Cornwall Standard Freeholder, week of June 16th, 2008

You would hardly know that the federal election of January 2006 was over. Harper’s Conservative Party of Canada pursues its attack advertising like we were still in an election campaign and like they were still the Official Opposition.

I do not mind so much that their campaign is pointless and offers no alternatives. I won’t complain that their accusations are pure fabrications. I can even skip over the fact that the Conservative Party degrades all politicians in the process and increases cynicism throughout the electorate. I may even hold my temper if an ugly grease spot tries to tell me how to address the climate crisis at the gas pump.

But I cannot accept that the Conservatives waste millions in tax dollars in the process. They claim that they are spending only the donations of their supporters. That is a typical Conservative lie.

A donor earns a 75% tax rebate on the first $400, and a 50% tax rebate on another chunk, in federal political donations each year. Since the Conservative Party collects mostly small donations from many people, the vast majority of their donations received a 75% tax rebate. That means that all Canadian tax payers are subsidizing 75% of their attack campaign. That is a shameful waste of our tax money.

Sure, all political parties benefit from the tax rebates and it is a good incentive to encourage citizen engagement in the democratic process. There are many reasonable political expenses between elections, such as membership development, fundraising costs, policy development, and general awareness campaigns. The bulk of all donations collected are spent during an election campaign. But to spend so much public money by the governing Party on such an extensive negative partisan campaign between elections is downright scandalous.

Note to our MP, Guy Lauzon: the election was over in January 2006. In case you didn’t notice, you won! You actually formed government. It is about time that you started acting like it! So, get off the campaign trail and get to work trying to develop our country for the future.

Tom Manley

Cornwall Standard Freeholder

The Harper government’s recent tax reductions show how easy it is to be a Conservative. Thirteen years of the previous government redressed federal finances, enabled annual surpluses, invested in the future while reducing taxes, and put Canada in an enviable economic situation. It is easy being a Conservative; they merely inherited a success story and they ask for their money back.

No matter that Paul Martin reduced the base tax rate in 2005 and Harper raised it by 0.5% last year in order to reduce it this year; Conservatives just want their money back. No matter that unanimous expert opinion condemns the GST cut as a waste of money; Conservatives just want their money back.

No matter that 720,000 Canadians depend on the food banks every month, or that Harper cancelled the Kelowna accord leaving Canada with its own case of third world poverty, Conservatives just want their money back.

No matter that the 100$ for young children does not create day care spaces, that the sports tax credit does not build sports fields, that the public transit tax credit does not build public transit; Conservatives just want their money back.

No matter that the forestry industry is decimated, that the manufacturing sector is losing hundreds of thousands of excellent jobs, and that farmers and exporters are crumbling under a strong dollar; Conservatives just want their money back.

No matter that Canada is the global laughing stock on climate change, that our economy has to retool to face rising energy costs, and that affordable higher education is the key to competitiveness; Conservatives just want their money back.

Yes, it is easy being Conservative. They do not govern for tomorrow. They only complain about the past, and ask for their money back.

Tom Manley

A letter to the Ottawa Citizen.

Published Monday, March 26th, 2007

Re: Cultivating the Farm Vote; page A12, March 25th 2007

The editorial rejected the government’s intervention in the free market and predicted the creation of a farm welfare state.

That would be perfectly correct if agriculture was a free market and all players followed the rules. Unfortunately, it is far from a free market and foreign players dictate the rules of the market. The editorial confused the issue. Subsidies to farmers are not about the cost of production, but rather about the failure of market prices.

A free market balances supply and demand, where inefficient or excessive supply exits the market, as the editorial explained. Contemporary international agriculture has little to do with supply and demand, as demonstrated by our historically low reserves of food in the world today.

Contemporary agriculture is all about the power of suppliers versus the power of demanders. On one side, we have millions of independent farmers worldwide buying supplies from and selling commodities into the market with little or no individual negotiating power. On the other hand, large trans-national corporations have consolidated market power. They control seed, machinery, fertilizers, and commodity markets. Therefore, farmers are price takers for both farm inputs and farm produce.

