Canada's Position at the WTO

[Incognito]

April 06, 2006

Harper, speaking in the Commons, reiterated a number of Conservative campaign promises concerning agriculture.

He said the government wants to replace the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program with a "simpler, much more responsive" system and is urging provinces to negotiate a new plan.

He promised to support existing supply-management programs, and said western grain farmers will be given "dual marketing options" when it comes to the Canadian Wheat Board.

___________________________________

I don't sit on the BOD and get paid for fidiciary responsibility to farmers - if I did currency hedging and administrative costs would be on the top of my list; so it is not my "mission" to figure it out. Frankly, I could care less other than you have an audience of pick a number (50 60 75%) that support the CWB and what of your responsibilty to them?
____________________________

Global stocks at end 2006/07 are forecast to fall by 17m. tons to 119.m., including 45m. (52m.) in the five major exporters.
________________________________

i copied and pasted the above. Scroll down.

[wd9]

How quickly the Vader pulled the wool over everyone's eyes once again from the real issue, market access and Canada's WTO position, which is the topic of this discussion. Market access is a bit of a misnomer because we have access, just not fair or financially viable access.

All along the CWB has been 'representing farmers' by convincing the federal government to not negotiate - that no agreement is best, that we can't make any headway on access so just walk away.

With tariffs alone on wheat at $25 to 30 per tonne, canola - $77 per tonne, barley $27 per tonne, MBFarmer, you and I will not see progress in our lives.

I just wonder and am unable to understand why the CWB is ensuring with it's political clout there is no progress on WTO and that market access (tariffs too high to make the sale)alone will continue costing farmers billions in lost sales.

Let alone tariff escalation (the more a product is value added, the more it is tariffed) and defining which sensitive products (those products outside the WTO negotiations with their own special rules) costs to farmers and any ag processors in Canada.

Maybe we should do as the CWB suggests, become supply managed grains and find other work for 4/5 of the farmers and the arable land in the country. Not!!!

I would encourage our government to negotiate for open market access, that export and domestic subsidies be reduced in the coming years, that Canada can compete fairly with other countries with regards to tariff parity (tariffed higher on a competing product in the same country like soy 5% and canola 25%, barley against corn...) tariffs and subsidies.

MBFarmer, given the choice, would you like to see no progress or at least progress for the future?

[MBFarmer1]

Hey, I am all for progress in the WTO. For the next generation or possibly the one after that maybe it is the answer. Where i get a little upset with this process is how ti is represented to farmers and the general public. I attended a number of large farm meetings over hte winter and they all had the prerequsite WTO update. In nearly every one of these updates people with their own agendas to push, people who wanted to justify their positions in life or people who need to get re-elected went on and on about how the WTO would save Canadian agriculture and that this was the path to the Holy Land. Trade liberilization has been held out to farmers as the saving grace since my Dad started farming. Elimination of US subsidies will not happen .... ever!! Fact. The US has set up a large part of their economy to depend on a cheap raw product to value add into a more expensive product to sell to the world. They will not give this up. In addition food production is considered part of US defense policy. In the event of war or serious attack on US soil adequate food production is utmost important. Since 9/11 do you think the US has not renewed its concern for security? So I guess the point i am making is that work at the WTO should be done as small irritants can be removed and trade can be improved, however for people to indicate that this will change agriculture is untrue.

[Vader]

I am not opposed to eliminating tariffs and subsidies. I just think that it is never going to happen. Giving up supply management or the CWB would be an exercise in futility similar to the giving up of the Crow Benefit was in the previous round of trade negotiations. What has that gotten us?

The real problem is oversupply. Always has been, except when the American Government considered it their duty to set a floor price and purchase and hold stocks.

[Vader]

I do see currency hedging and administrative costs as being important. I am undecided as to what more the CWB should do in the area of currency hedging other than to hedge sales once they are made to prevent against erosion of sales values.

On the administrative cost side I believe that the CWB has done much to reduce admin costs through corporate restructuring. The cost of running the CWB is quite small compared to what corporate profits would be for delivering the same services.

Incognito, I still don't see where you are getting the reduction in wheat inventory by 19 million tonnes. I could google it or you could save us all the trouble.

