LIBERAL MPs last week accused the Conservatives of one of the greatest sins in the Canadian farm debate – putting supply management at risk.
At issue were terms of reference for free trade talks between Canada and the European Union launched earlier this month.
When Canadian and European officials did a “scoping” exercise to lay the groundwork for the scope of the talks, they agreed: “No tariff line should be excluded a priori.”
They also agreed trade impacts of state trading enterprises should be discussed.
Read Also
Rural emergency room closures continue to be vexing problem
Staffing issues are at the root of disruptions and closures in hospital emergency departments, both in rural and urban Canadian locations.
During a four-hour House of Commons grilling of agriculture minister Gerry Ritz by opposition MPs in mid-May, they accused the government of abandoning supply management. Ritz disagreed.
“There is nothing subversive here,” he told Liberal Denis Coderre. “Supply management is alive and well under this government and will continue to be, regardless of any free trade talks that go on. Supply management, for all intents and purposes for this government, is off the table.”
Ah, but his Liberal tormentors could read between the lines, peer behind Tory fences and discover supply management-eating maggots hidden under Conservative rocks.
“Our farmers’ livelihoods rely on supply management,” Montreal Liberal Alexandra Mendes said in a party statement issued last week. “Egg, poultry and dairy producers need a fairer, more stable market and yet the Harper Conservatives are leaving the door open to dismantling Canada’s internationally acclaimed supply management system.”
She later seemed to equate supply management with the Canadian Wheat Board. “Recall that this government has compared supply management, and the Canadian Wheat Board in particular, to a monopoly. We should all be concerned.”
Umm. They are monopolies.
If the emotional debate about the future of the Canadian Wheat Board takes too much space in Western Canada, as argued in an earlier column, then disputes about who supports supply management the most injects too much silliness into debate.
In trade negotiations, supply management is always “on the table” because the discussion is always about tariff reductions. Tariff protections are one of the three pillars of the supply management system.
In Canada-United States free trade talks in the 1980s, supply management protections were excluded because both sides agreed they would be best negotiated at the multilateral level.
Since then, a succession of Liberal agriculture ministers have taken part in world trade talks at which supply management protections were “on the table.”
Ralph Goodale gave up explicit import quota protection in 1994 but protected the system via acceptance for high tariffs.
Since then, Liberals Lyle Vanclief, Bob Speller and Andy Mitchell took part in talks where those tariff levels have been targeted and where they have fought to preserve them but also have understood that any deal will see them lowered.
Conservatives Chuck Strahl and Gerry Ritz have done the same. Ritz has promised to do the same in the EU talks.
To insist supply management tariffs cannot be discussed would be to allow the Europeans to refuse to discuss beef hormone restrictions, for example.
Those Liberals apparently have a political sense of humour.
