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

mCOOL costs

The only way beef can be imported to Canada at 50 cents a pound is if it is already being imported into the U.S. at 50 cents a pound. This is one other reason why you (aka R-Calf) has really missed the boat by alienating the one :!: group of cattlemen in the world who's interests depend as much as yours do on protecting North Americafrom cheap imports.

We could have and would have helped you out 100%, but we haven't been given much reason to do so, have we. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
Canadian Trade Agreements Fact Sheet

Updated October, 2004

A. World Trade Organization (WTO)

The WTO is the international organization that deals with the global rules of trade between nations. As a member of the WTO, Canada has certain obligations, one of those obligations, called tariff rate quotas, is to accept negotiated quantities of other WTO nations' export commodities, including beef. If Canada were to ignore its WTO obligations on imports of beef, we would lose our membership in the WTO resulting in a serious impact on our ability to trade.

Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ)

Canada is required to accept 76,409 tonnes of beef each year (January- January) without tariffs (duties) from countries that are members of the WTO, excluding countries that are covered by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). These imports come mainly from New Zealand , Australia and some South American countries. The price of beef imported under TRQ cannot be lower than product of an equivalent type being imported into the U.S.

TRQ Process

Firms that intend to import beef from non-NAFTA countries apply to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade for TRQ import certificates

B. Canadian Supplementary Import Permit

Import Permits (above and beyond Canada 's WTO TRQ commitment)
Once the TRQ for a particular firm has been substantially filled (80%), the firm may apply for a supplemental import permit so that they may import additional beef tariff-free from non-NAFTA countries provided it is not priced below the US price for equivalent products. Canada does not have a WTO obligation to permit this additional access above the TRQ.

Supplemental Import Permit Process

Supplemental certificates are issued at the discretion of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Supplemental TRQ is not allowed if a firm can purchase Canadian product of an equivalent type at an equivalent price. The reason supplemental TRQ is issued is because Canadian firms that use TRQ beef have successfully argued that to be competitive with US firms they need access to this beef which is generally low-priced and lean.

Current Situation

From July 18, 2003 to April 22, 2004 no applications for supplemental imports were accepted by the federal government. However, Canadian processors successfully argued for reinstatement of the supplementary import process. On April 22, 2004 the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture announced that supplemental TRQ would again be issued to those processors that can show a need and can prove the product cannot be accessed within Canada at competitive prices. However, the current process for authorizing supplementary import permits is much more restrictive than the process that existed prior to July 18, 2003. Only under very restrictive circumstances will supplementary import permits be considered. Only one permit (0.457 metric tonnes) has been authorized since July 18, 2003.
C. North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

In January 1994, Canada , the United States and Mexico launched the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and formed the world's largest free trade area. Following a final tariff reduction between Canada and Mexico, which took effect on January 1, 2003, virtually all trade in the NAFTA region has flowed tariff-free. Prior to May 20, 2003 beef and live cattle had traded duty-free.

The NAFTA agreement has a unique provision within Chapter 11- Investment that allows an individual investor to initiate action themselves challenging a restriction imposed by one country against another. Restrictions against trade within NAFTA are limited to those that fall within health, sanitary and other safety requirements.
 
In one door (southern border)--Its now been imported to the States-- out the other door (northern border) next day.....
 
OT are you starting to get the picture? We were willing to stand united as north american cattle producers and eliminate BSE but then your little group wanted to put a knife in the back of the canadian cattleman and now you think we should work together. I am sure that will go over well up here. Keep alienating others and see where it gets you. Oh wait , it is that kind of thing that got you guys in trouble but blame canada again i am sure it will make you feel good but that is all it will do. As i write this soft wood lumber is sitting idle and could be used to help the unforunate people of the southern US but that would mean the US lumber producers wouldn't be able to take advantage of the most vulnerable. The same thing has happened with beef but r-calf helped the greedy packers and are r-calf is calling for help all i can say is r-calf has made the bed now the US cattleman has to pay the price . Good job guys. Maybe one day you will realize just how your short sighted thinking hurt every US cattleman. Maybe one day you you will get it. but i won't hold my breath.
 
