As last ditch negotiations proceed to try to get a new World Trade Agreement, the debate on Parliament Hill was on the government’s negotiation regarding supply management.
The question was whether the federal government position to not discuss weakening supply management protections during WTO talks is a way to support the sector or a way to sell it out.
Based on a November 2005 unanimous House of Commons resolution, the federal government has instructed trade negotiators not to engage in discussions aimed at crafting new rules that would increase export competition for the dairy, poultry and egg sectors.
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…
Ottawa says it will not take part in talks that will lead inevitably to tariff reductions and expansion of tariff rate quotas, since that is what the other 149 WTO members want.
In the House of Commons last week, Liberal agriculture critic Wayne Easter saw that as a sellout.
“Is the prime minister, by withdrawing the negotiator from sensitive industry discussions, ensuring the death of supply management?” said the former Prince Edward Island dairy producer. “Is that his purpose? The government not only is trading our supply management system away, it is losing it by default.”
Strahl said in the House and in an interview later that Easter’s argument is absurd.
Canadian negotiator Steve Verheul is involved in discussions in Geneva and continues to tell other negotiators why Canada does not support the need to weaken supply management protections. But getting involved in the give-and-take over how to write rules that undermine the system would make Canada complicit.
“Steve is in the room and when people are talking about language or other issues, he’s got his oars in the water to protect Canadian interests,” Strahl said. “What he’s not doing, because of the motion in the House, is proactively putting forward alternatives.”
He said the implication of Easter’s accusation is that Canada should help the WTO majority, which wants to write a deal that reduces tariff protection and increases access.
“We’re maintaining the position that a deal doesn’t have to affect supply management,” said the minister. “Other countries have sensitive products and we are making the case that we should be able to protect ours as they protect theirs. And we are in the room so people shouldn’t think otherwise.”
Easter said in an interview that the government decision to not participate in discussions about reducing supply management protections effectively leaves the floor to the opponents.
“We have to be there at the table to explain time and time again why we don’t support it, to convince others there is no need for this,” said the Liberal MP. “I think this puts a lie to their claim of supporting supply management.”
During the past winter, Verheul repeatedly told Canadian farm audiences that every other member of the WTO is willing to see changes despite years of Canadian arguments against them. He has said any final deal will be bad news for supply managed sectors and the government instruction is to avoid meetings where that bad result is being crafted.