[Incognito]

http://www.igc.org.uk/gmr/gmrsummary.htm

OUTLOOK FOR 2006/07

WHEAT: Forecast world wheat production in 2006 is now 594m. tons, 6m. more than last month. Favourable spring weather is improving yield expectations in much of the EU. Winterkill damage may be less severe than previously thought in Russia while in Ukraine conditions for replanting with spring grains are good. The state of winter wheat in the US southern plains remains poor despite recent rains, but prospects are improving elsewhere, and conditions for spring wheat planting are good in both the US and Canada. Unseasonable rains in India have damaged the crop about to be harvested, but conditions in China are generally favourable, with the crop placed higher than before. Good rains are expected to boost crops in North Africa and Near East Asia, although Syria remains too dry. World wheat consumption in 2006/07 is forecast to fall by 9m. tons, to 611m. With less feed quality wheat available, improved supplies of other feedstuffs and the effects of avian influenza on poultry consumption, feed use of wheat could be sharply lower than last year in the EU, the CIS, Canada and Far East Asia. Food use, however, will continue slowly to increase in many developing countries. World wheat trade in 2006/07 is expected to rise by 2m. tons, to 111m., with both China and India likely to import more than this year. The CIS and Near East Asia may also purchase more, but imports by the EU and North Africa are forecast lower. Lower export availabilities in Russia and Ukraine will boost demand from other suppliers. While overall supplies in the major exporters should remain ample, availabilities of premium milling wheats will depend on good spring wheat harvests in North America. Global stocks at end 2006/07 are forecast to fall by 17m. tons to 119.m., including 45m. (52m.) in the five major exporters.
____________________________________

[Vader]

Now that is a LONG Range forecast - two full harests away. But I like it. We need to do what we can to increase the 19M.

Rod

[TOM4CWB]

Vader;

Did you catch PM Stephen Harper's Speach?

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1004/41879

Prime Minister stands up for Canadian farmers
06 April 2006
Notes for an Address by The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada For Delivery During an Emergency Debate on the Crisis in Canadian Agriculture

"...We’re also going to readdress what has long been a sore point for many western grain farmers – not having the freedom to make their own marketing and transportation decisions.

This Government is going to empower these producers by allowing them to decide for themselves if they want to participate in the Canadian Wheat Board or make alternate arrangements.

No discussion of agriculture in this country would be complete, Mr. Speaker, without mention of diversification - as in the longer run, Canadian farmers are going to have to begin looking for new market opportunities.

And this Government is committed to facilitating this necessary diversification of the industry.

As those who make their living from the land already know, there is a fast growing market for agriculture products in the area of renewable fuels such as ethanol and bio-diesel.

My Government intends to merge environmental goals with those of agriculture by requiring an average of 5 percent renewable fuel content in Canadian fuel by 2010.

This will not only help to lower emissions and reduce greenhouse gases, but also give consumers a buffer against rising petroleum prices.

By encouraging these fuels we will create new incentives for much-needed investment in rural Canada.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, this Government is going to get serious about pressing Canada’s trade issues on the international stage.

We believe that all of our agriculture sector must be protected by strong international - not just free - but also, fair trade.

In order to secure free and fair trade, this Government will support rules-based trading systems like the WTO which we believe are especially crucial to interests of country’s like our own that depend on exports.

The future of Canadian agriculture and agri-food products is also dependent on enhanced market access.

To that end, we will support the phased reduction of all trade-distorting barriers and the elimination of all agriculture export subsidies."

Now, Don't you think Vader... you should be working on marketing choice at the CWB BOD meeting in the week coming up?

[Vader]

Tom, I hesitate to respond to anything you say for fear of ASTOUNDING you.

I believe that allowing producers to export their grain in containers would have little or no impact on CWB marketing, this being the first criteria for the issuance of an export licence. This would allow producers to find niche markets.

[wd9]

I wonder why an organization who claims to be the best is considered by our Prime Minister to be a "Sore Point".

I guess that's what happens when you are legislated to be a customer as opposed to showing true value to keep customers.

MBFarmer, you'll also note supply management protection at any cost - the cost being your ability to export will come second. The point I was trying to make earlier is both supply management and the position of the CWB are to not allow, as the PM puts it, "Fair Trade".