QUESTION said:
OT are you starting to get the picture? We were willing to stand united as north american cattle producers and eliminate BSE but then your little group wanted to put a knife in the back of the canadian cattleman and now you think we should work together. I am sure that will go over well up here. Keep alienating others and see where it gets you. Oh wait , it is that kind of thing that got you guys in trouble but blame canada again i am sure it will make you feel good but that is all it will do. As i write this soft wood lumber is sitting idle and could be used to help the unforunate people of the southern US but that would mean the US lumber producers wouldn't be able to take advantage of the most vulnerable. The same thing has happened with beef but r-calf helped the greedy packers and are r-calf is calling for help all i can say is r-calf has made the bed now the US cattleman has to pay the price . Good job guys. Maybe one day you will realize just how your short sighted thinking hurt every US cattleman. Maybe one day you you will get it. but i won't hold my breath.

R-CALF hasn't helped the packers in any way - you're thinking of NCBA. R-CALF has been on the opposite of the fence of the packers on just about every issue.
 
It doesn't matter where cheap beef comes into the North American market and it really doesn't matter where it comes from...the effect will be the same. If South American beef "only" comes into the southern USA, the supply effect will roll like a wave in a pond...up through the mid-west, to the northern states, and into Canada.
Supplies will increase, fed cattle will get backed up (increasing weight, therefore adding more to supply) , demand for feeders will decrease, demand for cattle and the price of live cattle will crash.

Sound familiar?

Kato, you should study your own quote.
 
76,000 tonnes is a lot different than the USA importing 3.28 Billlion pounds of beef..... if we could only limit our imports to 76000 tonnes (and I forget what your ton weighs as a USA ton is only 2000 lbs) .
 
What I'm getting at is that we have an opportunity to work on this together, rather than spending time and resources scrapping with each other. Cheap South American beef will hurt all of us. We all agree on that. So why are we ignoring it? Tunnel vision on the part of a certain group of vocal _______ (fill in the blanks according to which side of the fence you're on :wink: ) insisting on calling singular attention to Canadian imports, when the real problem is lining up to come in from the south.

I have a pretty good idea that the nitpickers at the CFIA will not be happy with the FMD potential in South American beef. If you guys aren't happy with the USDA, then get these guys on board. :!:

A couple of weeks ago a load of pigs was sent to a plant in the U.S. that turned out to have some sort of virus that had symptoms resembling FMD. They were quarantined until they could run lab work and confirm it was nothing serious, but in the meantime it caused quite a fuss up here. It's got the CFIA in no mood to mess around with anything that could allow it to really happen.

People here were forced to address the scenarios that would take place if such a disease ever did get into either of our countries, and it was :shock: :shock: not a pretty picture! :shock: :shock: :shock: They had visions of putting newborn piglets through wood chippers because that would be the only way to handle how many would have to be euthanized. They also said that the borders would be closed both ways to cattle, sheep, pigs, and all their meat products, so slaughtering them wouldn't even help because there is no where to send the meat. This would be a disaster that would put the BSE crisis in the small leagues in comparison.

I would think that there is pressure going on behind the scenes right now between the CFIA and USDA that we are not aware of. If you did go ahead and import from a FMD country, the boys at the CFIA would likely be putting pressure to close the border to American beef. If they aren't, then they should be. Unlike your USDA, the livestock industry also gets listened to by the CFIA a bit better, so if you do start importing potentially infected beef, our cattle organizations will be putting pressure on as well. We can't afford another disaster.

Our government is a lot smaller than yours, and has less resources, and I doubt they are willing to accept the social costs of such a disaster. They've run the numbers, and they know the consequences.
 
There cannot be a liasion between Canadian beef and USA beef as we would be allowing one country benefits not allowed to other countries and would probably cause all kinds of repercussions.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the American People are not responsible to make sure other countries prosper. We're tired of it, and the handouts our government gives away to other countries. This is the majority of the American people's thinking.

While I do not want to see any Canadian producer go under, I also do not want to see my OWN American farmers go out of business because we can't compete with this "cheap" global trade. We have to take care of our own Americans first and foremost.
 
Kato said:
What I'm getting at is that we have an opportunity to work on this together, rather than spending time and resources scrapping with each other. Cheap South American beef will hurt all of us. We all agree on that. So why are we ignoring it? Tunnel vision on the part of a certain group of vocal _______ (fill in the blanks according to which side of the fence you're on :wink: ) insisting on calling singular attention to Canadian imports, when the real problem is lining up to come in from the south.

.

