INTERNATIONAL trade minister Jim Peterson, a Toronto lawyer reappointed to cabinet July 20, clearly had been briefed on the tense trade negotiations under way in Geneva.
He knew that for Canada, the key issues in the World Trade Organization talks are agricultural.
And he knew that dozens of Canadian farm representatives are in Geneva trying to influence chief Canadian agriculture negotiator Steve Verheul, as well as other countries, to accept the wisdom of Canadian arguments.
Peterson also presumably knew, when questioned by the Western Producer, that he was speaking directly through the newspaper to farmers with a direct interest in the outcome of the talks.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
However, it is not clear he understood how divided Canadian farmers are, how contradictory their message has become on trade issues.
“We are very supportive of the Canadian agricultural groups that are over there,” he said July 21. “They are being briefed every day by officials.”
Supportive of which Canadian farm groups, since Canadian farm lobbyists in Geneva are arguing opposite sides of the coin?
Peterson can be excused for not yet understanding the dilemma facing government negotiators as they try to straddle the Canadian farm trade divide.
“We’re supporting Canada’s farm lobbyists that are in Geneva” seems like a safe political statement for a relatively green trade minister. Intuitively correct as it may seem, it isn’t. To do that would require a split personality.
Peterson wants us to know the government is a voice for farmer demands in Geneva during high-powered WTO talks that may lead to a negotiating framework by the end of this week.
Such a framework would essentially set the goals for the next year or two of negotiations leading to a new WTO trade agreement by as early as 2006.
So what is the farmer voice in Geneva this week telling Canada’s negotiators?
At a high level of generality, there is agreement on goals. Farmers want the Doha development round of WTO talks to proceed and they want the end result to be easier world access for Canadian farm products.
The government shares the goal. So far so good.
At the detail level, it is more complicated.
One faction, led by the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance and embraced by Grain Growers of Canada and the Canadian Meat Council, wants Canada to endorse any framework that could lead to increased trade and decreased protectionism, including Canadian protectionism.
The other faction, led by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, insists no framework should be supported if it would lead to an undermining of supply management, the Canadian Wheat Board or Canada’s right to support its farmers, particularly if it would allow other countries to continue subsidizing far more than Canada.
Canadian negotiators this week face the unenviable task of trying to stay in the negotiating game while facing domestic pressure to achieve different ends.
It is difficult to imagine a compromise that would satisfy both.
If there is a framework agreement by July 30 and Canada is part of the consensus, one of the farm factions will be angry.