The second failure of the market comes from extensive and long term production and export subsidies in the US and the EU. When the world’s major food exporters and consumers have decided to interfere with commodity prices, then Canada can little to correct it. We cannot simply close the border as we are also a food exporter. We cannot impose import duties as our other food exports are connected to imports. We must therefore match foreign subsidies with appropriate income supports for our farmers as well.


By Tom Manley

By Elisabeth Johns

For: www.standard-freeholder.com

- Monday, December 04, 2006 @ 09:00

Tom Manley's predictions turned out to be right on the money. The Stormont, Dundas and South Glengarry delegate to the national leadership convention had parked his support behind Stephane Dion while forecasting his victory.

Dion, considered the darkhorse, came from behind to win the leadership on Saturday in Montreal. Manley was ecstatic on Sunday. "Am I ever pleased," he said in a telephone interview. He said the local delegates read the cards well. While the majority supported Dion, some backed Michael Ignatieff.

As for the outcome? "Let me put it this way: some days change the course of history," Manley said.

Much of the criticism of Dion has been leveled at his lack of charisma and his heavy accent. But Manley said the former environment minister has a lot of charisma. Both Manley and the new Liberal leader have a lot in common when it comes to environmental issues. Manley has been a public champion for the environment since he was the deputy national leader of the Green Party.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and 55 per cent of the delegates liked his charisma. Even among Ignatieff supporters, they had great respect for Stephane Dion," he said. Dion won the leadership over Ignatieff, who was considered the frontrunner during the entire 10-month-long race.

Manley remarked the high energy, excitement and enthusiasm of the convention was a "once-in-a-lifetime" affair. He too, was one of the delegates pressing others to join Dion's camp as he searched for people sporting Gerard Kennedy or Bob Rae buttons, scarves, banners or tattoos. "It was down to the last minutes as we were trying to recruit people." The suspense was awful as the Dion camp grew quite impatient as they waited for the results of the final ballot to be read aloud, Manley said.

Beginning this month, all Liberal riding associations across the country will be nominating candidates for an upcoming election, which political observers say could happen as soon as the spring. "Everything will start to ramp up in January and February," Manley said.

[email protected]

A letter to the editor as published in the Cornwall Standard Freeholder, on Saturday June 3rd 2006, by Tom Manley

The recent budget by the Harper government is another example of politics by illusion and deception.

The Conservative Party ably argued against the CAIS program because it fails to support our farmers against long term trade injury. They promised to replace it and to get support payments to farmers quickly, in time for the 2006 planting season.

In this recent budget, the Conservative government allocated a $500M top-up support for CAIS and only $1B in additional revenue support. Farmers expected a spring payment and believed conservative candidates that one would be forthcoming.

The House agriculture committee chair Ritz has indicated that there will be no spring payment. Money will go out via CAIS and that will be likely in the fall. The method of calculating the support for each farmer is based on the inventory evaluation change dating back to 2003. All this is a complete about-face by the Harper government.

Beef and hog producers will receive some support; however, a substantial amount will end up in the hands of Cargill and Lakeside feedlots thus starving the family farms. Grain and oilseed producers will see very little money. This is a complete betrayal of the farming community by this government while they use the inherited surplus of $13 billion to hand out tax breaks for Canada’s wealthiest.

The Liberal Party understands the needs of Canadian Farmers. The 2004 combined provincial and federal Liberal financial support to farmers came to about $4.3B. In 2005, the federal Liberal farm support was $1.755B. Liberal MPs Easter and Goodale pegged the immediate need for spring planting at $1.6B.

The Liberal Party is also prepared to deal with the root causes of the farm income crisis, a worldwide crisis affecting all commodities and all farmers. The report published by the Honourable Wayne Easter, former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, identified corporate concentration in the farm input and the farm marketing sectors as the leading culprit. The report outlines a wide range of actions to reduce unfair corporate control, develop local markets for farmers, provide farmers with more negotiating power in the market, and give farmers a fair share of the consumer food dollar.

Tom Manley

Cornwall Standard Freeholder

Published sometime in 2006.

