The Rural Voice, 1996-01, Page 34lose more than $18 billion in
revenues over five years, but
consumers would see little or no
reduction in their grocery costs.
Maaskant doesn't accept the
assumption that import tariffs
will eventually be negotiated
down to zero. "I don't
believe that's necessarily so. I don't
believe we should ever consider it
without a fight, or without getting
something in return, because Europe
and the U.S. don't and probably
won't in some areas. Completely free
trade, I don't believe, will ever
happen in Europe and the U.S."
Maaskant feels people who see
glories of free trade are being naive.
"We have to remind the idealists that
when the major trade players talk
about free trade they talk about the
freedom to export anywhere they
want. They don't talk about access
(to their markets). In Europe they talk
about free trade even today, but they
do not talk about increasing access.
The aggregate access in meat to the
European Union is .5 per cent.
Canada's access on chicken is 7.5 per
cent. In essence we are already freer
traders in meat by far than both the
U.S. and Europe. I don't know why
we have to seriously talk about
opening borders. We are already
much freer traders."
While the U.S. talks about free
trade, the number of challenges made
against Canadian hog imports shows
there is little interest in true free
trade, Maaskant says. In chicken,
Brazil and Thailand are lower cost
producers than the U.S. but no
chicken from those countries is
allowed into the U.S. because of
health standards. That chicken,
however, meets the higher health
standards of Europe.
"If we all buy the ideology and
give up and agree to go down easily
then we'll have free trade but they
won't — you can count on it.
Because as soon as we threaten them
they'll lobby and they'll do
something against it." The hog
countervail and the constant
harassment on wheat and lumber
show that the U.S. hasn't really
changed its way of operating, he
says.
"If we were to go to zero, there
has to he a big change in the U.S.
industry before we can go toe -to -toe
30 THE RURAL VOICE
with them."
The marketing boards must
continue to remind governments that
the U.S. chicken production system,
dominated by large integrated
operations, is built on exploiting
farmers, Maaskant says. "They may
be able to produce cheaply only
because they pay their farmers
nothing."
In the 1960s Canadian chicken
producers organized their board to
hold off the move to vertical
integration. U.S. producers embraced
it. But the system which first offered
fair contracts to producers, now has
turned into one where farmers have
few controls and get little
compensation for their investment of
capital and labour. Belatedly some
U.S. producers have tried to organize
and the Ontario board has been
working with them. Maaskant says
he has high hopes they may be able
to win the battle to at least be able to
bargain collectively on behalf of
producers. "It's a huge battle for
them. They have a terrible situation
to deal with."
This exploitation of farmers is the
feet of clay of the U.S. chicken
The exploitation of farmers
is the feet of clay
of the American system.
system, he says. If it should fall
apart, Canadian producers may be
able to compete with imported U.S.
chicken.
Like free trade, the inevitability of
a move to "big" agriculture is part of
the accepted wisdom of Canadian
agriculture today, he says, but he
wonders if it is necessarily so. "Not
only do they usually exploit farmers,
but they also exploit the
environment. I really don't think that
is sustainable. I know that in the U.S.
the big corporate farms aren't
profitable compared to contract
farming. But it can do a lot of
damage while it's proving that to us."
The U.S. chicken producing sector
is so huge, (16 times bigger than
Canada's), that Canadian producers
wouldn't stand a chance without
protection even if price was no
object, he says. "It's a fantasy to
think we can compete in an open
border. I don't think open borders are
a reality, it's an ideology. Freer
managed trade is happening in
certain areas, but the major players
always protect themselves."
The most recent U.S. Farm Bill
still contains protection for the U.S.
sugar and peanut industries, he says.
The bill also has not decreased the
Export Enhancement Program.
"That's another indication that they
still are focussed on unfair trade. No
matter what they do in terms of less
subsidies to farmers, they're still
going to make sure that industry has
access to government funding to
exports." And it is industry, not the
ordinary farmer who gains by the
EEP, he says.
The Chicken Board is also trying
to get the message across to
consumers that, in general, the
Canadian production system for
chicken is better, from production to
meat inspection to processing.
"Quality control all the way through
is better."
Unfortunately, getting the quality
argument across is difficult and
sometimes doesn't matter to the
consumer, he says. "Sometimes price
is all that matters to some people.
The kind of low standards they
would never allow us to use, they
will ignore to buy cheaper product
from the States, just because it's
cheaper." It is similar to the demands
of European consumers who want all
kinds of environmental and animal
rights regulations met by their
farmers, but then buy cheap imports
from countries that don't have to
meet those standards. "There's a
double standard there that we have to
address. I know that's part of the next
round of GATT talks. The Europeans
keep bringing that up as an issue."
Still, surveys show Canadian
chicken gets high marks from
consumers, Maaskant says.
Likewise, world wide chicken
consumption continues to grow.
There is incredible growth in parts of
the world like Asia. In parts of
Europe that were traditionally low in
consumption, use is increasing.
So despite the cloud of the
NAFTA hearing, indications arc that
the chicken business in Ontario
should continue to grow, and meeting
the challenge of consumer demand
will continue to be the issue for the
Ontario Chicken Producers'
Marketing Board and leaders like
Maaskant.0