. I like paying twice what the Americans do for dairy.

how much milk do you drink?

It's not even about how much dairy I consume. Its about all the money our health care system wastes treating people with lifestly diseases (type 2 diabetes) when milk is 5 bucks a litre or more, artifically above demand due to commie practices and soda is a buck a litre

 

Not the government's job to tell people to stop drinking soda by the keg.  Although in general Im in favour of "sin" taxes including on things like soda which have zero value to humans and do harm (and I say THAT as a reformed Pepsi addict who LOVES Dr Pepper).

 

Neither Milk nor Soda is a necessity.  So the price should be market driven.

[Fraser]

sweet, dairy prices don't seem to be going down. I like paying twice what the Americans do for dairy.

how much milk do you drink?

It's not even about how much dairy I consume. Its about all the money our health care system wastes treating people with lifestly diseases (type 2 diabetes) when milk is 5 bucks a litre or more, artifically above demand due to commie practices and soda is a buck a litre

Not the government's job to tell people to stop drinking soda by the keg. Although in general Im in favour of "sin" taxes including on things like soda which have zero value to humans and do harm (and I say THAT as a reformed Pepsi addict who LOVES Dr Pepper).

Neither Milk nor Soda is a necessity. So the price should be market driven.

I agree it should be market driven. Supply management isnt market driven.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

 

 

 

sweet, dairy prices don't seem to be going down. I like paying twice what the Americans do for dairy.

how much milk do you drink?

It's not even about how much dairy I consume. Its about all the money our health care system wastes treating people with lifestly diseases (type 2 diabetes) when milk is 5 bucks a litre or more, artifically above demand due to commie practices and soda is a buck a litre

Not the government's job to tell people to stop drinking soda by the keg. Although in general Im in favour of "sin" taxes including on things like soda which have zero value to humans and do harm (and I say THAT as a reformed Pepsi addict who LOVES Dr Pepper).

Neither Milk nor Soda is a necessity. So the price should be market driven.

I agree it should be market driven. Supply management isnt market driven.

 

Im no dairy expert.  Nor do I really care.  If people drink Milk, that's their problem.  Using Soda as an example, if Soda was $5 a litre, we wouldnt care if soda drinkers complained.  Dont like it, dont drink it.

[Rich]

 

 

 

sweet, dairy prices don't seem to be going down. I like paying twice what the Americans do for dairy.

how much milk do you drink?

It's not even about how much dairy I consume. Its about all the money our health care system wastes treating people with lifestly diseases (type 2 diabetes) when milk is 5 bucks a litre or more, artifically above demand due to commie practices and soda is a buck a litre

 

Not the government's job to tell people to stop drinking soda by the keg.  Although in general Im in favour of "sin" taxes including on things like soda which have zero value to humans and do harm (and I say THAT as a reformed Pepsi addict who LOVES Dr Pepper).

 

Neither Milk nor Soda is a necessity.  So the price should be market driven.

 

 

I know this is a slippery slope but should you care since we have public health care?

 

And as for the supply managed comments...   Fraser is right, despite your feelings on milk, I’m surprised you aren’t against supply management in Canada.

 

In case you don’t know milk, cheese, eggs and poultry in Canada are supply managed which means the farmers who produce these things need to own a quota to produce and sell these goods.  The quotas themselves can be sold and purchased between producers.

 

This system manages the supply (goods produced) and the prices they are sold at.

 

I worked with Ag Canada for many years in their disaster and financial assistance programs (much government funding goes into this to help our farmers along).  Supply managed producers (or at least those portions of their operations) were almost always excluded from federal assistance programs because these producers are basically guaranteed to make a predetermined profit. 

 

And you as a consumer pay the higher price for that.  Here is Wikipedia's commentary on the effect on consumers:

 

 

Canadian consumers pay one and a half to three times as much for dairy, poultry and eggs than they otherwise would without the supply management system, adding up to around C$300 per family per year.^[3] This has been criticized as a regressive tax on the poor, for whom food is a large portion of their budget, and who are in effect subsidizing well-off farmers.^[2] The average Canadian consumer earns less than the average dairy farmer, to whom they are paying subsidies.^[3]

By managing supply, consumer prices do not fluctuate with swings in international markets. Though one might expect that with a fixed supply of milk that efficiencies of technology and scale might bring the prices down, the opposite has happened; the price of milk in Canada has been steadily rising faster than inflation over the past 30 years. In the same time period, in the United States the price of milk has instead decreased relative to inflation.^[3]

Under supply management, consumers, as taxpayers, do not need to pay "explicit" subsidies to dairy, poultry and egg farmers; the paying of often substantial subsidies to farmers is common in many developed countries, though Canadian farmers in other sectors, including grain, beef, pork, food oils and pulses, receive few if any subsidies. The OECD estimates the subsidy equivalent (producer support estimate) paid to all of Canadian agriculture as 18% of the value of the industry; a majority of this goes to the supply managed sectors although they account for only a small part of Canadian agriculture, meaning that the supply managed sectors have a much higher effective subsidy. In the European Union, the effective subsidies are 27%, with the United States at 10%, Australia(6%), New Zealand (1%), Brazil (6%), and China at 9%.^[3]

[The Unknown Poster]

Im definitely ignorant to the business side of this.  If I understand this correctly, we subsidize dairy farmers to the extent they are guaranteed a decent income?