The pulp and paper executives are probably having a good laugh over the behaviour of some politicians and political candidates on the subject of job losses in the pulp and paper industry.

Domtar clearly explained the reasons for closing the Cornwall plant: strong Canadian dollar, sagging market demand, lower cost of production in Asian countries, international consolidation in the industry. I read in the Saturday Freeholder that Kruger is shutting down five Quebec paper mills and shedding 1,027 jobs. The reasons are the same. "It is the worst market conditions we have seen in a very long time". There it is; the global market is closing Canada's paper mills, not the lack of government action in Canada, no matter the political party.

But some politicians in opposition like to play silly and hypocritical games. Bob Runciman came to Cornwall to stand in front of the Domtar plant, accusing the current provincial government of failing to keep the plant open. He obviously forgot that he was in government a mere two years before the decision to close the plant, while the industry was adapting to the changing market and struggling with those decisions, and while Domtar was already reducing its Cornwall capacity.

I remember my meeting in Cornwall in early December 2005 with Prime Minister Paul Martin and the Domtar union leadership and local business leaders. Outside, Guy Lauzon was parading with local activists, placards in hand, accusing the government of closing the plant. What was he expecting? Government subsidies? Would citizens be happy if the government nationalized or subsidized the horse and buggy industry for decades just to protect it from dramatic job losses?

At the Cornwall meeting, the union leaders specifically ruled out direct subsidies and government intervention. Business and union leadership know very well that the government does not create nor protect industrial jobs. The requests at the meeting were for typical government services: prompt employment insurance service and benefits, additional re-training programs, job search and placement assistance, and a strong general economy that could absorb these displaced workers. All these were delivered by all tiers of government. The Saturday Freeholder gives ample testimony that things in life and markets change; our challenge is to adapt and move on.

Let us please stop the hypocrisy. Leave job creation, closures, and renewal to markets and businesses. Leave infrastructure, support services, general education and training, and safety nets to government.

By Tom Manley

A letter to the editor as published in the Cornwall Standard Freeholder in April 2006, by Tom Manley

I wish to address the flawed and inconsistent arguments in Todd Hambleton’s column on pesticides on March 27th. The flawed logic of his presentation forces us to reject his position.

On one hand, he is concerned with encroaching government and the propensity for banning things. Then he applauds Health Canada and the Environmental Protection Agency in the US for putting pesticide products through rigourous tests. One can either appreciate government involvement or reject it completely, but one cannot selectively applaud it and condemn it when the results suite one’s position. If the government has the authority and duty to review pesticides for approval, then it must also review them for possible withdrawal.

I agree that we do not want governments intruding in our lives. But that position applies to matters within the scope of individuals. On the contrary, pesticides affect everyone, every thing, every where. 69% of people who do not use pesticides still have pesticide residues in the carpets in their homes. The effects of pesticides are not limited to the person making the decision to use them, just like smoking, speeding, and drunk driving affect people around us. Therefore, the government and civil society have a duty to protect the many from the potentially harmful actions of the few.

Mr Hambleton also has incoherent views on the competence of scientists. On one hand, he ridicules scientists who link pesticides with health problems. Then in the same breath, he cites the apparent volume of science that discounts any such links. Are the scientists competent or not? We cannot both condemn and use science in the same argument without explanation or context.

If Mr Hambleton had attended the presentation in Ingleside last week, he would have learned about important new scientific discoveries, which could not have been foreseen when pesticides were first approved. Science has this habit of making erroneous predictions without sufficient evidence and then later learning and regretting from experience. We can draw a long list of such cases: PCBs in transformers, asbestos in insulation, lead in gasoline, to name just a few.

At the presentation, he would also have learned that science is not exact as our world in complex; science is about observations, learning, and probabilities. Therefore, we cannot simply accept pesticides merely by the absence of the smoking gun. Contemporary science is now learning about the long term cumulative and indirect effects of pesticides.

Thirdly, he would have learned that the question is not strictly about the danger of pesticides. The question is more about the risk-benefit analysis. Dangerous pesticides can still be valuable in cases of deadly infestations where the benefit clearly outweighs the risk. However, the cosmetic use of pesticides on lawns fails to produce significant benefits versus the known risks. At best, lawn pesticides may offer private benefits for the lawn owner, but that cannot outweigh the many public risks.

