Ritz WTO position??

[Kodiak]

Where is Ritz on improved trade for Canada? Cruising through Ag Canada's website, I came across this letter to the Chair of the Agriculture negotiations at the WTO. This looks an awful lot to me like Canada's new government (sic) is mostly interested in protecting the power and privilege of the few at the expense of the many.

Do the grains and oilseeds sector not matter to this Government? Or the beef and pork sectors? Are our western rural MP's lulled into thinking all their seats are safe? Do they know anything about this? Has anyone notified their Conservative MP that this is unacceptable? Not enough of us apparently.

The constant cow-towing to the privileged few in food production smacks of betrayal, and personally I think the Conservative Government needs a wake-up call from those of us who create the vast majority of the wealth in the agriculture and food industry.

Here's the letter.....

His Excellency Crawford Falconer
Ambassador
New Zealand Permanent Mission to the World Trade Organization
Chemin des Fins 2
1218 Grand-Saconnex
SWITZERLAND

Dear Ambassador Falconer:

As Canada's new Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, I would like to take this opportunity to convey my best wishes to you as the World Trade Organization agriculture negotiations resume in Geneva. Canada is committed to the success of these negotiations, and I want to express my support to you in your capacity as Chair for your continuing leadership and efforts to move these negotiations forward.

As we head into these intensive negotiations, which will be focused on developing a revised draft of your text, I am writing to reiterate Canada's serious concerns about the approach taken to sensitive products, which we conveyed to you and WTO Members in our formal response to the text in July. While Canada supports many elements of the text, and while we believe that many of the ideas are heading in the right direction, the approach to sensitive products causes particular difficulties for Canada.

As you know, Canada has a system of supply management for certain products (dairy, poultry, eggs). That system has worked very well for those producers, and both those producers and the Government of Canada are resolutely committed to maintaining it.

The approach to sensitive products in your draft text is not one that is acceptable to Canada, for several reasons. First, with respect to the issue of selection, the approach of basing selection on a percentage of dutiable tariffs is fundamentally inequitable, and particularly discriminatory against Canada. Canada would have 40% fewer tariff lines as sensitive compared to a total line basis, a far higher price than other countries would have to pay. We need to move to a fairer basis for selection of sensitive products. At 6% of dutiable lines, the EU could have 60% more sensitive lines than Canada would have. This kind of result cannot be justified. Canada will be insistent on being able to get all of its supply-managed products into the sensitive products category.

Furthermore, with regard to the issue of treatment, you are aware of our long-standing opposition to tariff cuts or tariff quota expansion for sensitive products. I want to reiterate the Government of Canada's commitment to that position. We remain strongly opposed to the approach to treatment outlined in your text.

As the negotiations proceed, you can be assured that our negotiators will be actively and constructively participating in all aspects of the negotiations. However, we will be taking a particularly firm line on these issues.

Sincerely,
Gerry Ritz, PC, MP

[FarmRanger]

Doesn’t it give you a warm fuzzy feeling when foreign tariffs on your grains or oilseeds exist because Canadian governments have negotiated for the protection of “sensitive products” at your expense? Makes me feel good to know I’m doing my part.
/sarcasm off

[Kodiak]

Do you think the producers of "sensitive products" will thank the rest of us?

[TOM4CWB]

FarmRanger and Kodiak,

I believe we must thank Miniter Ritz, for following Conservative & Federal Government policy.

Supply Management has clear and obvious benefits...

it obviously is not perfect by any stretch...

but it gets the job done with MUCH lower marketing volitlity.

In supply chain management, in many instances the Canadian 'supply' system has over the long term; provided better returns to Ag producers... as a total % of the consumer $$'s spent on the food items it produces.

The CDN supply chain is a more compact chain, with a real emphasis on returning the GROWER the maximum possible return vs US comparisons.

Agriculture in Ontario and Quebec is so very different than in western Canada, our CTEAM course clearly pointed to this fact.

I would take a supply managed wheat and barley system any day, that meets WTO standards... over what we have to swallow in substandard CWB marketing performance.

Can you imagine a provincial based Wheat and Barley marketing system that REQUIRED the Provincial marketing entities to maximise grain growers returns... instead of; minimising our returns... as the CWB disfunctional marketing system (Paying us 65% of Fair Market Value) does Globally; with it's pooling system today?

We in the grain industry can learn much from supply managed producers.

Maple Syrup producers in Quebec JUST formed a Supply Managed system... a couple of years ago. WTO compliant; personal farm retail sales outside/exempt from pooling; and the creation of a pool of product that stabilises and maintains a larger supply that food manufacturers can count on... sold with a cost of production formula. It isn't perfect, but 66% of growers voted to start this new system. We could be so fortunate to be allowed this kind of free and Democratic choice in Wheat and Barley... Also proof; THe ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board

Please don't be blind, travel and look at what your CDN neighbour/grower has built... there is much to learn! A balance with respect can be created... with some hard work and careful cooperation!

[parsley]

What hogwash Tom4CWB.Managing suply is just that.Restricting through force.

Supply management, whether it is by the Conservatives or by the Liberals or by Communist Party is NOT free enterprise.And not acceptable.

Co-ops are not supply Management.

Go back to bed and have a bloody snooze.

Parsley

[parsley]

Kodiak,

Your commnets are dead on. Ritz should get the fleur de lis ring out of his nose.

