CETA

[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]

[charliep]

Apologize for monopolizing and taking off topic but too interesting when you start looking at the numbers.

Total Canadian cash reciepts 1988 - $22.4 bln. Realized farm income - $3.8 bln (note cash - excludes inventory adjustment). Farm support payments (excluding CWB final) - $2.2 bln.

Fast forward 2009 - Farm cash reciepts - $44.2 bln. Realized farm income - $3.6 bln. Farm support payments (also adjusted) - $1.8 bln.

[charliep]

Screwed up - CWB payments are included with farm cash reciepts. The payments portion should be $3.4 bln in 1988 and $3.3 bln in 2009.

[riders2010]

We're going to compete with governments that subsidize the crap out of their farmers?

[charliep]

What will change?

You can have a look at how money is allocated in government programs.

[URL="http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/21-015-x/2009002/tablesectlist-listetableauxsect-eng.htm"]direct payments[/URL]

[FarmRanger]

From the NFU website their 1st headline states -
<i>Free Trade and Globalization Has Decimated
Canada's Farms</i>
Oh really?  Farm debt as a percentage of assets
has gone from 20.6% to 22.2%.  Not what I’d call
a crippling increase in debt, but their website
headline proclaims this is some big disaster
caused by trade agreements(like NAFTA).  If they
were actually not trying to negatively spin the
truth with sensational headlines, you would notice
that the <b>total equity in farming has nearly
tripled since 1988. </b>   NFU conclusions are
rarely a product of logical analysis of the facts.
This quote directly from the <i> ““Free Trade”: Is
it working for farmers? Comparing 1988 to 2010“
</i>document would be funny if it weren’t so
costly to western grain farmers. <b> <i>“Waves
of agribusiness mergers are facilitated and
competition is almost eliminated.”</i></b> If
reduced competition amongst buyers of our grain
is a bad thing, why does the NFU so strongly
militate for a single buyer <b>(no competition at
all)</b> for western Canadian wheat, durum and
barley??
 
 

[grassfarmer]

CharlieP,

I think most people would consider increased indebtedness as a sign of business failure,or poor business health at least.
"Farmers have used debt extremely well to grow their businesses/wealth" That's rather like the current global financial problem isn't it? Look how well the US, for example, has used debt to grow their business/wealth.
"If anything trade and things like CETA are a step in the right direction."
Yes, trade is a good thing and a necessary thing but blindly walking into signing a trade agreement where Canada gives up considerable rights and freedoms with no promise of anything in return is just plain stupid. Have agreements - but make them good ones. Not for the first time Canada appears to be one of the most globally naive agreement participants.

FarmRanger - DUH!! The CWB is a marketing organisation working on behalf of grain producers - it is not an end use grain buyer.

[FarmRanger]

<i>“…increased indebtedness as a sign of business failure…”</i>
How is debt to asset ratio rising less than 2% a sign of business failure? Why would any reasonable person consider using leverage to grow a business as a sign of business failure? Is the next generation expected to start farming without using debt?

<i>….signing a trade agreement where Canada gives up considerable rights and freedoms…</i>
wd9 asked what we’re giving up; still waiting for an answer.

<i>DUH!! The CWB is a marketing organisation working on behalf of grain producers - it is not an end use grain buyer.</i>
There’s a big difference between working on behalf of grain producers and working for the benefit of grain producers. The CWB is unaccountable bureaucracy backed by binding legislation to forcibly confiscate property from all farmers in a singled out geographic area of the country. This is reminiscent of totalitarian dictatorships, and should have no place in free societies. Canada should be ashamed for not fixing this years ago.

[TOM4CWB]

Grassfarmer,

Should any one be surprised you support the CWB; NO.

I simply quoted the petition on the NFU web site that was posted here in this thread against the CETA.

I did not make this up... the CWB is specifically mentioned in the CETA NFU petition.

After what is happening to our feed grain prices... the lack of transparent international price signals directly depreciates a big chunk of our families 2010 harvest.

If we had market choice... the CWB would be the first to arbtrage the international grain markets and offer better returns because of competition.

Instead the CWB 'pro bono' (no charge to consumers) lowers feed grain values.

Clearly the CWB is a buyer of our grain... with control over the price we obtain. NO COMPETITION. REDUCED VALUES for feed grains in particular.

Why else would have ZERO tonnes be shipped through the B series feed barley pool in 2009-10?

[tipsy]

Farmranger its not Canadians who should be ashamed, as there are plenty of Canadians who wish to have cwb vlolantaryized. Who should be ashamed are the Present conservatives and their supporters. They just simply refuse to keep their promise and their own party platform too address this cwb problem.