• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Captive Canada?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
CAN vs US, dangerous game



Dangerous game

Bashing our southern neighbours might have dire consequences

By Paul Jackson

Opinion

The Calgary Sun

December 20, 2005



The contemptuous tone taken by Liberal leader Paul Martin in his anti-American ranting unveils a side of our supposed prime minister that's been previously shielded to most voters.



It is he will do anything -- no matter how low, no matter how politically unethical, no matter how dangerous -- to try to score points and eke out extra seats in the House of Commons come voting day Jan. 23.



His shrill and silly accusations against President George W. Bush's administration may make for good theatre with the uniformed, but they diminish both our short-term and long- term relationship with Washington.



Has no one wondered why it took so long to solve the ban on our packaged beef and then live cattle destined for the U.S?



Brian Mulroney -- or Preston Manning, Stockwell Day or Stephen Harper -- would have solved it with a phone call.



Has no one wondered why the softwood lumber dispute drags on year-after-year?



Mulroney -- or Manning, Day or Harper -- again would have solved it with a snap of the fingers.



Has no one wondered why Martin can't get his foot in the door of the Oval Office at the White House to push Canada's case on any number of issues?



Mulroney -- or Manning, Day or Harper -- would get the nod from the Bush administration on just about every concern the mind could conjure up on Canadian-American relations.



But Martin's irresponsible and reckless treatment of Bush has brought the blinds down on the Liberal government.



The beef and softwood lumber disputes alone cost Canadian producers billions of dollars.



All due to Martin's vanity, obstinacy and childish bellowing.



I can't say I've ever had too much time for Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella -- except to admit somewhat negatively to his cleverness in slurring Conservative opponents -- but even he condemns Martin's "shameless pandering" to anti-American types.



So now I somewhat admire Kinsella for something more positive: He knows just what Martin is up to, and why, and he sees the inherent danger in it.



Martin sneakily condemns U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins for allegedly interfering in Canadian politics when he himself stood on a stage a week ago with ex-president Bill Clinton and basked in this adulterer's supposed vote-getting power.



Both men were in Montreal for the UN's climate change conference, and Martin took the occasion to publicly chastise Bush for not supporting the Kyoto pact.



That said, Conservative Senator Hugh Segal -- an old friend, by the way -- praised Wilkins for refusing to succumb to Martin's poisonous bait and be drawn into the campaign.



Here, let's recall when Jean Chretien's nephew, Raymond Chretien, was Canadian ambassador to Washington, he openly said the Liberal government favoured a Democratic victory by Al Gore to a Republican win with Bush in 2000.



Wasn't this interfering in U.S. politics?



During the 2004 presidential campaign, any number of Liberal senators ran around with John Kerry campaign buttons on their lapels and cabinet ministers such as Environment Minister Stephane Dion and Human Resources Minister Joe Volpe were walking around publicly endorsing Kerry.



What a charade Martin has going.



It's like the one he put on when, right to the last minute, he pretended to the Bush administration that Canada would join the U.S. missile defence shield, then at the last moment, switched positions.



It was a knife in the back to Bush.



The folly of Martin's tactics and hypocrisy is Canada benefits far more from its relationship with the U.S. than does the U.S.



The population and economy of California alone is larger than the entire population and economic weight of all Canada.



More than 83% of our exports go to the U.S. and 50% of all our jobs either directly or indirectly depend on those exports.



Those exports and jobs were safeguarded by Mulroney who convinced presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush to go against protectionist forces in the U.S. Congress.



Without this protection, we'd be an economic wasteland.



Yet, Martin is prepared to jeopardize these exports and jobs for his own ambition.



If Martin's Liberals are re-elected again, Canadians will pay for this dubious and underhanded behaviour.



Unlike in the Mulroney years, there'll be no favours given us.



