by BARRY WILSON
OTTAWA Almost four weeks into what will be an 11-week marathon campaign before Canadians cast their ballots Oct. 19 for the next federal government, agricultural issues have not been a blip on the national campaign radar screen.
Leaders have been crisscrossing the country and sometimes making pitches for votes in rural ridings but no party has published an agricultural policy and no leader has made sector issues a priority.
For Ontario beef farmer and Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Ron Bonnett, that illustrates one of the problems with the campaign so far.
“I think the number one issue is that we have to raise the profile of agriculture,” he said during an agricultural policy panel hosted Aug. 26 by The Hill Times newspaper and supported by national marketing boards. “We have to raise the awareness of what agriculture does in rural areas, in the economy and across the country.”
He cited issues ranging from sector labour needs and consumer perceptions of the food industry to agriculture’s role in combating climate change.
But the core issue is to get agriculture noticed as a major economic and social force, said Bonnett. It is the backbone of the food processing industry that is Canada’s largest manufacturing sector.
“We need to get recognized.”
David McInnes, president of the Canadian Agricultural Policy Institute, argued that the election campaign is an opportunity to remind politicians and consumers of some of the strengths of the Canadian food system and to pose a simple but profound question: “Should Canada have the most trusted food source in the world?”
He said the Canadian food system has many attributes that could be sold as a marketing strategy at home and abroad.
McInnes argued that producers are subsidized far less than in many other countries including the United States, Canadian consumers spend less of their disposable income on food than consumers in most countries, Canadian agriculture leaves a smaller environmental footprint than many of its competitors and its food safety and traceability systems are robust.
“Consumers want to know how food is produced and what’s in it,” he said. “The sector has a great story to tell.”
However, the issue of trade negotiations and their impact on agriculture hovered over the debate and will play a role in the campaign as opposition politicians accuse the Conservative government of being willing to sacrifice supply management protections.
Canada is part of a Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiation and reportedly is offering some concessions on supply management protections.
A trade deal with the European Union negotiated in 2013 includes an increase in European cheese exports to Canada.
CFA president Bonnett argued that while the issue often is framed as protectionist supply management against agricultural exporter interests, it is a distortion. The two can co-exist.
“All farmers want a strong trade deal,” he said. “Supply management is important as are exports.”
Grace Skogstad, University of Toronto political science professor at the Scarborough campus complained that none of the campaigning political parties is being honest about the impact of trade talks on the sector. She does not expect that to change.
“What I find regrettable is that there is a perception that there are only winners in trade agreements,” said Skogstad. “CETA (the Canada-EU deal) proves there are costs with the promise of more cheese imports. We need trade agreements but there are going to be costs, sectors that are hurt, and governments should be more honest about that.”
However, she predicted there will be no TPP deal during the election or during the year, if ever.
Meanwhile, all the major parties will campaign on supporting trade deals while protecting supply management. “I just think that is dishonest.”
On Sept. 30, 18 days before the vote, the CFA will host an agricultural debate in Ottawa aimed at pinning parties down on their commitments to and plans for the agricultural sector. BF
Comments
Agriculture deserves to be well-off the election radar when, on one hand, an agricultural panel, hardly an impartial panel given that it is supported by supply management, decries the so-called "dishonesty" of trade at the same time as Ron Bonnett, President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture perpetrates the ultimate in dishonesty by claiming that supply management and export interests can "co-exist".
Uh, Mr. Bonnett, really, they can't co-exist, and the sooner Canadian agriculture stops trying to pretend in these sort of protectionist fairy tales, the sooner Canadian agriculture will start to be taken seriously instead of being, quite-correctly, seen to be a contradictory laughing-stock.
More to the point, Bonnett should be discrediting the "dishonesty" of protectionism instead of pandering to the the "thirty pieces of silver" offered by supply management.
I can almost guarantee my views are not the views of any organization with which I am affiliated, but then again, I don't really care - the issues surrounding TPP are too important, especially for an ag economist, to kowtow to the evils of protectionism.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
A trade deal sure benefit both Countries involved.You would never trade a Mac and cheese sandwich for a half rotten apple on the school lunch hour.however that seems to be the penchant of this Fed Government when they hatched the CETA deal.We gave up a slice of our artisan cheese market for an larger European beef and pork market, a market share that we were never filling to start with and never capable of filling in the future,we simply don't have the processing capacity.
No wonder there is so much secrecy surrounding the TPP talks,consumers should have the right to know what this Government is trading away.Why are we looking at foreign beef and pork trade deals when meat prices are so high in our own grocery stores and we are told short on supply ?Fill our own markets first!
If everyone looked at trade the way quota owners do it would be so simple...however economically it would be a dead end for every one else.
If we are not part of the TPP it will not only cost any future trade deals but we will lose the current trade with Japan...one of the most lucrative markets. The loss of South Korea trade shows the repercussions involved with not being involved.
Quite simply put, Canada is and always has been a trading nation and without trade deals, we will be shut out of current and future trade...only a quota holder could possibly see that as a good thing.
What percent of the Canadian population owns quota?
Canada imports 6% of our Dairy produce,the US without quota imports only 2%..who has the better Supply Management?
Just because the TPP is stagnant does not mean we have run out of trading partners.Canada has bi-lateral agreements with India,Japan and ongoing Korea,also free trade agreements with Panama, Jordan, Colombia, Peru,Costa Rica, Chile and Israel. The notion that we will be shut out of other Asian trade deals is a scare tactic by those that wish to trade away something of value for markets we could never hope to fill.
I heard a wise man once say that your price is only going to be slightly better as your alternative (or the same). So, the more alternatives you have the better off you are. Of course you are not going to fill all of the export markets, nobody suggested that. Unless you have a monopoly...I can think of one...then you nurture the best options...and comparing the Japanese market with any of the smaller markets you suggest is not a real comparison at all. Everyone except quota holders needs the TPP.
There is a difference in not being able to fill export markets and knowing that during negotiations. The CETA deal was a perfect example,we can't fill existing European markets but they will certainly fill their artisan cheese market over here.
The whole thing becomes one big photo-op for the Feds.
No difference at all. The principle is the same. The more markets you have available, the more flexibility you have as a business. Ignoring markets is done at the peril of a business...times change and cutting off a market is just wrong headed.
The one common trait of all supply management supporters, especially the anonymous ones, is their inability to use logic and statistics properly - if the US imports only 2% of its dairy products and Canada 6%, it's because the price in Canada is higher than in the US, thereby allowing importers to make more money by importing into Canada.
In addition, supply management supporters seem to be unable to grasp the point continually made by Ian Cumming (and anyone else with an IQ greater than their shoe size) that this 6% import figure would go down, rather than up, if supply management ended because quota-free Canadian dairy farmers would be able to increase production to replace these imports.
And accusing, for example, cattle and hog farmers of "scare tactics" because they are advocating for quick ratifying of TPP because we won't likely get as good a deal if we stall, is the ultimate in sleazy, especially given the deplorable scare tactics used by supply management supporters, including their fear-mongering that Canada will be awash in BST if supply management ends - a claim that is complete nonsense given that almost all of the milk on US store-shelves is labeled as being BST-free.
As always, my views may not be shared by any organization with which I am affiliated, but, then again, farm organizations tend to be run by populists rather than by statisticians.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Post new comment