CETA

[wilagro]

Darn, that should read you're.

[wd9]

Well i guess what i don't understand is that all of these perceived "loss of rights" which never existed in the first place is effectively in the PBR act already and was based on the contents of UPOV.

Canada respects the rights of the holders of innovation already both nationally and internationally. Many legal instruments exist for the innovator to protect their investment.

So ya Wilagro, i guess i don't know what this is 'taking away from the farmer' because it never existed in the first place.

So as a farmer, what am i losing?

[Fransisco]

Wilagro said, "If YOU can't figure it out it doesn't really matter what I think is wrong..."

Translation: He doesn't really know himself.

[TOM4CWB]

WD,

You are right.

Fear mongering and misinformation are key to this petition by the NFU.

THis is a NDP/Liberal ploy to give the conservative folks a black eye... when the Liberanos put the policies in place long ago. The Conservative Party had a vote in Montreal in 2006 on supply management; the party therefore officially suports the SM5. This is truly about the CWB single desk!

[grassfarmer]

CETA intends to prohibit:

Canadian federal, provincial or municipal standards that exceed international standards.

Government preferred hiring of locally owned businesses or services.

Government, municipal, school and hospital purchasing policies that favor locally or Canadian grown food.

How are any of these related to the CWB and single desk selling TOM4CWB?

One thing that you advocates of more global trade for western Canadian farmers maybe missed - CETA will NOT allow access for GM crops to the EU. The Europeans specifically exclude that in the agreement.

[charliep]

Actually Europe does allow GM or (accurately transgenic/genetically engineered crops) into their region. You just have to follow the rules. Under the original posting about PBR, Europe is among the most advanced in biotech (excluding genetic engineering) - perhaps why they are wanting to re-affirm Canada plant breeders rights legislation.

Notice you have stayed away from the original theme of plant breeder rights. On the issues you raise, wouldn't Canada benefit from better access to a market with 380 mln people?

[wd9]

I love reading the articles from CUPE (Canadian union of Public Employees) that preface news releases with...

The release of the report, which draws heavily on leaked documents including the draft negotiating text, coincides with the third round of negotiations between Canada and the European Union from April 19-23 in Ottawa.

If i was a unionized civil servant, i may want to whip up a frenzy too to protect my government job.

[grassfarmer]

Charliep,
I wasn't staying away from the "original theme of PBR" - the original theme of the post was CETA and PBR wasn't mentioned until well through. I was merely pointing out the stupidity of TOM4CWB's comment that it was "all about the CWB and single desk selling"

On the "issues I raise" which part of them provides better access to the large EU market? They are all about handicapping Canadian jurisdictions ability to favor local or Canadian products and businesses when procuring products and services. I guess working for the AB Government you are expected to repeat the mantra that increasing total $ value exports is the way to prosperity. The events of recent decades prove otherwise.
Facts: since 1988 exports have tripled BUT SO HAS FARM DEBT.
Realized net farm income from the market since 2002 HAS BEEN NEGATIVE.

As always in Alberta the facts are negotiable as long as the ideology remains intact.

[wd9]

But as our moderator has suggested, back to PBR. Wilagro et al, what are we as farmers losing? Will we lose the right to keep RR seed and reseed with progeny? clearfield wheat? Invigor canola? Midge resistant wheat? Um, those are protected so none of those and every other variety covered under PBR.

Could it be we would be gaining investment in the industry by having a stable respect of intellectual property both nationally and internationally? If a technology doesn't make financial sense for a farm, it won't be successful. Businesses just don't run that way. But we need investment to come up with these innovations and the companies need to be insured they can recoup. All quite simple. Nobody buys RR canola because there are no choices. You can still buy candle polish canola or magnum or quantum II and clean it for your own seeding the next year and you don't have to deal with big bad Dekalb, or PHB, or Viterra, or on and on.

What are we as farmers losing with adoption of this treaty?

[charliep]

grassfarmer

Just curious about where your numbers come from. Checking Statistics Canada, Alberta farm debt was about $6.5 bln in 1988. Not in your point but farm asset value was $27.7 bln. Will let let calculate equity. In 2009, farm debt was reported at $13.6 bln versus an asset value of $89.2 bln.

Other number are in the below including farm income.

[URL="http://cansim2.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-win/cnsmcgi.pgm?Lang=E&CNSM-Fi=CFFD-BDFEAC/Doc/Prod-eng.htm"]statistics canada[/URL]

Off topic. Sorry.

[charliep]

Actually numbers are closer if you look at Canadian numbers. Farm debt Canada 1988 - $22.5 bln. Assets - $109.4 bln. Fast forward 2009. Debt $63 bln. Asset - $284 bln.

Note you tighted increased agricultural trade which you admited has been successful to farm debt which you say is an indicator of failure. Not sure why. I would highlight farmers have used debt extremely well to grow their businesses/wealth. If anything trade and things like CETA are a step in the right direction.

[charliep]

A little slower than most. Now I understand.

[URL="http://www.nfu.ca/index.html"]nfu[/URL]