There’s an extreme
level of frustration among Ontario corn producers this spring, and justifiably
so. For months, we’ve been arguing the case for additional public support
to counter the injury created by U.S. grain and oilseed subsidies. We’ve
presented strong arguments backed by solid statistics and analyses to back our
case. We have a serious financial crisis not shared by most other farm sectors,
and caused, to a dominant extent, by U.S. grain and oilseed subsidies. It is not
caused by inefficiency. And if not resolved, it will kill major investment plans
in Ontario beyond the farm gate - indeed, investment in the very same ‘bio-science’
industries that governments claim they want to encourage.
Corn producers have even shown how governments can address their needs for the
near-term (2001/02 crop marketing year), without allocating new budgetary funds
in 2002/03 fiscal years - thus respecting the concerns of governments over near-term,
near-recession-induced budgetary concerns, and the desire/need to develop a new
framework for safety net programs, nationally and provincially, for the longer
term.
We’ve met MPs and MPPs in countless meetings. We’ve met cabinet minister
after cabinet minister - presenting reasoned ‘business cases’ to support
our arguments for additional support. We’ve organized peaceful demonstrations.
We’ve written letters, letters and more letters. And we’ve had the support
of many backbench Members of Parliament in both Ottawa and Queen’s Park.
But we have not nearly enough to show for our efforts: an extension of the inadequate
85% MRI program for one, and a one-time ad hoc payment from both Ottawa and Queen’s
Park, nearly one year ago. There may be a little more to follow this summer, but
not nearly enough to do the job.
The frustration is boiling over, and it will get worse.
There’s a danger that, in their frustration, farmers will shoot randomly,
and target their allies and customers rather than those who are mostly responsible
for the impasse - cabinet ministers at both the federal and provincial levels.
Staff members and directors alike are growing weary from working their butts off
trying to fight for improvements with all of their energies and abilities - and
then facing hours of angry recrimination from some equally frustrated farmer members
(often the same ones who call repeatedly) for “not doing anything”.
For the first time this winter, we had a regional meeting with no one willing
to serve as director. The stated reason: “I don’t want the hassle and
aggravation.”
There is a tendency to shoot at backbencher MPs and MPPs who are working equally
hard. Sure some aren’t doing much, but others are. It’s frustrating
that the reward is often criticism rather than appreciation, even if the thanks
can only be delivered with less than full enthusiasm because of the lack of progress.
Remember, it’s the cabinet ministers who make the real decisions. Repeat:
the cabinet ministers.
We’re seeing a growing desire to attack customers, through threats to impose
a duty on imports. Any short-term gain from higher prices - and that’s debatable
- could be far more than offset by long-term losses in domestic markets. Millions
of weaner pigs are already going south because (subsidized) grain prices are even
cheaper there. Casco is struggling to make a go of it facing a North American
glut of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), low world sugar prices, and predatory
pricing by U.S. processors seeking new Canadian market outlets. (It was far different
in 1986-1991, the time of the last countervailing duty on U.S. corn, when there
was a huge draw for Canadian-produced HFCS into the U.S., and Canadian processors
could get all duties refunded on imported corn by selling the finished product
south.) Expansion of Canadian fuel ethanol production is being held up, we have
recently learned from manufacturers, because of an equivalent imbalance between
Canadian and U.S. government supports. All would fight a countervailing duty threat
from OCPA. A war with our customers.
A countervailing duty action could chew up an estimated $500,000 to $1,000,000
in OCPA resources, with an uncertain chance of success. (The trade action in 1986-1991
only succeeded as a result of a series - four, to be precise - of 2:1 favourable
votes by various judicial bodies in Canada, and it was ultimately defeated by
a global GATT panel decision; it would be even tougher a second time.)
And does it make sense to concentrate limited resources in court rooms fighting
with our customers (who will be the main adversaries in any potential countervailing
duty action), rather than in Ottawa and Queen’s Park where the real problems
lie? (Remember that the U.S. is not doing anything outside its rights under the
1994 World Trade Agreement, which was signed by the current Government of Canada.)
So remember, as you dig out your blunderbuss to raise hell with those responsible
for your present economic plight – it’s the cabinet ministers. If your
MP or MPP has the title, “The Honourable” it’s open season.