Why should there be?





calsun.canoe.ca
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Is all of Canada captive to the whims of the U.S.? This article seems to indicate that. May be that is where Jason gets his views and his brown nose. Survival. It puts the "free world" lable into a different perspective.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,152
Reaction score
27
Location
BC
That's a poorly written piece by one who obviously poorly understands reality.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Econ101 said:
Is all of Canada captive to the whims of the U.S.? This article seems to indicate that. May be that is where Jason gets his views and his brown nose. Survival. It puts the "free world" lable into a different perspective.
I think the same thing when I read many of the posts from Econ, Sandhusker, Oldtimer and Haymaker. How did the US and it's gov't become so controlled by the corporations and big business. If we are to believe these posts there is nothing but corruption at USDA and in Washington. How did this happen in a democratic free world? From border regulations to trade, MID to the checkoff, there seems to be darn little that is being done right.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Bill said:
Econ101 said:
Is all of Canada captive to the whims of the U.S.? This article seems to indicate that. May be that is where Jason gets his views and his brown nose. Survival. It puts the "free world" lable into a different perspective.
I think the same thing when I read many of the posts from Econ, Sandhusker, Oldtimer and Haymaker. How did the US and it's gov't become so controlled by the corporations and big business. If we are to believe these posts there is nothing but corruption at USDA and in Washington. How did this happen in a democratic free world? From border regulations to trade, MID to the checkoff, there seems to be darn little that is being done right.

Bill are you really that naive,how this happened can be summed up with one word,ILL let you guess what that word is.
What is being done about it ,can be described just as simple. R CALF................good luck & Merry Xmas
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
HAY MAKER said:
Bill said:
Econ101 said:
Is all of Canada captive to the whims of the U.S.? This article seems to indicate that. May be that is where Jason gets his views and his brown nose. Survival. It puts the "free world" lable into a different perspective.
I think the same thing when I read many of the posts from Econ, Sandhusker, Oldtimer and Haymaker. How did the US and it's gov't become so controlled by the corporations and big business. If we are to believe these posts there is nothing but corruption at USDA and in Washington. How did this happen in a democratic free world? From border regulations to trade, MID to the checkoff, there seems to be darn little that is being done right.

Bill are you really that naive,how this happened can be summed up with one word,ILL let you guess what that word is.
What is being done about it ,can be described just as simple. R CALF................good luck & Merry Xmas
Once again you don't have an answer huh Haymaker? :lol: :lol:
 

cowsense

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,394
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Saskatchewan
Bill- We don't expect much out of Haymaker so don't be disappointed! :lol: However Econ has proven that the only thing that exceeds his own lack of knowledge about Canada is his absolute ignorance!!
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
cowsense said:
Bill- We don't expect much out of Haymaker so don't be disappointed! :lol: However Econ has proven that the only thing that exceeds his own lack of knowledge about Canada is his absolute ignorance!!

Cowsense, this was not my article. I didn't write it. I wanted to see the reaction to the article by some of you Canadians on the board. Here is the response I wrote prior to your post:

John McCain said as much last Sunday morning on national T.V. If you read the Wall Street, there are many sectors that have not been "infiltrated" by the lobbying interests. The FCC just made a fine of over 10 million dollars, Greenberg from the AIG insurance scam is out and in hot water, Diamand appraisers are getting in trouble over bribes, Delay is in election trouble...... The list goes on and on. Just because you are a democracy or a "Christian" does not mean you are not prone to the weaknesses of human nature. Good democracies have ways of dealing with these weaknesses. The USDA has failed at that time and time again.

We may have the "best" and most "successful" democracy in the world, but we are (Canada included) are not perfect. I point out the weaknesses so that we can work on the imperfections instead of resting on our laurels. That is the only way you get better, and stay better. It is not something to get depressed over, it is something to get better at. Democracies are messy and they require diligence to maintain.