If a newspaper column is to be reputable, then the presentation must at least be reliable and coherent.

Tom Manley

As published in local newspapers in March 2005

The Future of Agriculture.By Tom Manley

I had the pleasure of joining the 7,000 farmers at Queen’s Park on Wednesday March 2nd, 2005. The bus ride of 5 hours each way was worth the opportunity to understand the many facets of the crisis in contemporary agriculture in Ontario and Canada.

On one hand, there were loud demands for immediate actions to address the current crisis: direct financial support comparable to Quebec, the USA and Europe, delays or reduction in the regulatory load, withdrawal of trade embargoes. People could clearly grasp the short-term problems and solutions, as demonstrated by the reading material, the rhetoric of the speakers, the cheers of the crowd, and the discussions on the bus.

There were also great statements from the podium about long term solutions, a hand up instead of a hand out, the future of agriculture, long term sustainability, systemic changes, the priority of food in our survival and quality of life, feeding Canadians first, the need to connect the grower and the eater, etc... Unfortunately, the participants usually came up short on specific long-term solutions. Quite often, a question about long-term direction was often answered with the usual short-term band-aids.

I fear that farmers either do not grasp the long-term dilemma or refuse to imagine the significant changes required to make agriculture sustainable. That is quite understandable since systemic changes are very uncomfortable for the current paradigm in agriculture.

Let us first understand that the current income crisis is not a sudden event caused by a border closure or a crop surplus or a subsidy disparity. The trend has been clear for many decades as mechanization, high energy inputs, globalization and consolidation have eaten away at margins. Foreign trade policies have then amplified the problem.

I will leave the short-term debate to current governments. Rather, let me focus on a vision for agriculture in 10 years, one that a progressive government could implement.

Above all, the world has a limited supply of fossil fuels and we will run out of cheap energy. The rising cost of energy will make long distance transportation and fossil fertilizers unaffordable and uncompetitive with low input and organic agriculture. Cheap foreign commodities will not longer afford the high cost of transportation to flood the Canadian market. The US farm subsidies will be a victim of the crushing US debt.

Farmers will walk away from the disenfranchisement of globalization and the export-import commodity business. We will feed Canadians first with a rich and varied offering to satisfy our culinary and cultural diversity. Local economies will flourish. Farmers will cut out the middleman and re-connect with consumers through farm stands, farmers markets, and home delivery. Miniaturization will make on-farm or community processing the norm. 

The average age of farmers will drop considerably. The current generation of so-called “production farmers” will have retired, to be replaced with a generation of new and second-career farmers focused on food, health, and lifestyle. Marketing systems will evolve to reduce the capital cost barrier, open the bottom to entry-level farmers, allow for direct marketing, diversify and distribute production on mixed family-scale farms. Farm credit organizations will facilitate start-up farms, small acreages, local processing, and farmer coops.

I see farmers doubling their political clout by simply doubling their numbers from 2% to 4% of voters. I can read the headline in this paper in 2015: “Ontario registers its 100,000th farmer!” Farmers will also have become political and will ensure their own direct impact on their urban friends, thanks to direct contact thru direct marketing.

But that also means a 50% reduction in the average farm size. History will have swallowed the industrial scale commodity farm serving the export market. The next generation farm will be more labour intensive, as farmers re-connect with their consumers and respond with organic food, high value crops, fresh produce, wool and fibers, on-farm processing, and pastured livestock. 

We may think that Ontario agriculture today is safe, nutritious and ecological. But health conscious consumers and budget sensitive governments have a much more demanding definition of sustainability for our farms, our ecology and our health. As provincial health care budgets overtake all other departments, we will undertake a great paradigm shift towards greater nutrition, raw food, less meat and more produce, and local production and consumption. 

