WINNIPEG – Prairie agriculture ministers say they’re disappointed with the federal government’s decision to buckle beneath U.S. protectionism.
Instead of giving in to the United States over the wheat dispute, the Canadian government should have stood its ground, Manitoba’s Harry Enns said.
“On principle I think in this instance it would have been worthwhile to call their bluff and engage in some retaliatory action ourselves,” he said.
Enns said although no one wins in a full-scale trade war, “I would have felt better, and maybe we all would have felt a little better if we could have jabbed them a bit.
Read Also
Interest in biological crop inputs continues to grow
It was only a few years ago that interest in alternative methods such as biologicals to boost a crop’s nutrient…
“We signed a free-trade agreement with them and damn it all, we should be able to trade with them.”
Saskatchewan minister Darrel Cunningham said he understands why the federal government wanted to avoid a trade war, but he’s not sure it’s avoidable.
“Retaliation can lead to a trade war, but appeasement can as well.”
Alberta’s Walter Paszkowski, who is out of the country, said in a release the trade problems could have been avoided if Canada had properly negotiated its trade agreements with the U.S. “Now Canada is trying to negotiate after the fact.”
Only wheat capped
He said the positive aspect of the deal is that it only caps wheat, leaving barley, malt, wheat flour and semolina unscathed.
Enns said as a western minister he cannot escape the fact that Ontario wheat exports remain untouched by the deal. As well, he said, there are now indications the U.S. is scaling back its protests over access to Canada’s supply-managed markets – predominantly located in Eastern Canada.
“Ontario really comes out the big winner in this agreement at Western Canada’s expense,” he said.
But Cunningham sees no evidence the federal government favored Ontario over the west in the deal. He said the exclusion of Ontario wheat from the quotas can increase grain volumes flowing to the U.S. from Western Canada.
Enns said the U.S. action against Canada is doubly ironic because it stems from U.S. President Bill Clinton’s desire to get the North American Free Trade Agreement approved by Congress.
Clinton agreed to investigate Canadian imports to gain wheat-state political support for the NAFTA.
“If Clinton could have predicted last November that he didn’t need Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas … those six or seven votes to pass NAFTA, we wouldn’t be in this predicament,” Enns said.