I just wanted the reaction of the Canadians to see if the mood of this article was something you northerners had a problem with or not. A person's character is revealed when under duress.
 

greg

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
1,064
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
AND what did you think of our responce????Its like asking what do you think of this National Enquirer artical......find somthing better written and more reliable then ask
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
greg said:
AND what did you think of our responce????Its like asking what do you think of this National Enquirer artical......find somthing better written and more reliable then ask

Jury is still out.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
cowsense said:
Bill- We don't expect much out of Haymaker so don't be disappointed! :lol: However Econ has proven that the only thing that exceeds his own lack of knowledge about Canada is his absolute ignorance!!
Neither disappointed or surprised. :roll:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
cowsense said:
Bill- We don't expect much out of Haymaker so don't be disappointed! :lol: However Econ has proven that the only thing that exceeds his own lack of knowledge about Canada is his absolute ignorance!!

With few notable exceptions, I have heard little other than how bad R-Calf is or has been from Canadians. R-Calf blamers, you might say. Until the market power issues of this industry are recognized and confronted, Canadian producers, U.S. producers, and the taxation of the respective publics will continue to be handed over to giant agribusiness to all of their detriment. It is unfortunate that there are not more Canadians willing to take on tough issues to solve these problems and instead seek to be "blamers" as SH puts it.
 

PureCountry

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Messages
2,684
Reaction score
0
Location
Edgewood, BC, moving to Hardisty, AB
Econ, I certainly do not have the time or the will to get into it the way you an SH do from time to time, but I'll give my humble opinion of the 'state of the union' in agriculture. (Where's rkaiser when he could be of some use, eh?) I agree that more Canadians should do something. But Canadians in general are far too passive and find it very easy to go with the flow as long as their mortgage is paid and the groceries are on the table. Myself, I've a bit more of a redneck side when ya get me agitated. I write letters to my MLA, MP, Premier Klein and even the Prime Minister's office, usually one or two a month, depending on who ruffles my feathers. I always end them with, "...please do not reply with the same old 'Thank you for your concerns...'blah, blah, blah." But that's what I always get, and no real reaction or response to make me believe my voice fell on listening ears.

My point is, our government does little or nothing for grassroots agriculture producers. Our producer groups that supposedly represent us seem to do little for the sake of change in any direction, let alone a positive one. So, as far as I'm concerned, I'm lookin' out for number one. The 'market power' as you call it is so dominating here, it makes me sick. I refuse to sell through auction barns anymore, b/c I know where the majority of their sales go. The last thing I want is the reassurance that my calves are lining the pockets of Cargill or Tyson.

I've gotten involved with a niche market that sells Galloway and Highland beef to restaurants and hotels in Calgary. We've also got product in a meat shop there, and hopefully will open our own in the coming year. It's a premium for our product, and it's basically local. But the founder has always maintained one key point to keep in mind - if we get too big, the big boys will shut us down. They have the means and the resources to do it.

Your statement that more Canadians should be willing to take on tough issues to solve these problems, is a little bit of a dream to me though. If there was ever a statement that falls under the category of 'Easier Said than Done', you just said it. But yes, alot more should be done. But saying it, and coming up with resolutions or a plan, are two totally different things. Not every Canadian small family farm can do what we're doing, or sell boxed beef out of a reefer truck in the parking lots of gas stations. And since we in this country - and yours - have given almost all control to large corporations, including control over our figure-head governments, just what exactly should be our plan of attack?

I admittedly do not have ONE cure-all pill of an answer for you. But, I sure as hell will not go with the flow, keeping my mouth shut until I'm shovelled another scoop of this dictatorships' $h!t. I'll find ways to pay the bills without 'bail-out' aid packages, CAIS programs and such. We'll do whatever we can to make this ranch profitable, help others in our community be profitable, and whatever we can to make changes in our industry.

As for R-CALF, I believe they were just in their intent to fight for their own interests. But to criticize, insult and disrespect Canadian producers and what we do to better their own interests was just wrong.

I'll add too, that our 'Prime' Minister, is an absolute moron, maybe one generation from walking upright, for insulting YOUR government and doing more to erode the relationship between us. Western Separation looks better all the time.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Econ101 said:
cowsense said:
Bill- We don't expect much out of Haymaker so don't be disappointed! :lol: However Econ has proven that the only thing that exceeds his own lack of knowledge about Canada is his absolute ignorance!!

