The Rural Voice, 1981-08, Page 39PERTH COUNTY PORK PRODUCERS' NEWS
A motion was
passed to hold a public meeting
BY HANS FELDMAN
Directors Meeting
The Directors of the County Association met June 16 in
Mitchell. The economic situation, stabilization and the pros and
cons of supply management were discussed. A motion was
passed to hold a public meeting on these issues. The motion,
tabled at the last meeting, to request the board establish a
marketing yard in Dublin, was defeated. Instead, the board will
be asked to further look into the issue of insurance premiums for
the existing subassembly yards.
A motion to give approval to the board for reversing a
resolution passed at the annual meeting was tabled when it ran
into opposition. Further information will be requested on the
powers of the board and the role of the delegates to the annual
meetings.
Federal Stabilization
Application forms for federal stabilization payments are
mailed to all producers who received payments last year. Extra
forms are available through Farm Credit Corp. offices and the
OPPMB. The OPPMB will mail to all producers a computer
status report which will be acceptable to support claims for
stabilization. The report will cover pigs shipped through the
board during the period Apr. 1, 1980 to March 31, 1981. Pigs
sold for slaughter that did not go through the board will require
extra receipts. The stablization payment will be made on a per
animal basis instead of per cwt..
The OPPMB Defends Action
In answer to criticism over the rejection of a resolution from
the annual meeting, the board issued a statement indicating that
under the authority given to the board a resolution. passed by
councilmen at the annual meeting is not necessarily binding to
the board. It could be argued however, that the powers given to
the board under the Farm Products Marketing Act relate to the
marketing of hogs and not necessarily to matters of a political
nature which the board members handled in their capacity as
directors of the Ontario Pork Producers Association. It can be
assumed that in matters like negotiations over stabilization
programs or possible talks on supply management, farmers will
want to have their say. The board's statement is as follows:
Federal Stabilization Limits
At the 1981 Annual Meeting of the O.P.P.M.B. the following resolution was
approved by a vote of 105 in favor to 99 opposed.
"Whereas stabilization programs administered by governments should be
designed to encourage and help support the family farm, and
Whereas large scale, integrated hog production units may become a real threat to
the survival of family farm hog production;
Be It Resolved That the 0 P P.M.B., petition the Minister of Agriculture and
Food, that all future payments made under the Pork Stabilization Program be
limited to a maximum of 2,000 market hogs or 100 sows, per annum. per individual
farmer."
Following every annual meeting the Board of Directors review the resolutions
and the discussions that took place and then make a decision on whether any
specific action should be taken. This authority Is delegated directly to the Board in
the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Plan. The councilmen delegates may
Indicate their approval (or disapproval) of current Board Policies and are also
privileged to indicate directions in which to progress. However, the approval of a
resolution at these meetings does not automatically make it Board Policy. The
Directors must subsequently give their approval.
In this particular instance, the Board had to consider two aspects of the situation.
Firstly, the hog stabilization program in a Federal Plan and the O.P.P.M.B. cannot
properly make representations on changes except through the Canadian Pork
Council who speak for the Industry as a Canadian entity In which Ontario has one
wice amongst nine. The O. P.P M B. representatives did make the C. P C. aware of
this resolution, but the majority or other provinces were definitely opposed to such
8 proposal.
Dealing with Agriculture Canada and the Agricultural Stabilization Board at
Ottawa Is a most difficult and frustrating procedure. In discussions concerning the
1980-81 payments, the Canadian Pork Council gave top priority t0 their request to
increase the support level to 95%. It was telt that any recommendation for
"reducing" support by decreasing the limits would negate thle effort end, worse
than that, might give the Federal Department the "excuse" or opportunity to
completely revise the Plan.
During the discussions at the Annual Meeting, It became obvious that the thrust
of this resolution was basically to "protect" the family farm and also to limit the
unwarranted benefits to "Integrators". However, prevent procedures are such that
the Integrators can readily take advantage of any Plan, and Imposing any,llmIts
would have little effect of them!
From 1980 yearly statistics, one can determine that there were only 22 producers
who shipped more than 5.000 market hogs during the year - leas than .0023 of the
total!
There were only 201 producers who shipped more than 2,000 hogs annually
(about .01%). Enrollment In the Ontario Sow-Weaner Program (Initial quarter) was
Only 4,484 producers and they enrolled an average of 49 sows.
Dropping the limits as suggested by the resolution would scarcely have any effect
on the overall situation In Ontario. The Board also took Into consideration the
delegate body's reaction to a resolution which urged that the limit of 100 sows
ander the Ontario Sow-Weaner Stabilization Plan be raised This resolution was
narrowly defeated - 100 against and 97 In favor.
The Board of Directors have followed the principles: Directors cannot delegate
their responsibilities for formulating policy This principle Is clearly established
try legal precedents and by various Federal and Provincial Ade concerning duties
and responsibilities of Directors. This particular Instance is not a precedent. There
have been other situations In the Board's history when the Directors have realized
that conditions were such that It would not be In the producers' beet Interests to
follow through on a particular request. It must be stressed, however, that the Board
welcomes opinions from the "grass-roots" level; In fact, they must depend on
direction from the delegate body and the County Associations to have any
Indication of the viewpoints of the producers.
FARM GATES
Available from stock to 18 ft.
SEE US FOR REASONABLE PRICES
WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING FOR:
• Farm Gates
• Cattle Oilers
• Calf Stalls
• Round Bale Feeders
and Carriers
• Bedding Choppers
H. Kuntz Manufacturing Inc.
St. Jacobs
664-2820
THE RURAL VOICE/AUGUST 1981 PG 37