| SUBSCRIBE MARKETS WEATHER LINKS HOME |
|
MPs indulge in political theatre surrounding the supply management debateBy voting 288-0 to protect supply management at the world trade talks, members of parliament were attempting to appear more Catholic than the Pope.by BARRY WILSONIn late November, on the eve of the election call and just weeks before the start of December's World Trade Organization (WTO) talks in Hong Kong, Canada's Members of Parliament did a most extraordinary thing.They voted unanimously that Canada must reject any WTO deal that would decrease supply management over-quota tariffs by even a fraction of a percent or increase by a single pound imports of product that would compete with supply management. Talk about shackling your negotiators. It is, of course, political fiction perpetrated by election-bound politicians anxious to prove to supply management farmers they are more Catholic than the Pope and more supply management than Dairy Farmers of Canada president Jacques Laforge. There is not a chance that Canada would reject a tariff-reducing deal that improved the trade prospects for other food sectors, industrial products, service providers and the multi-billion dollar non-agricultural interests that want a WTO deal. Not a chance. It was theatre, pure and simple, meant to impress the impressionable farm community. Dairy Farmers of Ontario chair Bruce Saunders quickly indicated that he was not fooled, suggesting in late November that there is no chance the government will not sign an eventual deal if one emerges. But it was theatre that may have serious implications for the credibility of whoever forms the government after Jan. 23. No doubt, a WTO deal in 2006 that includes some compromises in supply management supports will bring some very pointed questions about political lies and politicians who are liars. Consider who joined in the 288-0 vote that evening. Prime Minister Paul Martin and all his Liberal MPs voted for it. Jack Layton and all his New Democrats voted for it. Conservative leader Stephen Harper was absent, but all his MPs present voted for it, including deputy leader Peter MacKay. One of the most surprising supporters was Alberta Conservative and party trade critic Ted Menzies, a former grain farmer who was a key player in the founding of the anti-protection Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance (CAFTA). Three years ago, he would have been firing off a press release about protectionists under every rock. But, in the Commons, he criticized the Liberals for not convincing the rest of the world that "Canada's supply managed sectors ought to be exempt from WTO negotiations." Eh? CAFTA, his former allies, fired off the letter he would have sent, demanding that Martin make it clear that Canada's negotiators were not to be shackled and sidelined at WTO talks. "A mandate like this would remove Canada's agriculture negotiators from agriculture market access negotiations and as a result would also likely exclude them from negotiations on export competition and subsidies."
There was no response, of course, because it was all fiction. Does the world understand that? Is this why politics has a bad name? BF Barry Wilson is a member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery specializing in agriculture.
|