by SUSAN MANN
The federal government says it’s currently undertaking the most ambitious trade expansion plans in Canadian history but farm community reaction to the direction is mixed.
Representatives from the farm community were asked their opinions in response to today’s release in Ottawa of the 2011-12 Agriculture and Agri-Food Market Access Report, issued by Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz and Ed Fast, minister of international trade.
Al Mussell, senior research associate with the George Morris Centre, an agricultural think tank in Guelph, says Canada needs to trade farm products to fully utilize its large arable land base and capacity to produce food that is far greater than what the domestic market needs.
Mussell has not yet seen the report but notes the federal government has been very clear and consistent in its message promoting trade and new agreements as a driver of economic growth. It’s a “laudable and very rational strategy,” he says. “If we try to have everything that we produce in Canada or in Ontario or virtually in any province come to market in that area, prices would be pretty darn low or we’d have to take valuable land out of production.”
Ron Bonnett, Canadian Federation of Agriculture president, agrees that the government’s trade agenda is more aggressive than it has been at any time previously. That’s positive for farmers. But “the one thing we will continue to watch is to make sure that supply management is protected,” he says.
Bonnett says what works are strategies to improve trade flowing between countries combined with others to boost domestic production. He also applauds the government’s efforts to diversify the number of markets Canada can have access to. Historically “we have been tied predominately to the United States market and if there’s a big hiccup in the U.S. that hurts us,” he notes.
But Ann Slater, coordinator for the National Farmers Union, Ontario branch, disagrees that expanding worldwide trade boosts domestic farmers’ incomes. Ontario NFU members remain concerned “about this focus on trade,” she notes, adding that in trade agreements Canada always has to give up something.
Ritz says in written speech notes Canadian agriculture and agri-food exports reached $40.3 billion last year, setting a new record.
Mussell says “high grain prices will do that for you. A big part of the actual value is just straight up going to be the increase in value of what it is we’re shipping.”
Still, Mussell says the government deserves recognition for a number of trade-related accomplishments outlined in the report, particularly the successful challenge of the United States Country of Origin Labelling law at the World Trade Organization (WTO).
The federal government’s release says the successful WTO challenge should lead to the end of discrimination against Canadian exports of cattle and hogs to the United States that cost those industries hundreds of millions of dollars.
Other Market Access report highlights include:
• restoring access for Canadian beef under 30 months of age to South Korea, which could reach $30 million in sales by 2015, according to industry estimates; and
• maintaining access for Canadian canola to China, a market worth $1.6 billion in 2011.
Ritz says government and industry are working hard to increase Canada’s market access by advancing free trade agreements, working to overcome trade restrictive measures and trade obstacles while promoting science-based approaches to trade, and leading trade missions with industry to the country’s key agri-food markets worldwide.
The federal government remains very focused on trade because it drives one in five jobs in Canada, Ritz notes.
The government’s release says opening and expanding agricultural markets around the world provides opportunities for farmers to drive the Canadian economy, creates jobs and sets the stage for greater prosperity in the future.
Slater says NFU’s data shows that while export markets have been increasing agri-food imports into Canada have also been rising. “Part of trade agreements is to allow more products back into Canada too,” she points out.
NFU’s data for Canada as a whole from 1970 to 2009 comparing total agri-food exports and imports and total net farm income shows that realized net farm incomes are not increasing despite the government’s increased focus on trade, she says. BF
Comments
CFO Denied Accreditation, as a General farm Organization !!!
Here is the OMAFRA link Below to read the Report
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/tribunal/cffo2012-dec.htm
USA is still closed to breeding sheep even after cattle allowed and sheep do not get BSE
So big deal . More pork & beef and pork & beef farmers are complaining that they can't make a profit .
Products that we are exporting should be processed here but we have no one left here to do it . Just ask the fruit and veg growers .
Francis
I would have to agree . The dollars need to stay here in the processing and manufacturing industry . It seems as of late that most of these companies are moving south of our border . Is it a problem with unions and taxes ? Maybe it is energy costs and regulations ? You have to be able to add the value here in order to capture the value added dollars . Shipping raw products is just a very small piece of the complete picture . The larger part of the profit and job creation/retention picture is processing .
Yessiree, Bob - we fall all over ourselves to expand exports, but deny others the chance to export dairy and poultry products to us. What part of the term double-standard does Ron Bonnett, and the CFA, just not understand? More to the point, how can anyone with even as little as a double-digit IQ not understand what every five-year-old has already learned about sand-box bullies who want everything their way? Oh, I'm sorry, these sand box bullies grow up to be dairy and poultry farmers who expect the rest of us to bow down to them, and give them everything they want, no matter what the cost might be to us - yeah, right, and pigs can fly! AAAARRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!! How much longer can Canada pander to less than 10% of our farmers at the expense of the 90% of the rest of us?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Stephen, ut welll said, bwould it even be 10% natioanlly ?