With few notable exceptions, I have heard little other than how bad R-Calf is or has been from Canadians. R-Calf blamers, you might say. Until the market power issues of this industry are recognized and confronted, Canadian producers, U.S. producers, and the taxation of the respective publics will continue to be handed over to giant agribusiness to all of their detriment. It is unfortunate that there are not more Canadians willing to take on tough issues to solve these problems and instead seek to be "blamers" as SH puts it.
Care to give us tips on what us blamers from Canada should be doing? After survivng a 2 year drought, followed by BSE with an August killer thrown in the mix, many of us could sure use some advice from an expert on how to handle the tough issues.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
PureCountry said:
Econ, I certainly do not have the time or the will to get into it the way you an SH do from time to time, but I'll give my humble opinion of the 'state of the union' in agriculture. (Where's rkaiser when he could be of some use, eh?) I agree that more Canadians should do something. But Canadians in general are far too passive and find it very easy to go with the flow as long as their mortgage is paid and the groceries are on the table. Myself, I've a bit more of a redneck side when ya get me agitated. I write letters to my MLA, MP, Premier Klein and even the Prime Minister's office, usually one or two a month, depending on who ruffles my feathers. I always end them with, "...please do not reply with the same old 'Thank you for your concerns...'blah, blah, blah." But that's what I always get, and no real reaction or response to make me believe my voice fell on listening ears.

My point is, our government does little or nothing for grassroots agriculture producers. Our producer groups that supposedly represent us seem to do little for the sake of change in any direction, let alone a positive one. So, as far as I'm concerned, I'm lookin' out for number one. The 'market power' as you call it is so dominating here, it makes me sick. I refuse to sell through auction barns anymore, b/c I know where the majority of their sales go. The last thing I want is the reassurance that my calves are lining the pockets of Cargill or Tyson.

I've gotten involved with a niche market that sells Galloway and Highland beef to restaurants and hotels in Calgary. We've also got product in a meat shop there, and hopefully will open our own in the coming year. It's a premium for our product, and it's basically local. But the founder has always maintained one key point to keep in mind - if we get too big, the big boys will shut us down. They have the means and the resources to do it.

Your statement that more Canadians should be willing to take on tough issues to solve these problems, is a little bit of a dream to me though. If there was ever a statement that falls under the category of 'Easier Said than Done', you just said it. But yes, alot more should be done. But saying it, and coming up with resolutions or a plan, are two totally different things. Not every Canadian small family farm can do what we're doing, or sell boxed beef out of a reefer truck in the parking lots of gas stations. And since we in this country - and yours - have given almost all control to large corporations, including control over our figure-head governments, just what exactly should be our plan of attack?

I admittedly do not have ONE cure-all pill of an answer for you. But, I sure as hell will not go with the flow, keeping my mouth shut until I'm shovelled another scoop of this dictatorships' $h!t. I'll find ways to pay the bills without 'bail-out' aid packages, CAIS programs and such. We'll do whatever we can to make this ranch profitable, help others in our community be profitable, and whatever we can to make changes in our industry.

As for R-CALF, I believe they were just in their intent to fight for their own interests. But to criticize, insult and disrespect Canadian producers and what we do to better their own interests was just wrong.

I'll add too, that our 'Prime' Minister, is an absolute moron, maybe one generation from walking upright, for insulting YOUR government and doing more to erode the relationship between us. Western Separation looks better all the time.

Well said, Pure Country. I appreciate your post. At least you are actively doing something for change. The governments of both of our countries have served their own interests rather than the people. When we have people like Tysons and Cargill along with their little support group and spineless politicians, we have all lost a little bit of our freedom. I do understand the tight squeeze that producers are in, both in this country and yours.

I don't criticize everyone, just the ones who roll over and smile as they are slowly getting raped out of their hard won freedoms. As a person who has many relatives in the military that sacrifice a lot for that freedom, it just rubs me wrong that we can not have a better country for them to fight for.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
PureCountry, I think the private beef to the consumer thing is great.

However the don't get too big or the big players will shut you down is far fetched.

