NEVER mind that American farmers are among the most heavily subsidized in the world, far surpassing any government help Canadian farmers receive from Ottawa.
Never mind that U.S. domestic wheat growers don’t grow enough wheat to meet demands from processors in their own country.
Never mind that the American barges, which transport much of the U.S. wheat supply, move along the heavily subsidized Mississippi River system.
Never mind all that.
For the 10th time, the U.S. Commerce Department has launched a trade challenge against the Canadian Wheat Board. The wheat board has been cleared on the nine previous attempts.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
The latest U.S. challenge insists the Canadian Wheat Board amounts to a subsidy because Ottawa guarantees wheat board loans, which enables the board to charge its customers lower interest rates.
The Americans also contend that Canada’s federally owned hopper cars amount to a subsidy.
Last week, the U.S. Commerce Department announced duties of 3.94 percent on all Canadian durum and hard red spring wheat. A further challenge that contends Canada dumps wheat into the U.S. at below market levels or below the cost of production could add to the tariff rate and is expected to be decided this spring.
The U.S. has also filed a complaint to the World Trade Organization that the CWB amounts to an unfair trading practice because of its monopoly sales powers over almost all western Canadian grown wheat.
The duties were far below the 14-25 percent rate asked for by the North Dakota Wheat Commission, the body that pressed the U.S. Commerce Department to take up the trade challenge.
Still, the American persistence is stunning in light of the latest U.S. farm bill that plans to pay farmers there $135 billion over the next 10 years.
Perhaps the real problem in the U.S. lies in a system that often has the tail wagging the dog. A group of farmers has only to request that Washington look into a trade challenge to kick start the process into action. While American policymakers might understand the legal text of trade agreements and whether the CWB complies or not, it amounts to political suicide to refuse such requests outright. So, the CWB, and by extension Canadian farmers, has to pay millions of dollars to defend itself.
Or maybe it’s just philosophical blinders. As the U.S. ambassador in Ottawa put it: “We don’t think monopolies are a good thing….”
The 49th parallel is a two-way trade route. U.S. farmers should not feel hard done by if farmers here wish only for the same rights and market access as many American farmers enjoy in Canada.
