PUBLICATION: Ontario Farmer
DATE: 2013.01.22
EDITION: Final
SECTION: Editorial/Opinion
PAGE: A6
COLUMN: Letters to the Editor
WORD COUNT: 476
Co-signed NFU letter suggests tribunal was right in its
concerns
Dear editor:
The National Farmers Union (NFU), in a recent letter to
this newspaper, made several one-sided statements
about their loss of accreditation as a general farm
organization. Firstly, while the NFU claims "the
Minister's legal counsel supported the NFU-O's
accreditation application at the December 14 hearing",
the NFU doesn't seem to understand that this sort of
intervention by the Minister could easily be seen to be
an abuse of process, or "bullying" the Tribunal. If
counsel for the Minister had opposed the NFU
application, the NFU would have been the first to claim
abuse of process by the Minister, yet the NFU ignores
this double standard when it appears to suit their
purpose.
Secondly, the NFU still appears unable and/ or
unwilling to show that the NFU-O is an autonomous
organization. For example, even their letter to this
newspaper was written jointly by the national
organization and the NFU-O. In addition, when the
NFU cites their efforts to save single desk selling at the
Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), they ignore the fact that
the CWB never did matter in Ontario, as well as the fact
that single desk selling in Ontario has come, and long-
since gone.
Furthermore, no autonomous Ontario general farm
organization would, in 2013, have ever cited attempts
to save single-desk selling as a reason why they
should be re-accredited as a general farm
organization, especially single desk selling at the CWB.
Ironically, by writing a joint letter, and by defending
single-desk selling at the CWB, the NFU appears to
have made the Tribunal's decision to de-certify the
NFU-O just all that more understandable and
supportable.
Thirdly, the claim "the NFU unwaveringly speaks truth
to power" is misleading and incorrect. For example,
several years ago the NFU prepared a report comparing
return on equity for publicly traded agribusiness
companies with return on equity for primary
agriculture. However, they quite-incorrectly used rate
of return on book value of equity for agri-business,
but used rate of return on market value of equity for
farmers, and what's worse is that they never disclosed
they were using completely different yardsticks when
making this comparison.
Even though these kinds of errors are automatic
grounds for failure at any level of academic pursuit,
when I contacted them to object to the basic errors in
their methodology, the NFU was un-apologetic and
un-repentant about these mistakes. For just that
reason alone, the NFU didn't deserve to be re-
accredited.
In the final analysis, however, it seems fairly clear the
NFU was de-certified because they un-apologetically
tried to make the enabling legislation fit the way the
NFU operates nationally, rather than trying to make the
NFU fit the parameters of what this legislation required
them to do, and to be, in Ontario.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton
http://206.75.155.11/Agcan/m.bbsummaries.asp?
articleId=/agcan/clips/130122/f04169BR.htm
DATE: 2013.01.22
EDITION: Final
SECTION: Editorial/Opinion
PAGE: A6
COLUMN: Letters to the Editor
WORD COUNT: 476
Co-signed NFU letter suggests tribunal was right in its
concerns
Dear editor:
The National Farmers Union (NFU), in a recent letter to
this newspaper, made several one-sided statements
about their loss of accreditation as a general farm
organization. Firstly, while the NFU claims "the
Minister's legal counsel supported the NFU-O's
accreditation application at the December 14 hearing",
the NFU doesn't seem to understand that this sort of
intervention by the Minister could easily be seen to be
an abuse of process, or "bullying" the Tribunal. If
counsel for the Minister had opposed the NFU
application, the NFU would have been the first to claim
abuse of process by the Minister, yet the NFU ignores
this double standard when it appears to suit their
purpose.
Secondly, the NFU still appears unable and/ or
unwilling to show that the NFU-O is an autonomous
organization. For example, even their letter to this
newspaper was written jointly by the national
organization and the NFU-O. In addition, when the
NFU cites their efforts to save single desk selling at the
Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), they ignore the fact that
the CWB never did matter in Ontario, as well as the fact
that single desk selling in Ontario has come, and long-
since gone.
Furthermore, no autonomous Ontario general farm
organization would, in 2013, have ever cited attempts
to save single-desk selling as a reason why they
should be re-accredited as a general farm
organization, especially single desk selling at the CWB.
Ironically, by writing a joint letter, and by defending
single-desk selling at the CWB, the NFU appears to
have made the Tribunal's decision to de-certify the
NFU-O just all that more understandable and
supportable.
Thirdly, the claim "the NFU unwaveringly speaks truth
to power" is misleading and incorrect. For example,
several years ago the NFU prepared a report comparing
return on equity for publicly traded agribusiness
companies with return on equity for primary
agriculture. However, they quite-incorrectly used rate
of return on book value of equity for agri-business,
but used rate of return on market value of equity for
farmers, and what's worse is that they never disclosed
they were using completely different yardsticks when
making this comparison.
Even though these kinds of errors are automatic
grounds for failure at any level of academic pursuit,
when I contacted them to object to the basic errors in
their methodology, the NFU was un-apologetic and
un-repentant about these mistakes. For just that
reason alone, the NFU didn't deserve to be re-
accredited.
In the final analysis, however, it seems fairly clear the
NFU was de-certified because they un-apologetically
tried to make the enabling legislation fit the way the
NFU operates nationally, rather than trying to make the
NFU fit the parameters of what this legislation required
them to do, and to be, in Ontario.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton
http://206.75.155.11/Agcan/m.bbsummaries.asp?
articleId=/agcan/clips/130122/f04169BR.htm
Comment