It was just before 6 p.m. on Nov. 22, 2005, and there was an air of political accomplishment in the House of Commons.
All 288 MPs who were in the House rose in a vote that instructed Canadian trade negotiators to refuse any deal that would lower protection for supply managed sectors.
That vote has been an albatross for Canadian negotiators at World Trade Organization talks ever since, forcing them to step aside as other countries negotiate cuts in sensitive product protections that will affect Canada.
Chief agricultural negotiator Steve Verheul has said for months that any deal will require compromise on supply management protections.
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…
As well, Liberal and Conservative governments have signaled that Canada could not afford to walk away from a WTO deal just because of damage to the supply managed sector that is small potatoes in a trade-dependent Canadian economy.
In essence, the Commons motion moved by Bloc Québécois MP André Bellavance was a trap. On the eve of an election in which rural Quebec seats were at play, it forced federalist MPs to line up behind a resolution that, if violated in some future deal, would offer fodder to flog them for breaking a promise.
The Liberal government of Paul Martin was within days of collapsing. Within weeks, federal agriculture minister Andy Mitchell would fly to Hong Kong for a ministerial WTO meeting at which it was clear Canada’s no-compromise stance was a non-starter.
Voting for the resolution that day was Liberal Wayne Easter, now his party’s agriculture critic, who knew it was unattainable.
“There were tough debates in caucus about whether to support it,” he said.
“I did not think a no-negotiation stance was feasible but I thought the path we were on as government would have allowed us to honour the spirit of the resolution if not the letter.”
Voting for the resolution was Liberal David Emerson, later a Conservative trade minister who has said protectionism would have to be diminished for the greater good.
Voting for the resolution was Alberta Conservative MP Ted Menzies, who later said protectionist reductions will be necessary to help Canada’s exporters.
Yet the Nov. 22 resolution remains government policy and official instruction to negotiators – no compromise, no surrender.
Federal agriculture minister Gerry Ritz told the Commons agriculture committee last month that Canada will remain committed to no compromise until the supply managed sectors indicate to government that it should be willing to negotiate to salvage the best deal possible.
And he suggested, with no confirmation from the industry, that supply management leaders are considering a willingness to retreat from their rigid trade position.
“If they decide they want to see us move away from that motion … it’s their call,” Ritz said.
