Being Petty - Some Inequities in Canada/USA Trade

It quite frankly takes all of my self-will to not allow myself to become reactive and even petty at Trump's outlandish statements as to what is fair and not fair in terms of Canada/US trade. I need to keep reminding myself that not only is he a buffoon who has neither the moral integrity of a snail (I apologize to all snails for this comparison) or the intellectual capacity of a child in grade one (I again apologize), he seems incapable of staying on task for any length of time. It is clear that he can be influenced and have his mind changed by almost anyone who can find a way to talk to him. I also need to remind myself that his bias as to the importance and absolute need for the USA to be first in everything is not unique to this president. Indeed - it is a common trait of many USA's citizens.

Whether or not there is an inequity or an unfairness with how Canada markets its softwood lumber has been debated at a number of international tribunals and courts over the past few decades. In every instance, the USA has been told that there is no unfairness and therefore they should not impose a tariff. I am sure that the same thing will happen this time - it is a shame that both countries are going to waste so much time and tax payer's money to debate it, all because a handful of US softwood companies want an uneven playing field upon which to compete. It seems more than slightly absurd to imagine the USA with ten times the population being concerned with such a minor problem.

Then there is the most recent kerfuffle from Trump over the concern from some Wisconsin dairy farmer's cries of unfairness over the fact that they are being denied access to Canadian milk markets. My opinion of our marketing boards was discussed in a blog posted on March 20, 2015 - In the past two years I have seen no reason to change my mind. It seems to me that a nation has the right to decide how to support its citizens. However the absurdity of a state like Wisconsin - which has more dairy cows (USA) then all of Canada ( facts) - complaining about not being allowed to saturate an international market defies description.

Being petty - perhaps it is time that we started to cry unfair when we look at the amount of fresh fruits and vegetables that being imported from California to Canada. CBC (CBC) reported that in 2013, Canada imported 2.7 billion dollars worth of California's fresh fruits, vegetable and nuts. Those  fruits and vegetable were only able to grow because of irrigation. According to author Marc Reisner, the building of dams on such rivers as the Colorado and its tributaries have allowed farmers to grow crops on land that would never have produced.   Furthermore, California farmers are not paying the full cost of the water that is being drawn from the rivers and aquifers of western USA. He argues that they are paying less than ten percent of the cost of the construction of the dams and irrigation systems built. The government has subsidized irrigating large factory farms for generations. Surely this could be called unfair trading practice. What chance does a Canadian farmer have of competing with his USA counterpart when there is such an uneven playing field?

Marc Reisner's book -  Cadillac desert: the American West and its disappearing water is not an easy read. Like other history books written by people with lots of facts and a self righteous passion for a topic, but no sense of storytelling, it is a book full of facts but demonstrates little understanding of the people behind the facts. However, it is very clear that the USA, in its mission to fulfill it manifest destiny, has taken (Reisner would perhaps use the word "drained") water from states further to the east and directed it to deserts or near deserts of California and elsewhere to grow crops and to build cities (e.g. Los Angeles).  His projection for the future is bleak. California would never exist if the water was not being imported from elsewhere. The large farms only exist because of that water and because that water has been very cheap for the those land owners. The current rate of use is not sustainable. There quite simply is not enough water to maintain the farms and the cities for ever. When the water dries up - and it will - those farms and those cities will eventually shrink to what they should have been if humankind had not decided to attempt to control geography and destiny.

Perhaps we would be doing a favour for the USA if we said we would no longer buy fruits, vegetables and nuts from California as they were using unfair trade practices. Perhaps some citizens would wake up and realize that they are living on both borrowed water and borrowed time. Perhaps some would realize that irrigating deserts is just a foolish idea - but then so is play God.