How can they if you own the cattle, process them legally and satisfy your customers?

To "shut you down" would take the same or better quality at a lower price. If you are selling commodity beef at premium prices there is concern, however Randy has said what some of those critters are grading at and they are above average.

What you are part of is vertical intragation. The same thing R-calf is afraid of, the same thing Conman says is killing the chicken producers (but at the same time they are gaining market share so more are needed).

The concept you are following is what SH has been a proponet of since he started here on Ranchers. Keep the cattle keep control. He just points out packers aren't making obscene profits at our expense. They are part of the chain necessary to sell all the beef we raise. The more quality we can breed, feed or manage into the beef chain is good for everyone. It makes consumers happier with the end product and a happy customer is a repeat customer.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
PureCountry, I think the private beef to the consumer thing is great.

However the don't get too big or the big players will shut you down is far fetched.

How can they if you own the cattle, process them legally and satisfy your customers?

To "shut you down" would take the same or better quality at a lower price. If you are selling commodity beef at premium prices there is concern, however Randy has said what some of those critters are grading at and they are above average.

What you are part of is vertical intragation. The same thing R-calf is afraid of, the same thing Conman says is killing the chicken producers (but at the same time they are gaining market share so more are needed).

The concept you are following is what SH has been a proponet of since he started here on Ranchers. Keep the cattle keep control. He just points out packers aren't making obscene profits at our expense. They are part of the chain necessary to sell all the beef we raise. The more quality we can breed, feed or manage into the beef chain is good for everyone. It makes consumers happier with the end product and a happy customer is a repeat customer.

Jason, vertical integration has done nothing to increase the profitability for the farmer. It has dramatically increased the profitability of packers (PSA defines poultry dealers same as packers). The market abuses in poultry (go read the London case for social justice being crushed) have only led to decreases in the profitability of poultry farmers and increased control by poultry companies. Instead of farming the poultry, poultry dealers farm the farmer. This will happen to the beef industry if current trends are allowed to play out and market power is not checked. All increased profitability will be captured by the packers. Trade the short term gain of contracts and marketing agreements for the loss of long term profitability. It is as simple as that.

Again, gaining market share of chicken over beef has only increased the profitability for packers at the expense of the farmers who have approximately half of the capital invested and more and more of the market risk placed on them.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,051
Reaction score
129
Location
Big Muddy valley
Econ101 said:
Jason said:
PureCountry, I think the private beef to the consumer thing is great.

However the don't get too big or the big players will shut you down is far fetched.

How can they if you own the cattle, process them legally and satisfy your customers?

To "shut you down" would take the same or better quality at a lower price. If you are selling commodity beef at premium prices there is concern, however Randy has said what some of those critters are grading at and they are above average.

What you are part of is vertical intragation. The same thing R-calf is afraid of, the same thing Conman says is killing the chicken producers (but at the same time they are gaining market share so more are needed).

The concept you are following is what SH has been a proponet of since he started here on Ranchers. Keep the cattle keep control. He just points out packers aren't making obscene profits at our expense. They are part of the chain necessary to sell all the beef we raise. The more quality we can breed, feed or manage into the beef chain is good for everyone. It makes consumers happier with the end product and a happy customer is a repeat customer.

Jason, vertical integration has done nothing to increase the profitability for the farmer. It has dramatically increased the profitability of packers (PSA defines poultry dealers same as packers). The market abuses in poultry (go read the London case for social justice being crushed) have only led to decreases in the profitability of poultry farmers and increased control by poultry companies. Instead of farming the poultry, poultry dealers farm the farmer. This will happen to the beef industry if current trends are allowed to play out and market power is not checked. All increased profitability will be captured by the packers. Trade the short term gain of contracts and marketing agreements for the loss of long term profitability. It is as simple as that.

Again, gaining market share of chicken over beef has only increased the profitability for packers at the expense of the farmers who have approximately half of the capital invested and more and more of the market risk placed on them.


So your telling us that people like Pure country, R kaiser and Robert mac are part of the problem not the solution?
 

Latest posts

Top