 

Should not be doing that.  I do think there is merit to protecting Canadian industry and Im not necessarily in favour of a market that destroys that.  I guess my initial reaction is simply that milk is not a necessity so the price isnt overly important.  But as a taxpayer why are we subsidizing it?  Is it one of those "we always did, so we always will"?

[Rich]

Im definitely ignorant to the business side of this.  If I understand this correctly, we subsidize dairy farmers to the extent they are guaranteed a decent income?

 

Should not be doing that.  I do think there is merit to protecting Canadian industry and Im not necessarily in favour of a market that destroys that.  I guess my initial reaction is simply that milk is not a necessity so the price isnt overly important.  But as a taxpayer why are we subsidizing it?  Is it one of those "we always did, so we always will"?

 

It isn't subsidized through taxes.  The consumer is paying an inflated price because the supply is artificially constrained.

 

Lets say we made it so that only 100 bottles of Cola can be sold in Canada in a given year.  How much do you think the price of Cola would sky rocket?    That is basically what has happened with milk (though obviously more then 100 bottles can be sold)

 

However, tt is not just milk that is supply managed, it is cheese, eggs, and poultry as well.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

Im definitely ignorant to the business side of this.  If I understand this correctly, we subsidize dairy farmers to the extent they are guaranteed a decent income?

 

Should not be doing that.  I do think there is merit to protecting Canadian industry and Im not necessarily in favour of a market that destroys that.  I guess my initial reaction is simply that milk is not a necessity so the price isnt overly important.  But as a taxpayer why are we subsidizing it?  Is it one of those "we always did, so we always will"?

 

It isn't subsidized through taxes.  The consumer is paying an inflated price because the supply is artificially constrained.

 

Lets say we made it so that only 100 bottles of Cola can be sold in Canada in a given year.  How much do you think the price of Cola would sky rocket?   

 

However, tt is not just milk that is supply managed, it is cheese, eggs, and poultry as well.

 

Why do we do this?  If we stopped, would the farmers all cry poverty and say Harper is killing the dairy farm industry?

[Rich]

It is a good question, and I don't really have the answer.

 

 

Supply management in its current form dates from Federal legislation passed in Dec. 1971, though its origins trace to the formation of the Canadian Dairy Farmers’ Federation in 1934. The group became Dairy Farmers of Canada in 1942, and its mandate was to stabilize the dairy market and increase revenues for dairy farmers.^[11] In the face of lobbying, government programs were instituted in the 1940s and 1950s to increase prices and limit imports. 1958 saw the creation of the Agricultural Stabilization Board, though it was not limited to dairy.^[3] In the 1950s and 1960s there was significant volatility in dairy prices, dairy producers had too much bargaining power relative to dairy farmers, the United Kingdom was poised to enter the European Common Market, resulting in the loss of Canada's largest dairy export customer. These challenges led to the creation of the Canadian Dairy Commission, whose mandate was to ensure producers received a "fair" return on investment, and to ensure the quality and supply of milk, (though without concern for consumer prices).^[12]

In 1970, the National Milk Marketing Plan came into effect to control supply, with the federal government and the governments of Ontario and Quebec, the two largest provinces, signing on. By 1974 every province except Newfoundland had signed on. Following dairy, a national supply management system was implemented for eggs in 1972, turkey in 1974, chicken in 1978 and chicken hatching eggs in 1986.^[3] Concurrently 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.^[6] Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP all support the continuation of SM. There have been two votes in parliament where MP's unanimously voted in support of SM. Agriculture lobbyists in Ottawa are the most active of all other industries. Even though there are just 17,000 SM farmers (just 8% of all farmers), they have a strong active program with both politicians and government bureaucrats.

 

Mark might have some more insight / opinion on this because he is more intimately involved in farming than I.

[sweep the leg]

 

 

sweet, dairy prices don't seem to be going down. I  like paying twice what the Americans do for dairy.

 

how much milk do you drink?

 

Realistically, unless you are a baby you shouldnt be drinking any milk.  And even then it should be human milk.  Dont get me wrong, I love some milk when I have some warm cookies to dip in them or cereal.  But humans drinking milk is silly (and I say that as a reformed milk addict).

 

lol at trying to re-ignite the milk debate.

[Fraser]

 

Im definitely ignorant to the business side of this.  If I understand this correctly, we subsidize dairy farmers to the extent they are guaranteed a decent income?

