mentalfloss Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) Looks like Harper's going to need to drop the protectionism if they want any real clout in the Trans-pacific partnership. “The worst part is that it’s not just taxpayers, it’s regressive. Lower income families are paying a higher percentage of their income for basic nutrition.“From a political perspective, that alone should be worth far more than the whole variety of family tax credits that have been offered in recent years to encourage voters,” she said. John Ivison: Kiss goodbye to supply management Edited June 22, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 About time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentalfloss Posted June 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) About time. What's interesting is that the CPC adamantly defended this protectionism on Power and Politics just last night. The entire party supports protectionism. Do you really think they'll listen to a defected Liberal? Edited June 22, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 I think they might have to. I'm not sure why so many are defending this. If they don't, I really don't understand where they're coming from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 I am surprised the article never mentioned Quebec! Supply management is a sacred cow in eastern Canada but most especially in Quebec. After all, this is a province where it is still illegal to sell margarine that is the same colour as real butter. Dairying is a big business in Quebec and historically has been zealously defended by la belle province. While this might explain why no previous federal government has attempted to dismantle supply management programs perhaps the time is right to take on Quebec. After all, Harper's recent majority has proven that a party can win such without Quebec support. Quebec has left itself with no voice of power in Ottawa. That leaves them with only the perpetual threat of separation as a lever. That situation has changed as well, with large portions of TROC now believing that losing Quebec would save them much money, in a time when money is very tight. I'm not saying that Quebec will be booted from Confederation but times ARE different and likely to work out differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentalfloss Posted June 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) I am surprised the article never mentioned Quebec! Supply management is a sacred cow in eastern Canada but most especially in Quebec. Umm.. If it was just Quebec, I highly doubt Harper would be trying this hard to keep it. There are votes at stake with this move. Edited June 22, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 As Martha Hall Findlay reeled off the reasons why Canada’s supply management system should be dismantled, you could almost hear time’s winged chariot changing gears in the background. What we should do now is tie supply management to the need to protect and advance our human rights and environmental and labour standards throughout the market and global economy. Let politicians in other countries explain to their people why they need to resist this far more constructive type of protectionism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 So, was protectionism the cause for this ??? From the OP article.. There are a mere 12,746 dairy farms in Canada (down from 145,000 in 1970 and 30,000 in 1996). This compares to 210,000 beef, pork and grain farms dependent on international trade. Are we going to see a reversal of this trend?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) Umm.. If it was just Quebec, I highly doubt Harper would be trying this hard to keep it. There are votes at stake with this move. A 'quart of milk or a dozen eggs or cheese etc. are 30% higher in Canada than in NY state. Since those are basics, they hit the low income Canadian just to please (pretty much) Quebec. Edited June 22, 2012 by Peeves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 I am surprised the article never mentioned Quebec! suggest you read it again Supply management is a sacred cow in eastern Canada but most especially in Quebec. fair comment... until you pull out an over-the-top separatist angle. Harper Conservatives are presently playing both sides; on one hand offering up support assurances to dairy farmers, while on the other hand (according to access to information release), putting up both supply management and intellectual property, as bargaining chips to get into the TPP negotiations. Come clean, Harper Conservatives! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 I am surprised the article never mentioned Quebec! It's mentioned in paragraph 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 I am a big fan of the saying "if it ain't broke..." As a percentage of household income, food has never been cheaper in Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/10/06/f-food-prices.html For everyone saying comparing food prices in Canada are higher than in the US because of Supply Management - I call bullshit. Most products are cheaper in the US (cars, books, clothing, etc...) Overall I am a big proponent of the free-market, deregulation, free-trade, however in this case I think that the risks of making major changes (i.e. pull the plug on supply management) to our food supply system outweigh the rewards. Small gradual changes in consultation with all interested parties would be more rational. I say that the governments should look to get out of mangling other industries like cell phones. Also, there are bigger issues such as Health Care, aboriginal issues, education... