The long ongoing debate about the fate and future of Canada’s supply management system has become bogged down in ideological arguments that impede solutions, says a George Morris Centre researcher.
In a report,Making Sense out of a Stale Debate,senior research associate Al Mussell at the Guelph, Ont., based think-tank argues that both sides of the debate are doing themselves a disservice by arguing from inflexible extremes.
Those critical of the system should quit demanding it be dismantled, recognize it will not be destroyed and work to find ways to reform it in a way that does not threaten the marketing boards.
Read Also
Land crash warning rejected
A technical analyst believes that Saskatchewan land values could be due for a correction, but land owners and FCC say supply/demand fundamentals drive land prices – not mathematical models
“The political calculus of unilaterally dismantling the supply management system does not add up,” he wrote. “It is of huge significance to dairy farmers and in principle of little significance to the Canadian population. Supply management is likely to remain unless a groundswell of producers request that it be removed.”
Meanwhile, defenders of the system should realize that changes must come and step away from their rigid political demand that Canada reject any trade deal that would force some reduction in over quota tariffs.
Although Parliament unanimously voted in 2005 to reject any reduction in supply management protections, Mussell said it is unrealistic.
He argued that supply management supporters are doing themselves a disservice by demanding negotiators steer clear of talk about a deal on sensitive products at the World Trade Organization.
“As it stands, if trade agreements are reached, Canada’s ability to participate will have been limited by supply management’s strong stance, Canada will sign a deal they had little role in crafting and the result in terms of whatever protection remains for supply management will simply have to be accepted,” Mussell wrote.
He said the existing supply management system is having difficulty adapting to rapid growth in demand for new dairy products and needs to evolve, working with its customers.
And those customers should help make that evolution possible.
“If the reality is that we will have marketing boards and supply management, then the practical problem is how to improve the workings and faults of the system, not simply how to build a better case to eliminate the system,” said Mussell.
“This puts the responsibility on the critics to deal with the relevant questions of how to make supply management more market oriented and flexible and better prepare it for reductions in trade protection under new trade agreements.”
The current black and white ideological debate “is both a distraction to this and an excuse for inaction.”
———
Industries, Ltd.