 

Should not be doing that.  I do think there is merit to protecting Canadian industry and Im not necessarily in favour of a market that destroys that.  I guess my initial reaction is simply that milk is not a necessity so the price isnt overly important.  But as a taxpayer why are we subsidizing it?  Is it one of those "we always did, so we always will"?

 

It isn't subsidized through taxes.  The consumer is paying an inflated price because the supply is artificially constrained.

 

Lets say we made it so that only 100 bottles of Cola can be sold in Canada in a given year.  How much do you think the price of Cola would sky rocket?    That is basically what has happened with milk (though obviously more then 100 bottles can be sold)

 

However, tt is not just milk that is supply managed, it is cheese, eggs, and poultry as well.

 

 

root vegetable too.

 

Peak of the market isn't your friend. They fix the price of root vegetable and constrain supply. It is illegal to import root vegetables for direct sale to consumers, or to grow root vegetable for sale if you are not a part of peak of the market.This constrained supply allows them to set a price above what a competitive market would allow.

 

basically everything healthy and good for you is supply managed and processed foods are fair game. So it isn't just will power that has led to an obese society its price fixing of homogenous foods.

[Mark H.]

Supply management is great for those farmers that have quotas. Not everyone paid for them - most were inherited when the system was put into place.

The concerns raised here are all valid. It's just a matter of time till supply management is gone.

To the majority that inherited their quota, this shouldn't matter. But there is a growing number of producers who have purchased quota over the years, spending millions of dollars.

Those people should be compensated, but will they?

[Fraser]

Supply management is great for those farmers that have quotas. Not everyone paid for them - most were inherited when the system was put into place.

The concerns raised here are all valid. It's just a matter of time till supply management is gone.

To the majority that inherited their quota, this shouldn't matter. But there is a growing number of producers who have purchased quota over the years, spending millions of dollars.

Those people should be compensated, but will they?

 

sounds like they are compensating people to the tune of billions. I don't know what from though as dairy imports will only increase 3.25% from what is pretty a very small amount of imports (10%) apparently all supply managed producers are mostly protected.

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/trans-pacific-partnership-agreement-key-points-that-impact-canada-1.2595268

[Mark H.]

Yes, I'm not sure why compensation is required at this point. Mind you, farmers make up a good chunk of Harper's support base, with most rural ridings being a Conservative slam dunk. That's just my own theory though.

[The Unknown Poster]

Interesting lesson in "journalism"

 

The Black Rod:

 

Monday, October 05, 2015

Winnipeg Free Press: manipulating election coverage to boost Liberal fortunes

 

 

How far will the Winnipeg Free Press go to manipulate their election coverage to promote the Liberals?

We got the answer Saturday when FP columnist Dan Lett went so far as to invent a scenario which allegedly took place at an all-candidates meeting in Winnipeg South Centre, one of the ridings the Liberals hope to recapture in Winnipeg, and which he then used to smear the Conservative incumbent.

Under the rubric 'Analysis', Lett, who had been the moderator at the meeting, wrote:

"It was all going well until (Joyce) Bateman piqued the ire of the crowd when she starting reading off a list of names from the Liberal campaign -- volunteers, paid staff workers and candidates alike --who had been identified by the Tories as "enemies" of Israel."

Mission accomplished. The column was gleefully snapped up and reprinted in pro-Liberal sites across the Web.  

 

It was enough to attract the attention of media watchdog Ezra Levant who did a bit of digging and discovered that Lett's observations were a crock.

Joyce Bateman  never used the term "enemies". That was a complete concoction by Dan Lett.  

 

And there was never any suggestion that the people referenced by Bateman "had been identified by the Tories as "enemies" of Israel." 

 

This, too, was a total invention.

CBC Manitoba linked to video of the Winnipeg-South-Centre meeting. It showed the context of the FP smear. At the conclusion of the meeting, the candidates were allowed to make a short summation of their pitch to voters. 

 

Bateman commented that if Liberal candidate Jim Carr was elected, his colleagues in government would include:

"Omar Alghabra, his colleague Liberal candidate, who called Israel's efforts to defend itself from Hamas rockets in 2014 blind and cruel. Borys Wrzesnewskyj, who called for the legalization of Hezbollah and its removal from the terror list. Darshan Kang, a Liberal candidate – his colleague, attended and spoke at a Gaza rally that turned violent in 2014. And Andrew Leslie, Liberal candidate and colleague of our Liberal candidate, accused Israel of indiscriminately bombing women and children."

This prompted Lett to write:

"It is hard in retrospect to escape the feeling the "enemies of Israel" blacklist Bateman was reading had a McCarthyesque blush to it. The names were read quickly and without any information establishing the veracity of the charges against the individuals named. It was a truly creepy moment."

