It is not an exaggeration to say that agriculture policy has largely morphed into trade policy under agriculture minister Gerry Ritz and the Conservative government.
Free trade bills rank next only to law-and-order bills as the government’s parliamentary priority.
Ritz is on a plane somewhere any chance he gets, trying to win import concessions that will get three carloads of pigs ears into Upper Zululand or three million tonnes of product into a developed market.
Of course, he also has to go through the drudgery of negotiating domestic business risk management programs, but the Ritz vision of good agriculture policy is to play down government programs and play up marketing opportunities that allow farmers to sink or swim in the world of business.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers commit to enhancing competitiveness
Canadian ag ministers said they want to ensure farmers, ranchers and processors are competitive through ongoing regulatory reform and business risk management programs that work.
In this, he is supported by most opposition MPs and agricultural economists and encouraged by many of the farm groups who want to shake the image of farming as a social activity rather than a business.
Last week’s industry reaction to the Ritz trade trip to Europe and North Africa was typical.
Much of the industry, from the Canadian Wheat Board to its critics, from Pulse Canada to seed growers, cheered the news and praised the minister.
But while they don’t receive much ink or media air time, there actually are critics of this agriculture-equals-trade policy.
The National Farmers Union and the Council of Canadians have long been critics of trade deals, seeing them as beneficial for corporate and industrial agriculture but not for smaller farmers.
And while the value of food exports has soared, critics note that farmer bottom lines often have not.
And then there is Peter Julian, an engaging and hard-working NDP MP from Vancouver, his party’s trade critic.
The 48-year-old House of Commons veteran insists free trade deals do not work in Canada’s interest.
At the Commons trade committee, pro-trade witnesses regularly are dismissive or incredulous but Julian plows on. And he says he has the numbers to prove it.
Julian has used Library of Parliament researchers to analyze Canada’s trade balance with free trade partners in inflation-discounted dollars.
He insists that except for free trade with Mexico, Canada’s trade balance with countries including Costa Rica, Israel and Chile become worse after free trade deals.
“This is a flawed government trade policy,” he said.
Instead, Canada should catch up with its trade competitors in how much it spends to promote Canadian products abroad.
Simply opening markets does not guarantee Canadian exporter success.
Julian raises this argument every time a trade booster is at committee.
Typically, they seem to think the point and his charts are not worthy of response, considering how many farmers depend on trade.
But with program payments often the difference between farm sector profit or loss, they might consider a more substantive rebuttal.
Just because it is conventional wisdom doesn’t always mean it doesn’t need to be defended and explained.
