Softwood Lumber

[Willowcreek]

"We have seen an increase in the number of feeder cattle that are being exported to the US over the last several months and some of that may be based upon the uncertainty related to the corn countervail issue but we are currently exporting about 9,000 head of feeder cattle per week out of Canada to the US and that compares to about 4,300 per week during our last normal five year average prior to BSE so our feeder imports are up."

farmersson- That statement by a CCA Director, Ian McKilltop, looks like the border is open-- In fact with twice normal numbers it looks like the glut is on, which is not helping US feeder prices-- Canada is going back to the same-o of riding on the backs of the industry the US cattleman built...And Canada still has the gall to call "ALL US cattle diseased"--we don't want any US feeders competing in Canada...

The only thing good about it is that many many more US cattle producers are awakening to how huge the negative impact of the Canadian imports are- and to how onesided the "freetrade" has been!!....

[jensend]

ot: it looks like the glut is on

how many head per week go on feed down in the states? is 9,000 a significant number?

[dalek]

Opinion: Deal ends myth of free trade
Apr. 28, 2006. 12:31 PM
THOMAS WALKOM


Think of the latest deal on softwood lumber as a wake-up call — not just for those Canadians who make their living sawing down trees, but for all of us.

It is a wake-up call in two ways.

First, it demonstrates the futility of trying to bind the United States through bilateral free trade deals.

The 1989 Canada-U.S. Free Trade deal and its successor, the North American Free Trade Agreement were designed specifically to solve trade disputes like that of softwood lumber. But they did not and cannot. The U.S. government is a complex beast that, in the end, will always act in American interests. That is reality.

If this reality requires Washington to ignore solemn trade covenants — particularly when dealing with minor countries like Canada — it will do so happily.

As Prime Minister Stephen Harper noted so eloquently in another context: Get used to it.

Second, the deal leaked to the media Wednesday and confirmed yesterday demonstrates the poverty of our own industrial structure.

Canada is still trying to get by through exporting raw and semi-processed commodities to the world. That was fine in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is not any more.

Today, many countries can produce two-by-four lumber as cheaply, or even more cheaply, than Canada. The Russians are doing it; so too are the South Americans.

Ditto with other commodities — from corn to soy beans — that Canada once had a comparative advantage in producing.

This doesn't mean that Canadian farmers have to go belly-up. Nor does it mean that lumber towns like Hearst in northern Ontario will have to shut down.

But if we are to remain a high-wage, high-income country, things have to change. For Canada, extensive raw material development is on its way to becoming a thing of the past. This doesn't necessarily preclude us from cutting trees (although we may want to cut more carefully and selectively).

It does, though, mean that it is no longer enough to transform every pine or spruce or fir we fell simply into lumber suitable for house framing.

So in that sense, perhaps the intransigent Americans have done us a favour. After 25 years of non-stop harassment, they have made it absolutely clear that they will never give Canadian softwood lumber producers free access to their markets.

By implication, they have served fair warning that Canada will face similar trade restrictions on any future export that threatens powerful U.S. interests.

It's now up to us to quit whining and figure out what to do.

Here's what we should not do.

We should not respond to this latest slap in the free trade face by attempting to negotiate even further cross-border integration. This is the strategy of Canada's largest businesses, as represented by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and it is a dead end.

A common market or customs union arrangement with the U.S. will be no better than the existing NAFTA. Unless we literally become part of the United States (which I suspect many Americans would oppose), we can never hope to wield any real clout in Washington. Canada's ambassador, no matter how imposing his business or political credentials, will always be trumped by the most junior senator from the smallest state.

Nor should we use our foreign and military policy to appease the U.S. administration in the hope of winning trade points. As the softwood lumber saga illustrates, U.S. presidents have little authority when it comes to the day-to-day intricacies of trade policy.

George W. Bush may be impressed that Harper plans to keep Canadian troops in Afghanistan indefinitely. But senators and congressional representatives from the lumber-producing states are not.

Instead, we should get on with it. By acknowledging that softwood lumber exports will have to be dealt with through managed trade rather than free trade, Canada's federal government is finally coming to terms with the limits of NAFTA.

As a concept, managed trade isn't so bad. It worked for many years with automobiles. It was what the political left — when there was a political left — called for in 1988 instead of then-prime minister Brian Mulroney's much-vaunted Canada-U.S. free trade deal. Given that it fits with American desires, it is also practical.

In yesterday's deal, it is not the concept that is troubling. It is the detail. Canadian producers will be allocated a quota of the U.S. market. But, depending on factors such as lumber prices and the value of the currency, they could also face export taxes.

In addition, the U.S. would be allowed to keep about $1 billion of the penalties it illegitimately imposed. American lumber producers would, in effect, have their legal bills bankrolled by the Canadian industry.

The deal is supposed to last until 2013. But it is not clear whether it will fare any better than NAFTA if American lumber interests change their mind and challenge it before then.

Could Canada have struck a better arrangement? Perhaps. Both Harper and his predecessor Paul Martin (at least in his earliest iteration) were inordinately anxious to mend fences with the U.S. Maybe if they had held out longer we could have done better. Or maybe not.

But at least the veil has been torn away. Thanks to yesterday's deal, we can stop pretending we have a free trade arrangement with the U.S. and move on.

[farmers_son]

Dalek: Good post.