Sean
No matter what definition of farmer is used, dairy and poultry farmers are a signficant minority, but since they have effective control of incomes and purchasing power, not to mention control of every farm organization except yours, they can, and do, behave as if they are not only the only farmers that matter, but the only farmers, period. It speaks volumes about the complete-uselessness of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to see them studiously, and continuously, ignore 150 years of basic economic principles by defending protectionist measures which benefit only a very few at the expense of over 30 million of the rest of us. And, of course, dairy and poultry farmers are the biggest hypocrites, as anyone who has ever listened to a dairy farmer boast about how good a deal he got on baler twine by importing it from Europe, knows all-too-well.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Happens all the time when it comes to supporting the GEA and wind turbines . Why should any thing else be different .
And a sand box of a different kind , when did this become the Stephen and Sean Bullpen ??
You are on the right track. Wind turbines and sm are equally unliked. They have other things in common, ripping off consumers and depending on government legislation to survive. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
Its not to often i give the government the benefit of the doubt, but on wind turbines i believe all 3 of the GFO's where supportive of the green energy act and they promoted it to their members as they felt it was going to be great thing for farmers...
If there is going to be an FBR program i think each GFO should be able to ask their memebers 3 questions on the sheet they send in with their form to agricorp..
sort of like they do in US elections on ballet cards.
Sean McGivern
And who you ask the question . All Ontarians like to think that supporting the GEA Act is a good thing as long as they don't have to live where it is being produced ie: wind turnbines will never be put in the major cities because of the set backs . But the truth of the matter is that is where they belong since they are so safe , no ill health affects and there would be substancial savings on connection lines .
Asking some one a general question and then turning it into a direct interpertation of is just all out morally wrong .
Mr. McGivern, Mr. Beuerman, and I, are not wrong about our assessment of the adverse impact of supply management, and we are supported by over 150 years of basic, and quite-undeniable, economic principles. The principle that protectionism is net-negative for both jobs and economic activity, is as fundamental to economics as the law of gravity is to physics - yet farmers, and farm organizations continue to "bully" everyone by effectively insisting that basic economic principles just don't apply to agriculture.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
You state you are not wrong Mr. Thompson?
You compare economic principles of protectionism ..."as the law of gravity is to physics".
There is NO law of gravity, Mr. Thompson, only theories of gravity.
A theory is a system of rules, procedures, and assumptions used to produce a result. Theories are based on observations to validate parameters of a defined framework.
Einstein speculated, as do some current physicists, that an external force, such as "a fourth dimension", is needed to further explain gravity.
Using Einsteins' theory, then maybe you are correct in your argument as a deeper look into supply management laws (as it applies to Canada) you will learn that the Crown (THE outside force) does indeed have defined legal parameters that come into play in regards to agricultural commodities.
The Crown has and continues to benefit from ancient Royal Proclamations (that have not been revoked to date) that control marketing of enumerated agricultural commodities.
The Crown has been, and continues to be, the single largest benefactor of supply management.
While nature (gravity as you cite) cannot be control by law by the dominion of man, agricultural commodities are indeed legally controlled by the Head of our Dominion....the Crown.
joann vergeer
Economics is one of the few disciplines about which anyone, regardless of capablilty or educational achievement, feels perfectly qualified to express an opinion, regardless of how hopelessly-inane, and even possibly hopelessly-insane, it might be, and economists are always expected to suffer these fools gladly. Unfortunately, your beliefs are to economics what creationism is to biology. In addition, you are dead-outright-wrong about who benefits from supply management in Canada - it's the 15,000 or so farmers who currently own quota, and absolutely NOBODY else. If the "Crown" (whatever that is) was to benefit from anything, it would be the increased jobs and economic activity generated if supply management simply, and well-deservedly, disappeared.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
So you are not an economist . You are opinionated .
Think you are giviing all the real economists a bad name . And they are likely suffering because of you know who !!
Francis
By definition, an opinion is what people call unwelcome truth which they don't want to admit, or even hear - and the truth is that protectionism, the basis of supply management, has been completely discredited as an instrument of economic and public policy ever since the repeal of the protectionist Corn Laws in England over 150 years ago. For those who don't believe me, Google "Corn Laws" - then you'll discover that Canadian dairy and poultry farmers not only know nothing about economics, they know nothing about history either. By the way, the Economist magazine was founded in September 1843 to take part in a "severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress" - or, in other words, to oppose the Corn Laws. This means that almost 170 years later, intelligence still presses forward, and supply management is just the latest example of "unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress".
