GENEVA, Switzerland – The Canadian government could help break the stalemate in agricultural talks at the World Trade Organization if it signalled some willingness to compromise on supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board, says a former chief Canadian WTO negotiator.
John Weekes, now a Geneva-based consultant, represents several Canadian exporter lobbies including the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance and the Alberta government.
“If Canada was willing to show it has the will to make some concessions, it would add to the negotiations,” he said July 27.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
“Canada is a very interesting test case. People recognize we have a bifurcated agricultural industry. We are not the only ones but ours is the most pronounced. An indication from Ottawa that it recognizes the WTO is not about protectionism would have an impact.”
Weekes was Canada’s ambassador to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade from 1987-91 in the midst of the last tense negotiation. He then became Canada’s chief negotiator for the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1992 and returned to Geneva 1995-99 as the first Canadian ambassador to the newly created WTO.
He said Canada hurts its credibility in Geneva by talking an export expansion line while insisting its domestic protections cannot be touched.
“It is difficult to speak out of both sides of your mouth at the same time and be understood,” said Weekes. “This argument on both sides at the same time may have an audience in Canada, but it does not here.”
He said by trying to defend two conflicting positions, Canada has lost credibility in Geneva including being excluded from some small-group meetings.
“If you are going to have an impact here, you have to be in the room.”
The official Canadian position, supported by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, is that most countries have both aggressive and defensive stances, balancing export and domestic interests.
As a middle ground position devoid of the extremes on either side, the Canadian stance is attractive to countries uneasy with the extremes, they say.
And last week in Geneva, an official from a developed country delegation who spoke off the record said there is some credibility to that contention.
“I wish Canada was more aggressive on the export side but in fact, they are in a good position, able to argue that they want greater market access and exports but they are not as extreme as some and they have sectors they want to protect but they are not as protectionist as others,” he said. “It is not a bad position to be in.”
Weekes took a different view.
If Canada wants other countries to carry their load in debates over market access or sensitive-sector protection, it lacks credibility.
A WTO official last week warned that progress in talks in the autumn will require “extremely difficult political decisions” in some members’ capitals.
Weekes said Canada could be part of the solution if it signalled that the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly and high over-quota supply management tariffs are negotiable if concessions are received in other areas.
“That would be noticed by others,” he said.
