Canada-EU free trade pact to cost us

[FengGao]

Canada-EU free trade pact to cost up to 150,000 jobs: Report

The pact is nothing to do with jobs or consumer prices. It only takes care profits for big multinational companies. For example, without subsidies our food will much cheaper, because the propose of subsidies for farmer is to hold and rise our food price.

[punked]

Canada-EU free trade pact to cost up to 150,000 jobs: Report

The pact is nothing to do with jobs or consumer prices. It only takes care profits for big multinational companies. For example, without subsidies our food will much cheaper, because the propose of subsidies for farmer is to hold and rise our food price.

Well the second part of your post isn't right however our food might be more healthy with out subsidies.

[Topaz]

One would think Harper wouldn't want to peeve-off any more groups within Canada but here he is again and this time its the farmer's. The Canada-EU trade pact, is showing for the farmers that it isn't a "free" trade. http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/canada-economy.6o2

[Topaz]

The government is saying that thre wouldn't be jobs losses but gains, yeah, right! Van Loan, says just like the NAFTP, it increased countries economies. I say, to the minister, you don't have to worry your job heading to Mexico but Canadians in the maufacturing sector did/do! All this government does is support foreign companies that come into Canada take what they want then leave the workers on welfare! http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iOC20o91GsndSfyniISfGtq8yMOA?docId=CNG.f8d6dcdf2470cc008581e945560bb3e1.ba1

[Bonam]

Farmer's need subsidies, because otherwise the food could be produced much more cheaply in the third world. But outsourcing all our food production to the third world would be deadly dangerous, since any disruption of trade (for whatever reason) would leave us to starve within days/weeks.

[dre]

Farmer's need subsidies, because otherwise the food could be produced much more cheaply in the third world. But outsourcing all our food production to the third world would be deadly dangerous, since any disruption of trade (for whatever reason) would leave us to starve within days/weeks.

HOLD ON A SEC HERE. We could prevent our market being overrun by third world farmers and avoid the "deadly dangerousness" without giving farmers a dime, just by blocking or taxing those importants.

But our subsidies are designed to do much more than that. They are designed to allow us to do exactly what youre worried about the third world doing to US... to THEM.

[Machjo]

Farmer's need subsidies, because otherwise the food could be produced much more cheaply in the third world. But outsourcing all our food production to the third world would be deadly dangerous, since any disruption of trade (for whatever reason) would leave us to starve within days/weeks.

Simple solution. Shift our taxes to a resource tax and lower income tax. As a result, we can afford lower salaries, yet transportation costs go up. That way, locally produced food has an advantage over foreign imports. Unlike tariffs though, since it applies both ways (i.e. it also makes our exports more expensive too), it can be argued to be fair and non-competitive and thus avoids trade wards while still promoting local production to a degree.

[dre]

Simple solution. Shift our taxes to a resource tax and lower income tax. As a result, we can afford lower salaries, yet transportation costs go up. That way, locally produced food has an advantage over foreign imports. Unlike tariffs though, since it applies both ways (i.e. it also makes our exports more expensive too), it can be argued to be fair and non-competitive and thus avoids trade wards while still promoting local production to a degree.

Or even much simpler solution... dont let these goods get dumped into our market. Put an excise tax on the imports themselves.

[Bonam]

HOLD ON A SEC HERE. We could prevent our market being overrun by third world farmers and avoid the "deadly dangerousness" without giving farmers a dime, just by blocking or taxing those importants.

But our subsidies are designed to do much more than that. They are designed to allow us to do exactly what youre worried about the third world doing to US... to THEM.

So you want to block/tax food imports? Well, what about food imports from the US? They have farm subsidies, far more massive in scale than we do. In fact, the US is the world's largest exporter of food. And while the US isn't the third world and our trade with them is pretty secure, we still wouldn't want to be completely dependent on them for food. And, under the terms of NAFTA, we can't put tariffs of the sort you are talking about on food imported from the US. And Canada benefits a lot from NAFTA so we wouldn't want to throw it out for this kind of reason.

As for what our policies do to third world countries... well, if they think it's a problem, let them use their own tariffs or subsidies to even out the playing field. I have a feeling, though, that cheap food imports are probably more of a boon than a blight for nations that are perpetually experiencing hunger and food shortages.

