The slightest of mirthless smiles slid from Lyle Vanclief’s lips as he sat one morning last week, absorbing some “friendly fire” from his left flank.
Fellow Liberal MP Wayne Easter was at the microphone, preparing to criticize European Union agriculture commissioner Franz Fischler for the EU use of barley export subsidies.
But first, Easter paid a compliment.
He appreciates the European determination to use subsidies to keep their farmers on the land, said the Liberal MP.
Then, with agriculture minister Vanclief listening, Easter took a shot at his own government’s farm support paring.
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?
“I’d be inclined to tell our own minister here we should support ours a little heavier,” said the former National Farmers Union president, now parliamentary secretary to the fisheries minister.
Easter had touched on one of the key subtexts to the international trade talks that will dominate and define agricultural policy making during the next half decade or more.
Late in 1999, the next round of World Trade Organization talks on new agricultural rules begin.
One of the greatest challenges facing trade negotiators will be to try to reconcile two distinctly different views of how much the state should support farmers.
The prevalent American view, embraced by Canada (even if not always practised by the U.S.), is that farmers should largely live or die on the market.
Governments can help smooth the peaks and valleys of volatile farm income swings but should not try to use public funds or supportive policies to prop up farmers in defiance of market signals.
Government’s main role should be to try to make markets work better, eliminating artificial advantages given to competitors. This philosophy will inspire attempts to negotiate a sharp lowering of subsidies, tariffs and other trade barriers.
The European Union, one of the world’s trade superpowers, will bring a radically different attitude to the negotiating table.
The Europeans do not consider farm subsidies a dirty word. They brag about them. In fact, the EU is proposing to reduce subsidies tied to production but increase direct income supports to encourage Western Europe’s 7.5 million farmers to stay on the land.
And European negotiators will be in no mood to listen to other countries complain such subsidies will have the trade-distorting effect of encouraging more farmers and more production.
Last week in Ottawa, Fischler said: “It must be appreciated that the EU views agriculture not merely as an economic activity but also as a social and environmental one.” The Europeans consider their rural areas, and the farmers who care for those spaces, to be an integral part of society. They are prepared to ask taxpayers to ensure they remain.
It is common for North American academics, bureaucrats and politicians to brag that farm policy is now business policy, not social or lifestyle policy.
The Europeans find that a curious, anti-social view. The next GATT talks will feature a clash between two philosophies of where farmers fit into society.
