by SUSAN MANN
The Canadian greenhouse industry is concerned Mexican tomatoes are being dumped into the marketplace in Canada and it is keeping an eye on the situation, says an Ontario greenhouse industry spokesman.
George Gilvesy, general manager of the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers, says this spring “we saw some very aggressive pricing for a period of time that has caused us to again raise this issue with the federal government.”
Gilvesy says at times Mexican tomatoes are sent into Canada without a price on them and “the seller will sell it for what they can get for it.”
Canadian industry representatives talked to the federal government about their concerns almost a year ago. When the March 4, 2013 agreement between the United States and Mexico suspending the Americans’ antidumping investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico came into force, Canadian growers contacted the federal government at that time to let it know “we felt that we were at some level of vulnerability because of the Suspension Agreement. The Mexicans have to ship tomatoes into the United States at a certain price whereas they do not have the same compliance factor for Canada,” he says.
There have been previous suspension agreements between the U.S. and Mexico including the first one signed in 1996 suspending the antidumping investigation launched by American tomato growers in 1996. Updated suspension agreements were signed in 2002, 2008 and 2013. The agreement is designed to prevent price undercutting in the U.S. market. In the agreement there are four categories of tomatoes that have established reference prices “to better reflect the realities of the current tomato market,” according to a fact sheet on the agreement from the U.S. International Trade Administration.
Gilvesy says the Canadian industry will continue gathering data and information on Mexican tomato shipments being sent into the Canadian marketplace at below Canadian farmers cost of production. “We will be discussing whether we will also put forward an official complaint regarding tomato and pepper imports into Canada from Mexico,” he adds. BF
Comments
All the large greenhouse operations growing peppers,tomato's,cucumbers all have production sites in US and Mexico and some in Spain also. It is a common practise for the ones with packing plants too import product from Holland or other countries when there growing season is short of product and,less now but remove the labels and pack them as Product of Canada . Right now there is major grower being charged by CFIA for re-labeling a million dollars worth of produce .
Free Trade or not so Free Trade !
Will consumers bite back or will they even be told that cheaper products are being blocked ? Sound like SM to me .
What is the difference then when grains get dumped here for cheaper than COP ?
This was being done by TFWs being paid $10.00 per hour on night shift. These same growers would send out best before produce then make claims against the carrier for a damaged skid or 2. Any large greenhouse grower packer that is not a straight grower should have to pay TFWS $16.00 PER HOUR AND A MAXIUM of 2 per bedroom and provide them with E-bikes on top of their wages and make one van or minivan and provide them with free internet so that tell the government here what is going on at work. Some of these greenhouses have been shortchanging truck drivers and trucking companies. I work with them everyday.
Many these grower packers have high end cars boats and other expensive toys. Many were cheating on the RMP program and nisa. They were also selling produce to certain buyers for cash. They treat the truckers very badly. THey tell a trucker he has a load to New York City for $2,700 then call the trucker coming from cambridge when he gets to london to say the load is cacelled when he can get someone else for $2,350.. They have giving the TFWs very poor housing .
Many of these grow packers cheat on a regular basis. the goverment should check the way they treat TFWS and Truck drivers.
Was in a store in Leamington today a a Spanish speaking migrant worker was ahead of me at the checkout buying a pink Barbie style doll and a young readers book which I expect he will be sending home too his family. With 3,000 + migrant workers in the area it really has changed the looks of the town-lots of bicycles, vans with workers at grocery stores ,Mexican food stores and restaurants ,bars,ect. They seem well mannered and don't cause trouble but it must be hard to have to leave your family behind for 8 months of hard ,manual labor. kg kimball
They work for lower wages and show up most days. They have a few people in Canada a lot of money and Pushed many smaller greenhouses out.
I don't see anything wrong with Mexican tomatoes, or anything else for that matter, coming into Canada at less than the Canadian "cost of production" - it's not "dumping", but rather just good business, good economics, and common sense in that our consumers should be able to benefit from the savings they are able to realize at the grocery store.
However, if I understand things correctly, "dumping" is a completely different matter because, in that case, Mexican tomatoes would be coming into Canada at less than the Mexican cost of production, however it might be defined.
Therefore, I can't understand why Canadian farmers would want to hold our consumers hostage by objecting to somebody, in this case, Mexico, being able to produce things for less than than we can, if that's the case - after all, the Canadian cost of production should be irrelevant when making any claims about "dumping", but the Mexican cost of production should be very-much relevant.
And, being able to produce things cheaper than somebody else is entirely what trade, and the underlying principle of comparative advantage, are all about, and so it should be.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I would say you are correct .
Also you are then agreeing that the OPCA was right in their countervail claim !
In managerial accounting, the hardest thing to establish is a cost-of-production figure - volumes, fixed costs, depreciation allowances, and other costs of that nature, are hard to establish, harder to quantify, and leave, by design, and by definition, a huge gap between the lowest believable cost-of-production figure, and the highest believable figure, as the sly dogs in supply management have long since figured out, and have used to their considerable advantage at the expense of consumers and non-supply managed farmers.
Therefore, anyone claiming "injury" because of someone else's so-called "cost-of-production" almost always stacks the credibility "deck" by using the least possible number of units of production, and allocating the highest possible amount of fixed costs to each unit of that production - thereby, by definition, making almost every countervail claim, (and/or cost of production calculation by supply management), suspect at best, and odious at worst.