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
The Crown had overstepped its authority in regards to marketing rights and had no choice but to revoke grain marketing laws as it did not have sole rights to ALL grains in the colonies of North America.
Corn by definition included ALL grains including wheat.
Your argument is biased.
joann vergeer
Nowhere in the Google history, or any other history, of the Corn Laws is the "Crown" even mentioned, because the issue had nothing to do with the "Crown" at all. The Corn Laws were enacted to protect English landowners (many of them nobility) who were over-represented in Parliament, in exactly the same way supply management came into existence because dairy and poutlry farmers were over-represented in Ottawa. The victims of the Corn Laws were the working poor - exactly the same people who are the victims of supply management. The "Crown" was, and is, nowhere in the picture. I mean, come on, really, the economic reasons for the end of the Corn Laws are obvious, the history is well-documented - the "Crown" had nothing to do with either the start, or the end, of the Corn Laws, and has nothing to do with supply management.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Well .. it shows you want you know.
By ancient laws, the Crown was able to lay claim to all indigenous plants, animals, birds,... etc. They were placed in "trust" for a variety of reasonsl
Not all grains were in "trust" in the mid 1800's so the Crown did not have sole marketing authority over all grains.
That came later.
Even in the 1830s, England was a parliamentary democracy, and the King/Queen a figurehead relegated to ceremonial purposes. Nowhere in the Wikipedia story about the Corn Laws was the Monarchy even mentioned, and it's because the Monarchy was irrelevant to the issue, even then. Supply management, like the Corn Laws, was created by Parliament, not the Crown, to entitle small groups of people to use protectionist legislation to benefit themselves at the expense of many. The economic flaws of protectionism have nothing to do with whether we live in a Monarchy, a democracy, or even a one-party state. Please accept that, and move on.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
And who passed Royal Proclamations? Who signed Treaties?
Who has agricultural commodities in "trust"?
I think you need to do a better job of research where production and marketing in Canada is concerned?
Better yet... ask CRA.
The theory of economics as it relates to supply management fit your defined parameters through your observations... without providing validation.
The Crown has been and continues to be the single biggest benefactor when it comes to supply management.
So when the Crown benefits... people like you reap the rewards.
Its a fact.... ask your MPP and MP.(IF they know anything about Crown rights)
There exists an old law that allows for price setting and marketing controls for agricultural commodities. It was put in place to protect Crown's interests and has not been revoked to date.
When the Crown decides that it does not need or want to control marketing rights of enumerated products, I would speculate the rules will change as quick as our friends in Ottawa can figure how to dissolve the system without too much financial pain.
What is truly interesting is that I had the privilege of a recent kitchen table discussion with a number of people. 3 had connections with CRA of which one actually spent months researching "quota" and its relationship under different Acts.
Quota is a license. Licenses are a form of security. The registered securities fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Revenue.
We had a very lively discussion about the roots of "quota" and the legalities surrounding it. It was refreshing to hear someone with such immense knowledge of the topic. I was impressed!.... ending with him saying that would not refute my information.
I now find it sad that CRA has spent considerable time to research something like "quota" while our own farm leaders appear to have peripheral knowledge on the topic.
One needs to remember that our own land grants are a form of "quota" in a true legal sense.
joann vergeer
You keep stating "the Crown is the single biggest benefactor when it comes to supply management." Firstly, I invite you to look up the meaning of the words "benefactor" and "beneficiary" - they mean completely-different things, but I don't think you realize it. Secondly, assuming you meant to use the word beneficiary instead of benefactor, I defy you to identify even one way the Crown benefits from supply management, particularly since, by definition, the Crown is supposed to represent the poor who are the most-disadvantaged by supply management. I also defy you to show how forcing consumers to pay almost 38% more for milk than US consumers, makes supply management of benefit to anyone other than the existing 15,000 quota holders.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
The title to your farm is in actuality a form of quota.
Quota is a license with a quantitative value.
Your farm title represents your license to production with a prescribed amount of acreage.
As a quota holder, you have certain production rights over others.
Eventually you will sell your farm. Who gains the most?
If you sell your farm to the highest bidder, who loses the most? Young farmers that cannot afford the price you place on your quota.
Why are you criticizing other quota holders?
joann vergeer
Is Johns post a joke or is he for real ?
90% just covers the other farmers. So when we factor in the consumers that are being hosed on sm food, the "rest of us" becomes 99.9%. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
greedy dairy farmers plain and simple and the government lets it happen.
