The debate continues...

> But I am not a valid participant in any "debate".
> I could do a chalk-talk and educate people as to what
> the Canadian government committed to in NAFTA and WTO,
> (and I promise to never even mention softwood lumber),
> but any "debate" should take place solely between Canadians.

I think not.

Alberta and other western beekeepers have lost millions this year due to the incompetence and intransigence of the CHC and CFIA. I also know there are California beekeepers who are very unhappy with the continued illegal closure of their traditional market. This is an international matter, and all damaged parties are getting together to challenge the CHC and CFIA. Good information and clear thinking is welcome, no matter the geographical source.

In the past less has been at stake, and the issue has been less clear. The favouritism demonstrated this year towards NZ and Aus, has, and the undisguised discrimination against the USA has brought things to a head, as has the tightening of the border controls following 9/11. This year there was no silent background flow of US stock to quietly relieve the pressure, and the true nature of the embargo-fostered shortage has become more apparent.

In the next 8 months, the jam will be cleared, with or without the assistance of the CHC. Even as I write, I am sure lawyers are being hired, targets chosen, and options weighed.

> ...and no, I don't have any interest or investment in
> any queen-breeder. I buy queens myself.
> (I like Sue Colby's queens.)

Many of us would love to buy them as well. I spent a few weeks of my summer in the USA, and saw nothing that, in my mind, justifies closing off the Canadian honey industry from traditional and logical supplies of superior stock. I saw lots of happy, productive bees and happy beekeepers. Just like the good old days in Western Canada before stock quality and replacement became a constant, harrying concern.

allen

---

A reply...

> Ouch! How are statements like that gonna get the big
> beekeepers anywhere? The CHC and CFIA all are just as smart
> as we are, and all work hard. They just have different views
> of what is "right". They can be swayed, but I doubt that
> they can be bullied.

We'll see how strongly they hold those beliefs if they actually have to pay real money to uphold them. The people they are dominating have paid and paid, and think nothing of having to stand up and pay again.

Up to now, matters have mostly been managed in back rooms. Personally, I think these people are very light-sensitive. Even the mention of public debate or legal action has a very sobering effect on them.

> > I also know there are California beekeepers who are
> > very unhappy with the continued illegal closure of their
> > traditional market.
>
> "Illegal" is also a poor choice of words. Anything Canada
> is or is not doing might certainly be grounds for complaints
> under WTO or NAFTA, but these are "civil matters". Perhaps
> it would be better to say "a violation of trade agreements".

Whatever. The goal here is to get people thinking, and the only way to get them to broaden their thinking is to suggest that they are vulnerable.

> I look at it this way:
>
> a) The bulk of Canada's honey is sold to the USA.
>
> b) The USA would rather have the bulk of its "imported
> honey" coming from Canada, rather than other places
> with lower standards and less ethics.
>
> c) The USA therefore has a vested interest in making sure
> that Canada produces a decent crop, which requires good
> bees, but the USA has bigger problems, and is not
> going to bother to make an issue about bees.
>
> d) At the moment, the USA still has a complete and
> total ban on the importation of ANY bees from
> ANYWHERE, as it has had since 1922. The USA is
> also not without sin, and is no position to throw
> stones. (I'm talking beekeepers here, not labs.)
>
> e) The CHC and the CFIA is no better or no worse than
> their counterparts in the USA. They honestly think
> that they have "no choice" but to ban imports.
>
> d) Any testing/sampling protocol that might negotiated
> is certain to be dismissed by some as "a joke".
> Honey testing was also a joke until people started
> doing it on a regular basis. (Its easy to advance
> the state of the art - all you do is toss some PhDs
> and some shiny toys in a room, and walk away. After
> a while, all sorts of neat stuff happens.)
>
> e) And the USA and Canada share a destiny in regards to
> pests and diseases anyway. If we don't adopt identical
> approaches, we end up pointing fingers. This would be
> true even if Canada never bought another US bee.

Exactly.

By the way, the entire Western Canadian honey business was built on package bees from California, and fortunes were made there too as a result of supplying the North West.

Aaron was reading "Bees are my Business" while we were on the beach in PEI. Interesting.

> I think everyone can be educated. I think I could meet each
> province's needs (either for bees or for a defacto "ban")
> under existing WTO SPS regulations, and leave you with
> paperwork that proves that Canada is as pure as driven snow.

