With our without!

Read all of « More than words »

A few months ago, Prime Minister Harper reminded us that Canada may face difficult choices as it tries to reach a deal in Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) talks. This was an exceptionally clear declaration that unexpectedly turned the focus on the developing mega trade accord.

Moreover, the political issues surrounding the appointment of President Obama as the Trade Promotion Authority (also called fast-track) is seen as a disquieting move by some, while others view this appointment with optimism.

There is great consensus as to the necessity of maintaining the integrality of supply management as part of these negotiations. Any new infraction of the tariff barriers would not only be inappropriate but inadvisable. Nonetheless, if there is to be a TPP, then Canada must be part of it. We should not go so far as to question the relevance of Canada’s participation in this type of agreement.

The Bank of Canada’s governor, Stephen Poloz, has repeatedly stated to whoever wanted to listen that Canada’s potential for economic growth relies primarily on exports. In fact, Mr Poloz’ predecessor, Mark Carney, made this his pet project. Although the U.S. is and will long remain Canada’s main economic partner, Asia-Pacific is where the strongest growth will be occurring over the next decade. Africa could very well be next in line in terms of growth. I bet – or should I say I hope – that the people in charge of Canada’s trade program have already considered this.

Trade agreements are essential to Canada’s economic growth, but they can also hurt. The trade agreement between Canada and Europe was a great disappointment for many, especially with the prospective of importing thousands of extra tons of cheese that will nibble domestic market’s small potential for growth. If this accord is implemented (potentially the second half of 2016), its effects will be felt gradually. Inversely, Korea’s example demonstrates that a lack of trade agreements can also be a major drawback.

A few years ago, the United States ratified their agreement with Korea, which led to lower tariff barriers for several agricultural products. Only recently was Canada able to do the same (January 1^st 2015). The result: For years, Canadian pork wasn’t competitive and was practically excluded from this lucrative market. The parallel with the TPP is loaded with meaning: Japan is a huge market for Canadian pork, much bigger than Korea. Now, imagine for a moment the U.S. having preferred access to the Japanese market, access that Canada would not share: The consequences would be disastrous. Canada cannot remain on the sidelines of what has essentially become a race for trade agreements. Industries such as agrifood, maple products and pork need more fluid trade bridges with countries around the world experiencing growing demand.

Ratifying accords that would make these exchanges more fluid, while shutting the door on additional dairy and poultry makes it that much harder for our negotiators. Just like every other country I expect. As for Japan, the list of ‘sensitive’ products is rather extensive: rice, wheat and barley, beef and pork, dairy products, sugar - perhaps a list of ‘non sensitive’ products would make things easier? Let’s not be ashamed!