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 I am a big fan of the saying "if it ain't broke..." Sort of like what Liberals might say about the Civil Service, environmental regulations, and so on. As a percentage of household income, food has never been cheaper in Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/10/06/f-food-prices.html For everyone saying comparing food prices in Canada are higher than in the US because of Supply Management - I call bullshit. Most products are cheaper in the US (cars, books, clothing, etc...) Overall I am a big proponent of the free-market, deregulation, free-trade, however in this case I think that the risks of making major changes (i.e. pull the plug on supply management) to our food supply system outweigh the rewards. Small gradual changes in consultation with all interested parties would be more rational. In other words, the Conservatives shouldn't rock the boat with economics interests that are so strongly supported by their core voters. I say that the governments should look to get out of mangling other industries like cell phones. Also, there are bigger issues such as Health Care, aboriginal issues, education... The risks of looking into Health Care deregulation outweigh food then ? The fact is that the neoliberal/neoconservative free traders have foisted economic change on Canadians already, if they are serious about it then they will continue despite the fact that their friends will be affected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 It's mentioned in paragraph 2. Thanks Michael, I see it now. A mention indeed, although not really anything more. Every housewife in Niagara who cross-border shops for groceries has been well aware for years of the price difference with American dairy products and also chicken. Someone mentioned 30%. There are always sales that make this figure much less accurate. Prices almost always are MUCH better than on the Canadian side. This is what has always put the lie to those claims from talking heads that overall there are no savings from crossborder shopping. They compare things like electronics or whatever as an attempt to discourage people from going over the Peace Bridge. Every housewife involved has always laughed at these claims! They don't cross the border for a new stereo! What's more, at the top of their grocery list are dairy products and chicken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 The risks of looking into Health Care deregulation outweigh food then ? I meant that we should be looking at fixing issues related to heath care, education, etc... before trying to re-vamp a food system that is generally working very well. By the way, I do think there is a place for more private health care in our system. Yes the risks may be higher but so are the rewards. To put is another way, why mess with a good system (food supply) when there are far more broken systems to tackle (health, education...)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) By the way, I do think there is a place for more private health care in our system. Yes the risks may be higher but so are the rewards. I more or less disagree (it depends, I guess, on what exactly would be done), but my personal disagreement is beside the point; I would love to watch someone try to get elected in Canada on a Privatize Health Care proposal! Watching crashes and burns is part of political theatre, I guess. To put is another way, why mess with a good system (food supply) when there are far more broken systems to tackle (health, education...)? They're troubled; to call them "broken" is worse than exaggeration. Edited June 22, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 By the way, I do think there is a place for more private health care in our system. Yes the risks may be higher but so are the rewards No the rewards are not higher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) No the rewards are not higher. Not in the actually-existing world, no. But in certain theoretical...sorry...in certain hypothetical realms, that do not apply too well to lived reality, it's an awesome idea. Edited June 22, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 They're troubled; to call them "broken" is worse than exaggeration. Opps my bad, you are right regarding the health and educations systems, “troubled" is a better word that I should have used. Another way of putting it is to say: there are far greater opportunities for improvement in other areas (like health, education) compared to the food system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Opps my bad, you are right regarding the health and educations systems, “troubled" is a better word that I should have used. Another way of putting it is to say: there are far greater opportunities for improvement in other areas (like health, education) compared to the food system. Sure, I see what you mean. You may well be right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 No the rewards are not higher. Yes they are. Rewards of fixing the food supply system. -some say ~$300 off the average Canadian’s annual grocery bill -I say BS, there are practically no rewards for fixing this perfectly fine system versus Rewards of fixing the health care system -improved health and health care for all Canadians -lower cost/taxes How to fix the health care system is debatable. That's the point, we should be debating it instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 It gives people a choice, I would pay more for canadian and I live in farm country and the dairy farmers do very well. They could afford a little cut. IMO. Now austrailia got rid of theirs and has done very very well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Yes they are. Rewards of fixing the food supply system. -some say ~$300 off the average Canadian’s annual grocery bill -I say BS, there are practically no rewards for fixing this perfectly fine system versus Rewards of fixing the health care system -improved health and health care for all Canadians -lower cost/taxes But Dre didn't say that fixing the health care system wouldn't bring higher rewards. He said that privatizing the health care system will not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Yes they are. Rewards of fixing the food supply system. -some say ~$300 off the average Canadian’s annual grocery bill -I say BS, there are practically no rewards for fixing this perfectly fine system versus Rewards of fixing the health care system -improved health and health care for all Canadians -lower cost/taxes How to fix the health care system is debatable. That's the point, we should be debating it instead. You must be a dairy farmer. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 I meant that we should be looking at fixing issues related to heath care, education, etc... before trying to re-vamp a food system that is generally working very well. We could drop prices to consumers, and help the poorest people in our society right away. Health Care will take a generation to revamp. By the way, I do think there is a place for more private health care in our system. Yes the risks may be higher but so are the rewards. It's not an either/or proposition by any means. Far from it, one is simply a trade agreement, and the other requires extensive management and communication. To put is another way, why mess with a good system (food supply) when there are far more broken systems to tackle (health, education...)? Good system = one that Conservative supporters make money from ? broken system = one that includes socialist ideology ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.