First everyone needs to come to the table. The CHC has been playing cute, using strawmen, fear-mongering, shouting down, stonewalling, etc. A little fear might get them to open their ears -- and maybe even compromise.

> I don't know what has been brought to a head, as I have only
> started paying attention since the USA now faces the same
> risks that Canada embraced with open arms, and I am apparently
> even more paranoid than your Saskatchewan group. I guess that
> the higher honey prices were the real "pressure".

Yup, as was the NZ / Aus hypocrisy and the tightening of the border. Maybe you don't know, but a $100,000 shipment via Indian land was apprehended recently. Moreover, the authorities are now working down the line and intending to charge all participants (buyers) as conspirators. This never used to happen. The stakes are now much higher than they were.

> > This year there was no silent background flow of US stock
> > to quietly relieve the pressure,
>
> Really? My sources say otherwise. I think that there are
> a few big beekeepers who have quite a few more operational
> hives than they are willing to admit to this season, and will
> have surprisingly larger harvests as a result. They are, of
> course complaining just like everyone else, but this is just
> so as to not call attention to their logistical success.

Some do, some don't. The problem too, is that the established guys can manage, but the complications related to border closure has provided a strong barrier to new entries.

<snip>

> > In the next 8 months, the jam will be cleared, with or
> > without the assistance of the CHC. Even as I write, I am sure
> > lawyers are being hired, targets chosen, and options weighed.
>
> Lawsuits are the last refuge of the incompetent. If anyone sues,
> this would mean a MUCH less open and cooperative environment in
> which to cut a deal that makes sense.
>
> Please, use the lawyers as consultants to write up thoughtful
> documents about why the ban is "untenable", but keep them away
> from the press and the court clerk.

<snip>

No one wants to go to court, but sometimes the threat of courts can make discussions more objective. The talk of court action also may sober the CHC a bit and make dominating Alberta and BC a little less attractive. The loss to beekeepers on the recent seizure was more than the CHC's annual budget, and the amounts lost to our economy annually due to CHC intransigence are immense. The matter has already been taken to court by the feds. Whether or the industry wants things in court now or not, that's where they are headed unless the regulations get amended, and maybe even if they are changed, since the die is cast, and the industry has chosen federal regulation as a tool. The feds enforce federal laws independent of the wishes of beekeepers. This thing has gotten out of hand, and whether the CHC has been goading the feds on in the prosecution of beekeepers (as some of us think) or not, the feds are determined to make every small violation into a court case.

We must remember that bees are not native to Alberta and survive (tenuously) only with the aid of man. The only reason bees are found in Alberta is that men keep bringing them there. The question of exotic diseases etc. may make sense where honey bees are able to live unassisted, but in Alberta, the matter is largely irrelevant.

allen

---

> > By the way, the entire Western Canadian honey business was
> > built on package bees from California, and fortunes were made
> > there too as a result of supplying the North West.
> > Fortunes? Well, maybe decent livings... :)

After a few years of leasing space, apparently the guy bought his own plane to fly the bees to Edmonton (no decent roads in those days), so I assume he did better than just OK

> That's an interesting point, but where is this NOT the case
> where decent honey crops are to be found in Canada?

Southern Ontario reaches as far south as the northern tip of California reaches north.

> In my experience, it makes everyone circle the wagons, and
> refuse to talk outside of court.

The wagons have been circled from the start. Instead of listening to the results of research and opinions from governmental experts gathered by the Alberta association when offered to the CHC about five years back (maybe it was more like ten), the group shouted down the Alberta rep.

Subsequent meetings have been no better, with false arguments and disruptive tactics used to prevent intelligent discussion. The fear mongering and misinformation campaign got so bad that the Saskatchewan association actually tried to bring in legal controls to protect established bee locations, expecting that US beekeepers would soon be invading their turf. Only such action threatened to tear their association apart -- the initiative rewarded older and less competitive beekeepers at the expense of newcomers and those expanding -- did they come to their senses. If they had listened to the Alberta presentation in the first place, they would have known that a US invasion was implausible -- regardless of whether the border prohibitions were simply relaxed or withdrawn -- and saved themselves a lot of grief and infighting.  

Circled wagons? Such a situation is ideal for a well placed handgrenade -- or a skunk. I think I know where we can find a skunk. :)

allen

---