Simple solution. Shift our taxes to a resource tax and lower income tax. As a result, we can afford lower salaries, yet transportation costs go up.

Umm even if we had no income tax and correspondingly dropped salaries so that the take home pay was the same, cost of labor in Canada would still be orders of magnitude higher than in some third world countries. Not to mention the cost of land, environmental assessment, certification, inspection, paperwork and other red tape, etc. We cannot compete with developing/underdeveloped nations on a cost basis, so long as people there are willing to work for a few cents a day. And if we raised taxes on transportation to the crazy high levels that would make these imports expensive enough for Canadian farmers to have a chance, well, the cost of all our other imported products would skyrocket too.

Food really is a special case, along with a few other resources fundamental to the survival of a nation. Where policies of globalization, specialization, free markets, etc, make sense for most sectors of the economy, for certain things, national sovereignty and security is far more important. I have no problem with tax money going to ensure the stability and security of our food supply. If anything's a good use of taxes, that is.

[Wild Bill]

HOLD ON A SEC HERE. We could prevent our market being overrun by third world farmers and avoid the "deadly dangerousness" without giving farmers a dime, just by blocking or taxing those importants.

But our subsidies are designed to do much more than that. They are designed to allow us to do exactly what youre worried about the third world doing to US... to THEM.

Another way to protect our farmers without a dime extra in subsidies would be to truly level the playing field!

First off, abandon all subsidies! Then impose tariffs on any country's produce equal to any subsidy that THEY give to their farmers!

Second, if we ban any pesticide or chemical as unsafe for the food we grow, why do we allow the same food to be imported from countries that DO use those substances? We've been doing it for decades and it's really rather absurd. The sad truth about those pesticides and chemicals is that they work better than any alternatives! That's why we used them in the first place! When we ban them in Canada we put our farmers under a financial hardship to achieve the same crop profits. Foreign countries that use those substances have a big advantage in their price. Next time you're buying fruit from Mexico or South America in your supermarket you should think about what you're feeding your kids!

We should place the same bans on imports as we have on food grown here. If the goal is truly to make our food safe then letting the stuff in on imports is just nuts!

Changing just these two factors alone, together with applying those subsidy tariffs to shipping costs as well would go a long way to giving our farmers a chance to compete.

[Michael Hardner]

Changing just these two factors alone, together with applying those subsidy tariffs to shipping costs as well would go a long way to giving our farmers a chance to compete.

Your ideas appear to be sound, but the point is that our farmers can't compete without subsidies. I think removing them would allow the family farm to finally die.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, as long as the transition is managed well. And economic transitions are never managed well. Ask the people who used to work in manufacturing how their transition went. It's EI until that runs out, then a lower paying job.

[KeyStone]

Simple solution. Shift our taxes to a resource tax and lower income tax. As a result, we can afford lower salaries, yet transportation costs go up. That way, locally produced food has an advantage over foreign imports. Unlike tariffs though, since it applies both ways (i.e. it also makes our exports more expensive too), it can be argued to be fair and non-competitive and thus avoids trade wards while still promoting local production to a degree.

Not a bad idea at all, but clearly over the heads of most of the posters here.

A little protection for domestic products, and a deterrent to shipping long distances (better for the environment) seems like a good compromise.

I don't mind paying 10-20% more for local goods, but when you are paying 2 to 3 times as much for the same product, that's too much.

[fellowtraveller]

Farmer's need subsidies, because otherwise the food could be produced much more cheaply in the third world.

The USA is not a Third World country. not quite yet.

But they could pretty easily supply all our food, and much cheaper than Europe ever could.

[FengGao]

One would think Harper wouldn't want to peeve-off any more groups within Canada but here he is again and this time its the farmer's. The Canada-EU trade pact, is showing for the farmers that it isn't a "free" trade. http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/canada-economy.6o2

“Canadian farmers traditionally buy new varieties of seed each year but also keep some harvested for use in the next season. More and more seeds are genetically modified and patented.”。

The big multiplication companies owned these patented seeds. They pact protect these companies to make profits from the patents.