You must of missed a post of Bens;
"Sandhusker ask this question on a previous thread. "What are you going to do, or wish you had done, when the packers can get all the beef they want from Brazil?" After I thought about his question, why should I answer his question! What I say and do has no impact, so I ask that very same question this morning, of those that represent the cattle producers, of this country. I called the NCBA first, their answer was " the NCBA supports free trade" I knew that, but I called and ask anyway. Then I called R-CALF, they have a three step solution, COOL, Trade Agreement Reform and Country Of Origin Reform. I knew that also, but called anyway. "

Consider that and how either organization stood on CAFTA and it looks to me that it's NCBA that has their heads up their arses with South America.

R-CALF is calling attention to Canadian imports because, on and prior to May 22, 2003, the USDA was telling us it was dangerous to trade with BSE positive countries and they wouldn't let us do it. All of a sudden, they changed their minds and have no logical explaination. You R-CALF bashers are in denial on the real reason the border was reopened. Because you profit from it, you're supporting a government agency selling out producers for the profits of big business. That makes me wonder why I should join with you on any trade venture as we obviously have different opinions on the priorities of goverment.
 
MoGal said:
There cannot be a liasion between Canadian beef and USA beef as we would be allowing one country benefits not allowed to other countries and would probably cause all kinds of repercussions.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the American People are not responsible to make sure other countries prosper. We're tired of it, and the handouts our government gives away to other countries. This is the majority of the American people's thinking.

While I do not want to see any Canadian producer go under, I also do not want to see my OWN American farmers go out of business because we can't compete with this "cheap" global trade. We have to take care of our own Americans first and foremost.

Psssssst!!!!!!! MoGal!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's a little secret for you. Don't tell anyone else though.

There is a liason between American and Canadian beef and it started back the 1800's when cattle were trailed freely back and forth across this imaginary line.

Next came Ronnie Reagan, American President and some argue one of the best ever that brought in CUSTA, Canada/US Trade Agreement, (I am sure some of y'all are still offended that Canada is listed ahead of the US in the acronym). This of course led to NAFTA and has greatly benefitted the US especially its energy needs.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the American People are not responsible to make sure other countries prosper.

Don't ever think that the US hasn't benefitted as well.
 
MoGal said:
There cannot be a liasion between Canadian beef and USA beef as we would be allowing one country benefits not allowed to other countries and would probably cause all kinds of repercussions.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the American People are not responsible to make sure other countries prosper. We're tired of it, and the handouts our government gives away to other countries. This is the majority of the American people's thinking.

While I do not want to see any Canadian producer go under, I also do not want to see my OWN American farmers go out of business because we can't compete with this "cheap" global trade. We have to take care of our own Americans first and foremost.

MoGal, you present an interesting viewpoint. Not to mention that it is a complete paradox to the interests of the exporting segment of your industry.

Last year, the Ontario Corn Producers asked that a tariff be applied to all U.S. corn coming into Ontario. Because of the heavy subsidization of the American corn crop, we cannot compete with the landed price paid by our endusers. (An effort which we lost.)

Therefore, given your great sensitivity to the plight of farmers hurt by the import of cheap, foreign product, I can only assume that you would like to see North-bound trade cease as well!

Or maybe not?
 
MLA, "This of course led to NAFTA and has greatly benefitted the US especially its energy needs."

You call going from a trade surplus to a trade deficit a great benefit? :lol: What about the promise of stemming the tide of wetbacks who would be staying home because of all the jobs NAFTA was going to create down there? Boy, that NAFTA was the best dang thing we ever signed! :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Sandhusker said:
MLA, "This of course led to NAFTA and has greatly benefitted the US especially its energy needs."

You call going from a trade surplus to a trade deficit a great benefit? :lol: What about the promise of stemming the tide of wetbacks who would be staying home because of all the jobs NAFTA was going to create down there? Boy, that NAFTA was the best dang thing we ever signed! :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Don't thank us, thank Ronnie.

A lot of Canadians would like to see what would happen if some of the pipelines running from Canada into the US had to be shut down for 3 or 4 months for some "maintanance". It wouldn't take long for some Americans to get over their "we don't need the rest of the world" attitude.
 
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
MLA, "This of course led to NAFTA and has greatly benefitted the US especially its energy needs."

You call going from a trade surplus to a trade deficit a great benefit? :lol: What about the promise of stemming the tide of wetbacks who would be staying home because of all the jobs NAFTA was going to create down there? Boy, that NAFTA was the best dang thing we ever signed! :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Don't thank us, thank Ronnie.