Furthermore, it isn't appropriate to use the word "right" in any sentence also including the words "countervail claim" because a countervail claim is never right. For example, a countervail claim by corn producers adversely affects livestock farmers, thereby by pitting farmers against each other, any countervail duty on corn, is not right, but wrong.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Why did you not touch on the fact of other countries farmers getting subsidies? Guess you would have to argue against your own countries pork and beef sectors getting boat loads of cash all the time then .
Comment modified by editor
Even the George Morris Center people who seemingly used to have a predominate bias for Canadian livestock have admitted U.S. farm subsidies go mostly to U.S. Grains farmers which allow U.S. farmers to overproduce feed stocks and dump the surplus in Canada at below cost. GMC has also admitted that U.S. grains subsidies should be matched as your old "Equity with U.S. Grain Farmers trailer" always said.
So the basic premise goes like this: Canada uses uncle Sam's feed subsidies, plus "piggy backs" with bags of Canadian livestock subsidies to kick start, plus turbo charges our livestock production with no regard to damage being done to Canadian grain farms by not matching U.S. grain support programs. At least the GMC has admitted Canadian grain farmers should have matched U.S. support programs. Sorry Stephan, but not only is your half truth slip showing but your dog doesn't hunt when it comes to "Equity with U.S. grain farmers and U.S. ethanol".
Not knowing about basic economics seems to never hinder the anonymous rabble, the poorly-educated, and/or those supporting legislated privelege for themselves, from making preposterous and unsupportable claims.
For example, claiming that the George Morris Centre (GMC) "seemingly used to have a predominate bias for Canadian livestock", is nonsense because the GMC was simply, and quite-rightly:
(1) sticking up for the victims of the ethanol scam perpetrated by corn farmers.
(2) following sound economic principles by opposing countervail duties on corn imports.
More to the point, Canadian corn farmers were being, and still are, economic imbeciles and dogs-in-the-manger by demanding countervail duties and/or ethanol mandates which they know, and/or should have known, were, and still are, nothing more than regressive consumption taxes and which violate sound economic principles.
It is, therefore, profoundly stupid for us to play "monkey-see, monkey-do" by matching the pounding US ethanol mandates inflict on the US livestock sector, by enacting similar mandates in Canada. It is also profoundly stupid for us to even think about matching the US system of direct and/or near-direct payments to corn farmers by enacting countervail legislation which forces livestock producers to pay here what the US taxpayers are paying there.
If Canadian corn fermers do deserve support, it should be in the form of direct subsidies high enough to mitigate the effect of direct US subsidies to their farmers, but not high enough to allow Canadian corn farmers to be economic bullies in our farm community to the same extent that supply managed farmers have always been, and continue to be.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Yes you are right . GMC did have a bias .
1) Their bias always went in favor of who was paying for the study .
2) They never did figure out that you must have the same support as your largest trading partner because of who was paying for the study would have been admitting to getting trade distorting gov money .
Lastly , GMC Who ? They did so well that they took themselves off the map .
The George Morris Centre's only bias was to exercise the ethical obligation incumbent on every economist - pointing out the false half of half truths.
They did it with ethanol, they did it with supply management, and they did it with countervail, and, as an economist, I'm glad they did because without them, we'll revert to the days when special interest groups could, and did, disseminate half-truths galore without any fear of having to be held accountable for the garbage they produced.
As to financial bias, if any group paid the GMC to do a study with the purpose of damning ethanol, the studies the GMC produced on its own dime which slammed ethanol, dwarfed any study/studies commissioned by anyone else.
In addition, ethanol so completely damned itself, and adopted such a frightening bias of its own, there's no way any agricultural economics think tank could ever do anything else but point out the obvious truths which were being hidden by ethanol supporters - that's not a bias on the part of the George Morris Centre, but simply pointing out the fallacies behind the unsupportable bias adopted by those who wished to hide the truth.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
So, it would appear that "Equity with the U.S. farmer" now also means "Equity with Mexico" also. Sure would be great to get them U.S. and Mexico input prices for machinery parts and labour available at our local suppliers wouldn't it?
Relatives in Mexico City had a live-in maid,working for 200 Passos (20 dollars) a week and they claimed neighbours where upset,said they were overpaying her!
I'm totally in with your statements. Now if we can just get Mexican teachers to teach in Ontario, Mexican doctors, nurses, taxi drivers, autos, so forth at Mexican prices, then we headed for a level playing field. You're on to something Thompson.
There's a small matter of capability and merit involved in teaching and medicine, as well as the inability to turn these professions into an inherited aristocracy that does little more than bully patients and/or students, which renders your comparisons, popular as they always are with the anonymous, and less well-educated, members of the farm community, moot, and even silly.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Some of the biggest greenhouses near me are owned by Mexicans and they are expanding not just here but building in US also. A young Mexican family built and expanding greenhouses here showed me on his smart phone the guys milking there 2,500 cows in Mexico live for there cheese factory .They do have a little issue with family members being kidnapped and held for ransom . A lot of Americans go to Mexico for dental work and operations as so much cheaper . Maybe the US and Canadian farmers have really underestimated what the rest of the world can do agricultural wise. If South America and Ukraine ever get the politics under control they will be ag powerhouses from grains to meats and at a lot less cost than using $10k an acre land in US or Canada . kg kimball
Wow. Just googled this because it's currently in the news in 2016. I was amazed that this was happening but now more shocked that this has been unchallenged for a few years now.
Post new comment