But I need cheap food ,it doesn,t matter where it comes from as long as its cheap. I need cheap goods doesn,t matter where it comes from as long as I get it cheap. But I need money doesn,t matter if there is no farmers ,manufacturing jobs as long as its cheap. Everyone deserves to earn a fair living without robbing the rest of the country of all its money. Well now we have a steady line of ships from China coming and going and we hear well canola and beef trade is endanger but we still have them make 90% of the junk we buy in the store or use. Don,t you think we will every get our pride back and start making things for the world and not being a country of buying junk. There is alot more things that is really wrong hear in Canada than SM farmers , at less they have procesors here and where is the fruit, meat , vegetables and lots of other food is grown here and processed in another country.
Yes your right there might be diary processors here in Canada But, do a little research and you will soon find that the major processors are not even Canadian owned compaines, isn't it great how basicially only the large massive multination corporations, have the money to buy up all the Canadain processing Quota... I think its a total shame, prior to supply managment Canada had an amazing global reputation as the place to buy to buy cheddar chesse from, it lost that when supply management came into place.
Each and every year we are missing out on billions of dollars of sales and exports for products that we could have the capacity to be global leaders on but are held hostage by a tail that waggs the dog.
I also believe that we could over night increase our domestic consumption with just allowed small mom and pop micro dairies open up people cherish the idea of truely local food purchased direct form the farmer of their choice....
Sean McGivern
In the above story, co-ordinator for the NFU in Ontario, Ann Slater disagrees that expanding worldwide trade boosts farm income and NFU members are concerned about this focus on trade. I am led to believe that statements like these can only be seen as negative, and with the population of the world ever increasing, canadian agriculture as a whole should look to the future. Minister Ritz said in written speech notes that canada reached 40.3 billion in Canadian agriculture and agri-food exports, setting a new record. Just think how high we could take that figure if we were to "loosen the reigns" on supply management, I am sure that many supply managed farmers, if given government tools to adapt, are capable of rising to the occasion of feeding a hungry world and many will welcome it. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
The NFU mistakenly believes that, for farm income and food security purposes, Canada can somehow be, and somehow should be, a trade "island". Basic economic principles dictate that implementing the NFU's focus on protectionist measures (trade restrictions) would (and has, in the case of supply management) result in a net-negative situation for both jobs and economic activity, as well as reduce food security, and is therefore, entirely the incorrect way to address farm income issues. Furthermore, neither Slater nor the NFU understand that expanding world trade, as accomplished by, for example, repealing the Corn Laws in England in 1846, was of benefit to Canadian farmers, not negative to Canadian farmers.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Most of the (BIG) companies in canada is owned by someone or ones from another country. We have to manufacture
our raw material here and yes I do miss the small cheese factories where you can walk in when the curd was just made and feast out. People call it progress ,for who I often wonder not for the us. There,s alot of unanswer questions and I,m yet to read any real solutions to the end of SM . Listen to the ad on the radio there is 400 egg farmers in Ontario, Wow there must be 398 small farmers besides the 2 giant ones. There,s heck of lot more dairy farmer what around 4,000 + -. The world is changing fast and in the end who will be the next super power in the food chain business perhaps China, they are buying land in all the other countries and producing their food. So in the end a country will have the biggest company and not anyone or ones, and it will be produced in a giant plant like the ones they have to make all the junk which we buy in the stores and they will work as slave labourers. We need all the personal companies we can get to ward off the gaint.
As I understand it, fifty years ago, Wal-Mart was just another Arkansas based retail chain nobody outside Arkansas had ever heard of. Apple and MicroSoft hadn't even yet been formed. All of them got to be where they are because they were smarter at what they did than the other guy(s), and the same thing applies in agriculture. Protectionist sentiments, such as the ones expressed above, do nothing to address the lack of inventiveness and the lack of productivity which is the inevitable result of protectionist legislation.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
One of the biggest flaws in almost every NFU argument about any type of agricultural policy is that they never consider what is known as the "null hypothesis", which is an examination of what would have happened had there been no action by government at all. Instead, therefore, of complaining that farm incomes didn't go up from 1970 to 2009, in spite of increasing our emphasis on trade, the NFU should have considered (but never does) by how much farm incomes would have gone down if we hadn't.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
If we took sm out of the picture from 1970 to 2009, net farm incomes would have rose because of the direct effect it has had on land values, in part caused by FCC allowing quota as security and the banks grudgingly following. Land would be closer to the value of prime ag land in the states, such as Iowa, which is close to half of here. In other words, sm has taken "a big bite" out of every other non supply managed farmer's net income, and if the govenment "gives up something" at future trade deals to protect sm, it will continue to do so. Raube Beuerman, Dublin, ON
Post new comment