By the way, our farms will be profitable through the price of food, not through subsidies to farms, energy, or industry. The food portion of our disposable income will rise from 10% to 15% with a corresponding decrease in taxes as we reduce subsidies, transportation infrastructures and sick care costs. We will have rediscovered the culture of agriculture, the pride and appreciation of farming, and the ecological value of land stewardship.

Tom Manley

A letter to the editor as published in the Cornwall Standard Freeholder in January 2005, by Tom Manley

As the Freeholder reported last Thursday, the current prices of corn and soybeans hardly cover the cost of production, let alone allow the farmer a decent living. While farmers may feel that they cannot do anything about it, I must highlight the organic option that is plainly available.

Certified organic crops have maintained stable prices at about double the conventional price, and sometimes more. For the 7 years that I have been purchasing organic crops, corn has sold between $200 and $300 per tonne, compared to $100-$160 for conventional. My current spot price for organic corn is $270, versus about $110 for conventional corn.

Organic crops also obey supply and demand pressures, hence the variations in the organic prices, But the demand for organic food among consumers has continued to rise without being matched by local crop producers. I must import corn from Québec, south western Ontario and the USA on a regular basis to keep up with my processing needs.

Organic crops consistently sell for twice the price, provide a yield that is usually about 75% of conventional in similar circumstances, and require far fewer inputs. Organic farmers manage fertility with crop rotations and organic amendments. They control weeds with crop rotations and mechanical weed control. At the end of the day, everyone wins with better net income for the farmer, less environmental impact in the field, and high quality food for the consumer.

Organic farming is clearly not for everyone. It is knowledge and management intensive. The learning curve and the transition period can scare off timid people. But for committed farmers, the conversion to organic production pays off in many ways.

Tom Manley

A letter to the editor as published in the Cornwall Standard Freeholder, sometime in 2004, by Tom Manley

Recent events reported in local media highlight the unsustainability behind the current notion of free trade. The threatened closure of Consoltex in Alexandria and the announced consolidation of Royal Windows in Cornwall are both being blamed on cheap imports and global competition. More importantly, an article published in September reported StatsCan figures suggesting that Free Trade has not made Canadian industry more competitive; instead, it forced the closure of small plants and gave the illusion of efficiencies through economies of scale among the remaining large plants.

Let us first understand the notion of trade. It essentially means that my product must be cheap enough to absorb the costs of transportation, brokerage, and distribution to be extremely competitive in a distant market. I say extremely competitive because the selling price must be low enough to overcome the natural preference for domestic products in that distant market. Therefore, Free Trade is essentially the movement of relatively free products from a low price market into a distant high price market.

Two things make exports cheap enough for distant markets: low overhead costs and a undervalued currency.

Canadian manufacturers and farmers must compete with developing countries that have relatively poor social services, education, health and infrastructure. Therefore, the only way to compete with a barefoot peasant is to become one. I dare say that we are doing exactly that. The team supporting the Consoltex plant are so happy to be able to save the jobs by negotiating a wage decrease! The recent trend in provincial and federal governments has been to reduce public services and taxes in order to make Canada more competitive. Competitive with who, I ask? What happened to the benefits of the organized labour movement of the 20th century? And this has only started! Just look at how Chinese and India industries are gearing up to export to the world.

Secondly, exports become relatively cheap when we devalue our currency. The World Bank devalued many currencies in debt loaded countries in the 80's and 90'. Canada did it voluntarily and progressively so we did not feel the upheaval felt in those countries. Canada has enjoyed the last decade of prosperity largely thanks to our low Canadian dollar. Now this is changing and we can only expect a sharp decline in exports. The USA has also understood that they cannot compete in a world market with a strong currency.

Competitiveness is not sustainable if it relies on a devalued currency and poor social services. On the contrary, a healthy competitiveness can rely only on the human values of innovation, productivity, creativity, hard work, excellent customer service, and good product quality.

We do not need Free Trade. We need Fair Trade. Fair Trade occurs on a level playing field where populations enjoy similar social services and infrastructures, and receive a decent wage. A level playing field requires a stable or fixed exchange rate between currencies. All this was the whole point of the European Union and the Euro, to create a level playing field for the fair movement of goods, services, and people.

Tom Manley