Federal trade minister Pierre Pettigrew insisted last week it is too early to give up on a Dec. 31, 2004, deadline for the completion of World Trade Organization talks, but he conceded that several key areas of negotiation, including agriculture, are stalled.
“Agriculture is a very, very important issue for many countries at the WTO table and broad progress is not likely until there is progress on agriculture,” he said May 7 in Ottawa.
“Progress will not be possible until countries begin to move off their rigid positions.”
Read Also
Ag in Motion speaker highlights need for biosecurity on cattle operations
Ag in Motion highlights need for biosecurity on cattle farms. Government of Saskatchewan provides checklist on what you can do to make your cattle operation more biosecure.
Pettigrew, quoted in Paris recently as suggesting the Dec. 31, 2004, deadline set at Doha, Qatar, in 2001 is unrealistic, was asked in Ottawa if he believes the deadline is dead.
“I hope not,” he said. “It is too early to tell.”
The minister noted that there will be a number of international ministerial meetings this summer that will try to find compromise before the next formal meeting of WTO trade and agriculture ministers starts in Mexico Sept. 10.
“I hope we see some flexibility developing.”
However, Pettigrew insisted Canada is not prepared to change from its opening bargaining demands that export subsidies be eliminated, trade-distorting domestic subsidies be cut and market access be improved for exporters, even as Canadian supply management protections are retained.
During a Parliament Hill hearing on WTO prospects May 6, chief agriculture negotiator Steve Verheul warned that without some political progress toward compromise this summer, there is a danger the United States and the European Union will repeat history by cutting a deal and presenting it to the rest of the WTO as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.
He said there are signs the two trading superpowers are increasing their bilateral discussions as the broader WTO agriculture discussion grinds to a halt.
“We’re concerned they are talking.”
Canada and other countries want to see progress in general talks so the Americans and EU do not act alone.
“We want to influence their discussions so they arrive at a position that is good for the general talks,” he said. “Realistically, we won’t get a deal unless they are on side.”
However, Verheul insisted Canada does not have to change its initial position because it represents the middle ground between an aggressive U.S. position against subsidies and trade restrictions and a more cautious and protectionist EU position.
When compromises begin to be made, Canada’s pro-export, pro-protection middle ground could be attractive to both sides.
“I think we are well positioned,” he said. “Canada’s strength lies in our ideas and the opportunity to attract support from both ends of the spectrum.”