With that he proved he is not a reporter, not a journalist, nothing but a Liberal Party flak. 

 

Any real journalist knows that "google is your friend."  

 

It took 90 seconds to, ahem, "establish the veracity of the charges against the individuals named."

https://nowtoronto.com/news/playing-tacky-politics-with-gaza/
JULY 26, 2014 8:20 AM
As rockets by the hundreds flew between Gaza and Israel last week, I received an email from Cory Hann, director of communications for the Conservative Party of Canada.

It referred to former Mississauga-Erindale Liberal MP Omar Alghabra's Facebook post calling Israel's response to Hamas rockets "blind and cruel." The email called Alghabra's remarks "offensive and ignorant. We are urging [Liberal leader] Justin Trudeau to condemn his remarks and demand an apology. We know that when we stand by Israel against anti-Semitic terrorists and extremists, that is Canada at our very best."
****************
Vancouver Province: When asked if he was in favour of Hezbollah being taken off the terror list, [the Liberal member for Etobicoke] (Borys Wrzesnewskyj) said: 'Yes, I would be.' He likened the situation in the Middle East to Northern Ireland.
That is in the Province of Aug. 21, 2006.

His views on Hezbollah were so toxic he was eventually forced by the Liberal Party to resign.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/liberal-mp-borys-wrzesnewskyj-resigns/article22504547/
Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj resigns 
VANCOUVER — Canadian Press
Published Wednesday, Aug. 23, 2006 2:49PM EDT 
The Liberals' deputy foreign affairs critic has resigned after an uproar over his statements that Canada should negotiate directly with Lebanon's Hezbollah, which is on Canada's list of terrorist organizations.
Borys Wrzesnewskyj created a backlash within his own party when he made the statement during a visit by opposition MPs to Lebanon last week.

**********************'

 

"In a column published Oct. 3, the use of quotation marks around enemies and enemies of Israel were intended for emphasis and were not intended to be seen as being quotes attributed to Joyce Bateman, Conservative candidate for Winnipeg South Centre."

That's not even close to the apology owed Joyce Bateman for the fabricated scenario presented as truth by the Free Press.

[The Unknown Poster]

Global News

 

With just two weeks left in the federal election campaign, the Conservatives are now the top choice for voters, according to a new Ipsos poll conducted for Global News.

 

But their lead is about as small as it can get – just one percentage point ahead of the Liberals.

 

The poll, conducted between Oct. 2 and Oct. 5, surveyed 1,441 people online and found that 33 per cent of decided voters would vote for the Conservative Party, while 32 per cent would vote for the Liberal Party.

 

“The only real movement that we’ve seen in the polling so far is the Conservatives and Liberals switch back and forth week to week by a point or a couple of points, and the NDP have gone through farily steady decline over the last couple of weeks,” Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos said in an interview Monday.

 

The NDP – once the clear frontrunners in the campaign – has dropped to third with 26 per cent support, seven percentage points behind the Tories.

 

Tom Mulcair’s NDP has seen a marked decline in support over the last few weeks, mostly due to the party’s stance on the niqab. The NDP and the Liberals have the same position on the Niqab, that it could be worn during the citizenship ceremony. That issue, Bricker said, is motivating the NDP’s decline in Quebec.

[The Unknown Poster]

@KatieSimpsonCTV: Mulcair accuses Harper of being a trade opportunist. Also, he said today the notion that the NDP is anti-trade is false.

Lol

[The Unknown Poster]

@davidakin: Biggest lead measured for #LPC: Nanos: +4.6 points over #CPC. Biggest for #CPC: Ekos, Angus Reid, Forum each found 7 pt lead over #LPC.

[rebusrankin]

Dan Lett is a poor example of a journalist. Should have been let go after he was using his column to ***** about his kid not qualifying for busing a few years back.

[Mr Dee]

Concession # 1?

Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) released the following statement today on the news that an agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

"MSF expresses its dismay that TPP countries have agreed to United States government and multinational drug company demands that will raise the price of medicines for millions by unnecessarily extending monopolies and further delaying price-lowering generic competition. The big losers in the TPP are patients and treatment providers in developing countries. Although the text has improved over the initial demands, the TPP will still go down in history as the worst trade agreement for access to medicines in developing countries, which will be forced to change their laws to incorporate abusive intellectual property protections for pharmaceutical companies.

For example, the additional monopoly protection provided for biologic drugs will be a new regime for all TPP developing countries. These countries will pay a heavy price in the decades to come that will be measured in the impact it has on patients. As the trade agreement now goes back to the national level for countries's final approval, we urge all governments to carefully consider before they sign on the dotted line whether this is the direction they want to take on access to affordable medicines and the promotion of biomedical innovation. The negative impact of the TPP on public health will be enormous, be felt for years to come and it will not be limited to the current 12 TPP countries, as it is a dangerous blueprint for future agreements."