Out of balance?

[FarmRanger]

Still don’t get it? Face it f_s, your beloved Liberals don’t give a rat’s rear end about you and your cows, otherwise they try to do something constructive in foreign relations with the U.S. Yes, good science isn’t prevailing yet, just as it didn’t a few years ago in the Canada Bombardier / Brazil BSE fiasco.

What if the shoe was on the other foot? If Ottawa had the choice to listen to a vocal Canadian lobby group or a nasty trash-talking self-serving neighboring government, who do you think would get the attention?

Exactly… and you’d be applauding them.

[farmers_son]

I would say that you don't get it yet. NAFTA provided the energy sectors on both sides of the border with the assurances that they could invest and have access to the U.S. market.

Canadian cattle producers thought they could do the same. Yet the border closed. NAFTA did not work. BSE was a crisis for NAFTA and exposed some its weaknesses. NAFTA was supposed to be a common and free trade pact but when push came to shove it was not all for one and one for all rather the U.S. left Canadian beef producers out in the cold to protect their own interests. NAFTA did not work for Canadian agriculture, it is a simple fact. Every day the border remains closed and barriers remain in place that drive down the price of our live cattle then that is another day that proves NAFTA does not work for agriculture.

[FarmRanger]

“Canadian cattle producers thought they could do the same.”
And they did, pre BSE.

“Yet the border closed. NAFTA did not work. BSE was a crisis for NAFTA and exposed some its weaknesses”
Where did you cut and paste this from? There weren’t provisions for BSE in NAFTA, so I guess we should scrap the whole thing?

“NAFTA did not work for Canadian agriculture, it is a simple fact.“
Not so simple, not a fact for the rest of agriculture. And even the BSE thing will get worked through, although a lot slower than if we hadn’t had the anti-American Liberals running things here.

“Every day the border remains closed and barriers remain in place that drive down the price of our live cattle then that is another day that proves NAFTA does not work for agriculture.”
Proves it, does it? For all of agriculture? Or is this one of those Liberal “A proof is a proof is a proof” things? All it proves is that the borders aren’t totally open to live cattle yet. Slagging the Americans for cheap political gain hasn’t brow beaten them into fast tracking the process? What a surprise!

[cowman]

Farmers son: I will concede the USA has not been helpful with some of their protectionist actions. They have flaunted the spirit of NAFTA as well as the actual rules. The softwood lumber dispute is the very worst?
However the USDA was prepared to move ahead faster but was delayed by R-CALF? The court challenge by R-CALF did slow down the process when they got Cebull to issue his injunction? There is a process in the USA that has to be gone through...that is their law? They can't fast track it because they have this group waiting on the court house steps to take them to task if they try?
My problem with Canada being able to retaliate is this: Canada is run by a power elite from the "golden triangle", and every decision of what is best for the country revolves around what is best for that area! So therefore we get trade policy, financial policy, social policy that benifits that area...and too bad for the hinterlands! NAFTA gave us some power to not be pawns, used and sacrificed, so the money keeps flowing into Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa?
NAFTA gave us the start to take back some of the power of self determination for our areas and to throw off our colonial masters down east? Every westerner should be thankful we now can control our destiny instead of being dictated to by a group of Liberal crooks.

[farmers_son]

Cowman: True. I see those comments as applying more to the oil patch however than to agriculture. It is difficult for someone on this side of the border to completely understand how the U.S. system works and to exactly what extent R-Calf was responsible for the delays in normalized trade resuming and to what extent the border being closed suits the U.S. administration. We should not forget either that the NCBA took some very protectionist positions although they did not go the court route like R-Calf.

The USDA presently has a published rule to allow Japanese beef into the U.S. Given that the incidence of BSE is much higher in Japan than in North America and that Japan did not have a feed ban in place until much later than both Canada and the U.S. the importation of beef in Japan certainly would take some wind out of R-Calf’s sails regarding their obsession with Canadian live cattle. As long as there is not a case of nvCJD that is claimed to have resulted from eating North American beef instead of British beef I see the BSE/CJD thing becoming less and less of an issue with consumers and with politicians. In today’s news I noted where 4 children have become ill after eating chicken and bird flu is suspected. The area is on a migratory bird path and birds have no respect for international borders.

Beyond beef, an issue I see with NAFTA is the U.S. signing FTA deals with other countries that the other NAFTA partners are not party to. Australia comes to mind and in 2006 the Central America Free Trade Agreement comes into effect. The U.S. enters into FTAs with these countries, their goods enter the U.S. and then trade within NAFTA. Officially the trade is between the U.S. and the other country but unofficially the other NAFTA partners share the benefits and the costs. Isn’t it a loss of sovereignty for Canada and Mexico when we see what is in effect the U.S. making our trade policy for us.

[FarmRanger]

I was just rereading my posts f_s, and they look a lot more hostile toward you than what they were intended to be. I think my disdain for federal Liberal antics got partially directed at you. I offer you my apology, as this does nothing to further rational discussion. I’m pretty sure everyone here values your reasoned input, even if we sometimes have different opinions.

With any agreement, don’t both sides trade away some sovereignty in order to gain some benefit from the other side? The other partners in NAFTA did the same. By sovereignty, do you mean the obligation to live be bound by your portion of the agreement, in order to reap the benefits of the other signatories fulfilling their obligations? So I guess both Mexico and the U.S. also lost some “sovereignty” too?

[cowman]

farmers son: I too get a little edgy with the USA signing all these little side deals. I can't really see where they are benifitting agriculture in North America? I don't see these deals as helping the North American farmer?
I do not believe our federal government, or the federal government in the USA, has done much to protect the farmer or worker in both our countries. It seems at time both governments are more concerned with the bottom line for big companies than the welfare of the common people?
Just the way of the world today?