While Cargill is indeed in the beef business to make a profit, I believe the question that is before the Competition Bureau and was before the Parliamentary Committee was does Cargill make unfair profits. That question has been at least partly answered by the Parliamentary Committee’s report that Cargill did not unfairly gouge producers. The gouging that took place was determined to by Parliament to be fair.
I think Cowman is right on the mark when he says Cargill is not some sort of evil entity. And I note the unhappy tone of the comments concerning the CCA but producers would be well advised to try and understand the reasoning behind the CCA’s support of Cargill. Since the CCA is their voice, producers need to be knowledgeable about directions the CCA is taking even if they do not approve.
I disagree when Cowman says it is very obvious that no Canadian entrepreneur wants to finance or own a packing plant. I think there are many. However there are some fundamental problems with making that decision, not the least of which is how to compete with Cargill. On top of that is a federal inspection/regulatory system involving CCIA that adds huge costs to the packing industry that tends to force plants to be large at the expense of smaller more affordable plants. These costs work to keep out new smaller entrants.
I think the CCA’s support of the Cargill expansion is significant because the Cargill buyout of Better Beef would have to pass regulatory approval since Cargill is a foreign owned corporation. Given the Parliamentary Committee’s recent review of Cargill’s unfair profits as well as the ongoing review of Cargill by the Competition Bureau the CCA could have objected and the sale of Better Beef perhaps could have been halted.
It will be interesting to see if the Competition Bureau will step in to halt the sale of Better Beef until their investigation of Cargill is complete. Do I sense a trade off of some sort? Increased American ownership of the Canadian packing industry in return for opening the border. It is very possible.
I think Cowman is right on the mark when he says Cargill is not some sort of evil entity. And I note the unhappy tone of the comments concerning the CCA but producers would be well advised to try and understand the reasoning behind the CCA’s support of Cargill. Since the CCA is their voice, producers need to be knowledgeable about directions the CCA is taking even if they do not approve.
I disagree when Cowman says it is very obvious that no Canadian entrepreneur wants to finance or own a packing plant. I think there are many. However there are some fundamental problems with making that decision, not the least of which is how to compete with Cargill. On top of that is a federal inspection/regulatory system involving CCIA that adds huge costs to the packing industry that tends to force plants to be large at the expense of smaller more affordable plants. These costs work to keep out new smaller entrants.
I think the CCA’s support of the Cargill expansion is significant because the Cargill buyout of Better Beef would have to pass regulatory approval since Cargill is a foreign owned corporation. Given the Parliamentary Committee’s recent review of Cargill’s unfair profits as well as the ongoing review of Cargill by the Competition Bureau the CCA could have objected and the sale of Better Beef perhaps could have been halted.
It will be interesting to see if the Competition Bureau will step in to halt the sale of Better Beef until their investigation of Cargill is complete. Do I sense a trade off of some sort? Increased American ownership of the Canadian packing industry in return for opening the border. It is very possible.
Comment