BEFORE he sketched out details of proposals for aid to the Canadian livestock sector and presented them to provincial agriculture ministers last week, federal agriculture minister Gerry Ritz made an important telephone call.
United States agriculture secretary Chuck Connor took it and among other things, they talked about Canada’s plan for farm aid and what might or might not trigger an American reaction.
During a Dec. 14 news conference to announce the aid package, Ritz talked about the conversation.
“As long as we stay within existing programs, there’s nothing there that’s trade challengeable,” said the minister, presumably reflecting Connor’s comments. “If we do start to talk about unsecured loans and interest free and not being able to recapture nothing secured, we would face a challenge tomorrow.”
Read Also
Topsy-turvy precipitation this year challenges crop predictions
Rainfall can vary dramatically over a short distance. Precipitation maps can’t catch all the deviations, but they do provide a broad perspective.
The comment resurrected memories of countless appearances by Agriculture Canada officials before House of Commons committees over the years conceding that, yes, the Americans or the Europeans were playing fast and loose with trade rules but no, Canada could not challenge them because we need their markets more than they need us.
The message was that while trade agreements were meant to rein in trade and subsidy bullies, in the real world, Canada is so trade-dependent that it cannot afford to break the rules.
It is an attitude that seems to drive Liberal agriculture critic Wayne Easter crazy and not for partisan reasons. The Liberal government he was part of for 13 years until 2006 was as prone to worrying about international reaction to domestic support policies as are the Conservatives.
In fact, the Conservative government has trumped the Liberals by challenging the level of American agricultural subsidies before the World Trade Organization, something the previous government was repeatedly asked to do but never did.
Easter’s complaint is worth considering.
When Europe’s hog producers are in trouble, they resurrect export subsidies and the world be damned.
The Americans lavish money on their farmers and defy the world to challenge them. By the time the WTO or North American Free Trade Agreement challenges are complete, the dollars will have done their job of supporting producers.
“We are so frightened of defending ourselves,” Easter said early this week. “Let’s do what is needed for our industry and then let them challenge us. In every other country, the priority is how can farmers be supported and the second question is, how will this affect trade rules. Here, we have it exactly reversed.”
And he was not just complaining about the Conservative government.
“Our farm groups are the same, afraid to propose anything that might lead to a trade challenge,” he said. “I can tell you that on the ground, farmers in trouble are not worried about trade implications. They are worried about survival.”
Of course, the hog, cattle and wheat industries have spent millions defending themselves against trade challenges, even if they often won. Trade rules can’t be ignored.
But in an industry crisis, would it serve producers better if government took the attitude that it is better to ask forgiveness (or to defend themselves) than to seek permission?