[AdamSmith]

Tom I hope you wrote "I would take a supply managed wheat and barley system any day,..." only as a way to contrast that system with the single desk buying system of the cwb.

You risk losing much credibility, if you actually advocate such an impossible system for wheat and barley.

Over 80% of the wheat and barley grown on the prairies are exported out of the country.

Supply Management controls production, this can be done within the controllable confines of a barn. Exactly how would you propose controlling the level of wheat production to where only a minute fraction of grain is exported???? Drought, Floods, Frost, Disease, etc. etc. etc.

[SASKFARMER3]

Tom tom tom what the heck is up Supply management!

We are the escape goat for vote friendly supply managed farms in Quebec and Ontario

[AdamSmith]

"As you know, Canada has a system of supply management for certain products (dairy, poultry, eggs). That system has worked very well for those producers, and both those producers and the Government of Canada are resolutely committed to maintaining it."
-------------------------------
Now lets write it this way

As you know, France has a system of supporting it's rural culture for certain products (wheat, ****seed, barley). That system has worked very well for those producers, and both those producers and the Government of France are resolutely committed to maintaining it."

Or

As you know, The United States of America has a system of subsidies designed for supporting it's farmers and growers of certain products (well all grain crops actually). That system has worked very well for those producers, and both those producers and the Government of The United States of America are resolutely committed to maintaining it."

If you can accept Ritz's position then you have to accept the others position as well.

[FarmRanger]

Hmm,I don’t know Tom. While its true that it has provided better returns to some Ag producers, I see huge consumer subsidies that have largely been capitalized into the cost of the license to produce. Those better returns provide a low risk environment for supply management to operate in, but…. This low risk environment allows producers to bid up the price of quota. Where has the money gone, that the new guy borrowed to buy quota? New entrants now require those huge consumer subsidies to make their payments on quota.

Net effect =

Consumers pay more;

Other sectors of agriculture get short shrift in trade negotiations. Just remember, your contribution to “sensitive products” is the amount that your grain cheque had deducted in foreign tariffs, or the amount it was reduced to compete with another countries export subsidy.
Supply Managements decreased risk = everyone else’s increased risk.
Its not just Canadian consumers paying for Canadian "sensitive products".

[silverback]

You advocating supply management for all ag products Tom?

What did you have for supper yesterday?

[agstar77]

Be realistic the only thing that matters is getting a majoity government . What has changed? All the votes are in Q and O. Why would Canada's New Government , give a Rodent's butt about Western Grain growers?

[parsley]

One of the realistic policies that the Conservatives have consistently supported IS for the West...the freedom to market what a Western farmer grows.

That is a plus.

The Conservative Government has never wavered on that one.

Parsley

[Kodiak]

I thought there were two issues in the Ritz letter that stood out. First, it shows absolutely no support for the 90% of Canada’s farmers who depend on exports for a good measure of their sales. And second, while I don’t expect a politician to take candy from babies, I am growing tired of the whitewash coming from political folk in all Parties on supply management. Sure it is a system that works. It works by protecting the power and privilege of a single class of citizens, at the expense of everyone else. It works by force, exclusion, and threat of legal prosecution.

And Tom, I expected more of you as well. As someone who normally strives to take the high road, I thought you would be a least a bit concerned about the natural and efficient allocation of resources, market signals for producers and consumers both, the ability of young farmers to enter the field, or growth of the Canadian economy. None of these issues are provided for with government controlled enterprise. Government legislated supply management is simply wealth redistribution and social engineering by another name. Wealth is taken from producers of non-supply managed products and from consumers, and given to the privileged. Are you trying to become a member of the privileged class Tom? Furthermore, I had previously thought the notion of legal prosecution for producing food would be abhorrent to you.

But let’s not turn this thread into a finger pointing exercise between farmers. That can happen elsewhere. (I'm already guilty enough of that.)

What is more important to me about the Ritz letter is what it doesn’t say, and what this implies about the Federal Government’s support for the grains, oilseeds, special crops, and the red meat sector when it comes to the important issue of a fair trading environment internationally.

[TOM4CWB]

Smile!

You folks should travel a little more... and expand your horizons!

1.) I clearly said "WTO Compliant"

2.) SUpply management CAN be created and managed in a manner that respects private property rights.

3.) I clearly mentioned that there are problems with the present supply management system, you have brought forward a few of them. But please tell me what is perfect in any event?

4.) the mis-allocation of resourses the CWB Pool system has caused with the "Pro-Bono" domestic feed grain policy... has further complicated the error in the supply management system... and made the capitalisation of quota even more distorting.

5.) I never said that I wanted to Capitalise Quota for wheat or barley production... clearly some force will balance supply and demand... be it large multinationals or private innovation... or some kind of public interest of the nation state!

6.) The fact of life is simple... food is the politics of physical life... Food production will ALWAYS be political, and nation states will defend the right to control food supplies above all other issues they must deal with!

7.) As the world becomes more prosperous... the balance of who has the "right" to have a full tummy... and who will enforce that "right" to have food... is clearly placed in front of us. 9-11 has changed everything. People WILL be fed... or governments will destabilise and political leaders who don't feed their people won't find a cave deep enough to hide in to save their skin!

Reality CHeck folks... get a grip... don't put up the blinders of intolerance. We live in Canada... we are to be tolerant and make the best out of what we have!