The Rural Voice, 1987-10, Page 30FREE TRADE:
dilemmas in agriculture
The outcome of months of negotiations between Canada and
the U.S. is expected to be made public early this month. The
following background analysis focuses on the diverse concerns
of Canadian farmers in relation to a complex issue.
by Adrian Vos
and Rural Voice staff
It is no wonder that the public is
confused about the outcome of the
Canada -U.S. talks on free trade. The
problem starts with the very moniker
"free trade" — or is it "freer" or
"enhanced" trade?
Adding to the confusion are the
pronouncements of the politicians. The
Prime Minister has said that free trade
will create 350,000 jobs, citing the
recent study of the Economic Council of
Canada (EEC), an independent think
tank, as the basis for his statement. The
labour unions and the New Democratic
Party assert that Canada will lose more
jobs than it will gain. Premier David
Peterson, the beer brewers union, and
some brewing companies warn that all
brewery jobs will go to the U.S. Farm
groups fear that supply management
will be sacrificed. Minister of Agri-
culture John Wise says that agricultural
marketing boards won't be touched.
And so on, almost ad infinitum. The
situation has a parallel in religious
discussions, where each side adopts a
set of unshakeable beliefs.
The agricultural sector has. looked
upon the talks as beneficial in some
areas and harmful in others. This
response is really no different from the
general reaction. All in all, there is no
ddubt that there will be winners and
losers should a deal be signed, and that
changes to the status quo could have far-
reaching effects on market access and
supply management in Canada.
Let's look at the various statements
and opinions as they affect rural Ontario
and put them in perspective.
Americans, says former
Minister of Agriculture Eugene
Whelan, see free trade as an
opportunity to "export their
chaos" to the Canadian market.
First, then, the term "free trade."
Taken literally, this term implies the
abolishing of all tariffs and barriers. But
this extreme is not even being consi-
dered. Some barriers will remain and
will have to remain in order to let both
countries maintain sovereignty. "Freer
trade" is the better designation.
"I'm not prepared to see these
successful marketing systems
(in the dairy, turkey, egg, and
broiler sectors) bargained away
in a free trade deal and the
government I represent is not
prepared to see them bargained
away."
— Ontario Minister of
Agriculture Jack Riddell
At the same time, we must realize
that because only the federal govern-
ment and the negotiating team know
precisely which items are being nego-
tiated and which are not, all studies to
assess the impact of an agreement
assume the dropping of all barriers. It
follows that the study by the ECC cited
by Brian Mulroney cannot be precise,
and the statement that free trade will
create 350,000 jobs is misleading. The
ECC study said, in fact, that if all trade
barriers were dropped there would be an
additional 350,000 jobs eight years after
the full implementation of an agree-
ment. This would occur by about 2005,
because any agreement would be
phased in over ten years.
Minister of International Trade
Pat Carney has suggested that a
major consideration for a trade
agreement is the removal of all,
or virtually all, tariffs by the
year 2000.
Let's take a closer look at agricul-
ture. The meat producers of Canada and
the grain producers are convinced that
they can compete successfully with
Americans if treated equally with regard
to subsidies.
"The cattle and hog producers
share the view that free move-
ment of live animals and meat is
essential to a vibrant progres-
sive agriculture in the province.
As well, Ontario's red meat
processors depend on ready,
unimpeded access to the U.S.
market to maintain production
and marketing efficiency and
28 THE RURAL VOICE