"Tim Lysyk" wrote in message
news:Aqq0c.35192$A12.19840@edtnps84...
Willi wrote:

There may very well be government bias toward Canada, however your
example and George's aren't in place "all because of long-standing US
bias against Canada." As I understand it, the Canadian government
subsidizes feedlots and the grain fed to cattle.

Interesting you should say that about subsidies to the beef industry.
Kind of shows your own bias, or someone's, as there are no subsidies to
the beef industry. The Canadian government does not subsidize feedlots
nor grain fed to cattle. There really are no Canadian government
subsidies for beef cattle production. The main trade irritant before
BSE was Canada's require for disease testing for cattle coming into
Canada. The long standing bias against Canada wis not just from
government from from American farmers and other involved in the
agriculture and natural resource industry.

Subsidies are not always direct and readily visible. Here in the U.S. the
beef indutry is, as you know, heavily subsidized through the practice of
allowing ranchers to destroy millions of acres of public land by grazing
their cattle on it. Any similar practices or other hidden subsidies in
Canada?

You are right about one thing, the difference between a competive
advantage and unfair trading practice is..."when I do it, I am
exercising a competitive advantage, when you do it, it is an unfair
subsidy."

Not only true, but obvious and inescapable. Even those defending their
competitive advantages while decrying other's unfair practices know it for
an absolute fact. So much for integrity.

Wolfgang