A lot of Canadians would like to see what would happen if some of the pipelines running from Canada into the US had to be shut down for 3 or 4 months for some "maintanance". It wouldn't take long for some Americans to get over their "we don't need the rest of the world" attitude.

Don't worry Bill-- won't be long and neither one of us will have anything to say in the decision-- it will be the CEO of the North American Union, chosen by their elite group, telling us when and if we can/can't do anything...

And that isn't Canadian oil-- its NAU oil.......
 
Salaries and wages now represent the lowest share of our national income than any time since 1929. Corporate profits have the largest share of our national income than at any time since 1950.

Comes from this link:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/28/dobbs.testimony/index.html

[quote) Not to mention that it is a complete paradox to the interests of the exporting segment of your industry. [/quote]

Sorry, the quote won't let me put it at the top of the page. So see the post above it. Corporate America is greedy and is only interested in themselves, not this country
 
Bill, "A lot of Canadians would like to see what would happen if some of the pipelines running from Canada into the US had to be shut down for 3 or 4 months for some "maintanance". It wouldn't take long for some Americans to get over their "we don't need the rest of the world" attitude"

Jeeze, Bill, we quit taking your beef for a few months and you were squealing like a hog in a gate, now you're advocating us not taking your oil? Are you forgetting that we pay you for that oil? Maybe you should just go ahead and turn off the spigot and we'll see who's wallet goes flat first.
 
Sandhusker said:
Bill, "A lot of Canadians would like to see what would happen if some of the pipelines running from Canada into the US had to be shut down for 3 or 4 months for some "maintanance". It wouldn't take long for some Americans to get over their "we don't need the rest of the world" attitude"

Jeeze, Bill, we quit taking your beef for a few months and you were squealing like a hog in a gate, now you're advocating us not taking your oil? Are you forgetting that we pay you for that oil? Maybe you should just go ahead and turn off the spigot and we'll see who's wallet goes flat first.


Hey Sadhusker, you better adjust your ears! That squealing ain't coming from Canada it must be an echo coming from yourself and the other R-Klowns from Billings. You been squealing and whining about Canadian cattle or beef which started pre-BSE and hasn't stopped.

Americans not taking oil? That's hilarious! YOU pay us for that oil? Now all of a sudden you're on the side of big business? :roll: Why is it that you claim YOU pay us for that oil but it's BIG business that steals our cattle and dump them into YOUR market? :shock:

You really ought to get a TV for the bank then you can be jes like Boss Hogg and get the girls to turn it on the next time there is talk of violence breaking out over fuel rationing or power outage. Remember the eastern states 2003 when they were blaming Canada for a power outage that was caused by a fault within the US grid?

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/08/14/power.outage/

Talk about squealing! :roll: Canadians and terrorists and everything imaginable were blamed! That was the first time I heard the term the Excited States used and it sure fit.
:lol: :lol:

Like I said shut 'er off for a few months and see what happens!
 
Maple Leaf Angus said:
Sandhusker said:
MLA, "This of course led to NAFTA and has greatly benefitted the US especially its energy needs."

Perhaps your eyesight matches your comprehension. That was not my statement.

I stand corrected and apologize - I wouldn't want any of that blather attributed to me, either. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
MoGal said:
Corporate America is greedy and is only interested in themselves, not this country

I get a charge out of people who simply cannot look past their own industry when we're talking about trade. MoGal, do you have any idea how many jobs in America rely on trade with Canada? Thats NORTHBOUND trade. Perhaps you should look it up. Chances are pretty good that the people who are buying YOUR beef are spending NAFTA bucks.

Just think about it for a minute. The last stronghold of Detroit iron is Canada. We buy YOUR trucks, and while US buyers are lapping up Toyotas and Nissans, those trucks can't make headway up here at all. Ditto electronics. We consume billions of dollars in American electronics each year. And lets not forget oil/gas. NAFTA effectively killed our own refining efforts up here, and now we send our oil to you guys.

Do you honestly believe that none of those dollars end up in your pocket? :roll:

I've long been an advocate of completely open and free trade between our two countries. Why? Because I actually have an understanding of the needs of BOTH our countries. You need natural resources, and lots of them. We got em. We need industrial might. You got it. Instead of bickering and squabbling over crumbs, we should be trying utilize the strengths of each of our respective countries.

Rod
 

Latest posts

Back
Top