SINCE the March 2 court ruling that will keep the U.S. border closed to Canadian cattle, nothing has changed.
And everything has changed.
As before, cattle producers and all those who rely on them for their livelihoods will continue to exert any pressure available to pry the border open. Beef processed in Canada will continue to move south and to other countries. And as before, no trucks will be moving feeders and fats across the line.
Also unchanged is the knowledge that Canadian beef is safe, that risk management is in place and that consumers have confidence in the product.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
Lulled into a sense of optimism as the promised March 7 opening drew nigh, the cattle industry has been plunged again into the same BSE-driven abyss.
With that plunge comes anger; at the power of a single judge to disrupt international trade; at the ability of a protectionist American cattle group to defy U.S. government policy; at the failure of the Bush administration to muster Senate support to defeat a border closure motion; at the hypocrisy of using the “sound science” argument to justify continued closure of the border to Canadian cattle despite the integration of the North American industry.
A complete list of irritants is substantially longer, but that’s enough to illustrate the point.
Where’s the change? It’s in attitude. Out of this anger must come action.
A reopening of the United States to Canadian cattle may be months away, at best. The March 2 ruling can thus give added impetus to the push for greater domestic slaughter capacity by plants large and small. Taken to a higher level, it can create jobs and bring American packing plant business to Canada.
The anger can be used to boost efforts to diversify export markets. It must give new resolve to negotiations with Japan, where Canada’s beef traceability and improving age verification system is a selling point beyond the reach of the U.S. cattle industry.
The change must also come in government attitude to the problem. More aid money will doubtless be needed by Canadian farmers and ranchers this year, partially as a result of this development, and the federal government must respond. As well, it must improve its support for packing industry expansion.
Although it is apparently reluctant to start a formal trade action against the U.S., the government must spare no opportunity to push the U.S. into making good on its trade obligations and promises vis a vis cattle and beef. Action to return fair trading opportunities to other affected livestock sectors must also factor into these efforts.
It will be easy to allow anger generated from last week’s news to embitter attitudes in the Canadian cattle industry.
It will be much more difficult to channel this anger into a domestic revitalization. Are we up to the challenge?