[cowman]

Willowcreek: You seem to have this selective vision? When farmers son points out some things to you, instead of trying to answer honestly, you go off with these outrageous quotes about how Canada has denied you access because "all American cattle are diseased"! And then farmers son tells you like come on...it is a $5 test and no one is banning your cattle at all? Do you respond to that statement...no you fall back on those evil Canadians condemning all our beef! It just doesn't wash? Does R-CALF send you out these little quotes to respond to any legitimate questions?
Neither did you respond to his statement that Canada accepts your cull cows...despite the fact you are a BSE country? The fact you have only had two BSE cows compared to our five, is not a factor here...the science says you should have considerably more...which might be why Japan and Hong Kong have such a problem with American beef? I don't think they believe you? Whether it is shoot, shovel, shut up or "if you don't look, you'll never find" I don't know...but something is sure funny down south of the 49th parellel?

[cowman]

And here that darned Randy Kaiser is an R-CALFER! I always knew he was a little strange! Probably sneaked across the border when no one was looking!

[Willowcreek]

Cowman- Actually you should read Johanns latest press release-- He says the US has no BSE- that the testing program has shown there can't be over 4 to 7 in the whole country--Hell Canada's already found more than that- and at one every few months (?) ...
Don't you trust our Ag Secretary and his science?....

I didn't say anything about the test costs because it doesn't matter the cost ( and it can be quite a bit more with quarantine and vet exams and blood testing)- its the principle...You guys want the border open on the basis of "sound science"- but at the same time "sound science" said that there was no reason for the Canadians to keep their border restrictions on...But you didn't buy that science- So it has to be nothing more than a "trade barrier"...

I have a question for you cowman- Canadians are screaming and blaming all their problems, BSE and all, on R-CALF and Americans--BUT I haven't heard one Canadian out there question the CFIA or their Associations and wonder where all this bad feed is coming from...No one is asking why you are getting cattle born 3 or 4 years after your feed ban-- 2nd and 3rd generation BSE infection?

If I was a Canuck, I'd be sitting on some politicians' doorsteps demanding someone swing from a high tree- but Canadians all sit back and say hush-hush, keep the US border open and we'll be happy....

US producers were not able to stop the OTM opening thru the court- but they did thru the Senate-- and thats what will happen again- especially with all the POST feedban animals showing up- Even NCBA is lobbying to keep the border closed until you drop your trade barrier......

[cowman]

Willowcreek: I can't answer your question about the post feed ban BSE cows because I don't know why that happened? Personally I suspect the whole feed thing is probably not the problem at all and it has more to do with a mineral inbalance...but then what do I know? The experts claim they have it all figured out and I guess you have to go with the best science available at the time? I sicerely doubt there is much difference between the US and Canada feed mills and feed supply?
The important thing to realize is this: We have been testing seriously up here? My local vet says with the amount of cows being tested we can safely say the incident of BSE in Alberta is very rare...very, very rare! Now I don't know about the US or Johanns statement...but you should have more positives than you are getting? And by the way there are rumors out there the Alabama cow might have been born after the feed ban!
Now I'm not sure just what the costs are to ship a fat or feeder calf south is but would bet it is worth a lot more than $5? I won't argue with you that you might have a legitimate grievance over the CFIA not playing by the rules because you just might be right! However driving our producers into bankruptcy as compared to inconveniencing you with a $5 test is hardly comparable?
The fact is the USA has treated us very poorly in this whole thing and it has nothing to do with health safety, but is all about protectionism. We are supposed to have a deal? Its called NAFTA? When the world sees what America has done to Canada in the softwood lumber and cattle, what do you think they think? America welches on its promises. Not good. The world is watching.

[farmers_son]

Cowman: Well said.

[Willowcreek]

cowman-quote--- "but then what do I know? The experts claim they have it all figured out and I guess you have to go with the best science available at the time?"

-----------------------

But those same experts said that according to the best science available that not ALL US Cattle were Diseased-- Science said that Canada should drop its Anaplas/Bluetongue restrictions- but Canada refused to listen to that science.....

You guys can't have it both ways... I, who run cows within spitting distance to Canadian cows, felt aggrieved when Canadians said my cows were ALL DISEASED....

But do I hear any Canadians out asking for their government to drop the artificial trade barrier you put against the States?

Nope- Just open the border so we can shirtail our cattle on the industry the US cattleman built- and we can keep our trade barriers to protect our prices!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[farmers_son]

Just so we are clear. No science said Canada should drop its protocols on bluetongue and anaplasmosis. The science says Canada is bluetongue/anaplas free and the U.S. is not. That does not mean all U.S. cattle are diseased although the U.S. herd does not enjoy the enviable herd health status that the Canadian herd presently enjoys. Canada did allow U.S. feeders in during the winter months for many years which was above and beyond what any science dicatated. However give an American an inch and they will take a yard.

I appreciate you are within spittin distance of our border but until such time as the price differential between Canada and the U.S. is corrected there is zero chance that any U.S. feeders are coming North no matter if the U.S. is required to spend $5 for a blood test during the summer or not.

My sense of the situation is if Canada does remove its bluetongue/anaplas protocol, a protocol that has been effective in keeping Canada free of those disease while Montana allowed its herd to become diseased, that the U.S. will still restrict our access to their market as the real issue is protectionism and they do not really care if they ever send feeders North or not.

[cowman]

Now Willowcreek, I'm not sure how it is now but in the good old days when we sent bulls to Montana they had to be tested for Bangs and TB before they could cross...and yet we were Bangs and TB free? So if America requires that test why shouldn't Canada require a test for a disease you have in your country?
Now we never pouted or whined about doing those tests...we just considered it the cost of doing business?
I also wonder what you American cattlemen did to "build up your market"? Did it amount to nothing more than hauling your calves into the auction mart? Isn't it actually true that the Cargills and Tysons of the world created your market? Or maybe Safeway? Maybe you should be giving them the credit?
Maybe Canada should be setting some of its own "illegal trade barriers"? Like how about for every ten barrels of oil you buy from us you have to take one old cow? Now of course you might not think that was all that good...but you might reconsider when you had to walk to town a few times? LOL