Just like you, I was quite pleased to find out that all 147 members of the WTO agreed on an insignificant document addressing agriculture. Media in Québec reported a general sigh of relief. I even read that, according to La Presse, this document constituted a major gain for Québec. Major gain? Mrs. Gauthier, Québec’s Minister of Agriculture, reacted with a similar response. Then, early one morning, during a conference call with the new Canadian Minister of Agriculture, I heard Mr. Mitchell defend this very same document in his usual English-only style.

In all honesty, I must admit that I don’t share the rather light-hearted reaction of our two ministers. Truth is, this recent agreement in Geneva gives me hives. Why? Because it maintains the assertion that export subsidies must be eliminated, that tariffs must be substantially reduced, and that agricultural support must be diminished. Such is the mandate given to the negotiators. In these conditions, I can’t see how Canada, being cut off in terms of supply management, can resist for very long.

This said, and within the context of Geneva, the aerobic reaction of our representatives is understandable. Things could’ve been much worse, as you will surely see. This is the end of July and talks between all 147 countries have been ongoing for one whole week already. There’s a lot of pressure on the Canadian delegation. A version of the proposed text contains a killer clause – Article 34, I believe – it would be devastating for supply management. Another clause, just as distressing, requires the dismantlement of the Canadian Wheat Board. Not good. The dark circles under the eyes of our negotiators are proof of how serious the situation has become.

The fifteen or so Canadian agricultural organizations that are present – the Canadian Federation, the UPA, the specialized federations – multiply the number of meetings and cautionary tales. Did you know that Françoise Gauthier – yes, yes, Québec’s Minister of Agriculture is also in Geneva with her principal private secretary and the new Deputy Minister, Michel St-Pierre. In private meetings with negotiators and Canadian ministers, she reiterates Québec’s resolved position.

Meanwhile, in Canada, provinces are mobilizing, in the middle of July no less! A conference with Trade and Agriculture ministers is prepared. Well informed of the situation, Mrs. Gauthier will play an important role. Every province – with the probable exception of Alberta, which is always a little unruly – vigorously defends supply management. A seldom seen unanimity that weighs a little heavier on the already burdened Canadian negotiators.

In the meantime, back in Québec, the coalition and the UPA have amplified their press conferences to alert public opinion. Laurent Pellerin, in his very particular and self-assured haughty fashion, reassures his members and warns the government that this is unacceptable. Pierre-Marc Johnson, the Coalition’s notable spokesperson, takes a public position. The GO5, which orchestrated a brilliant public relations campaign throughout the year, once again takes out its boxes of petitions and solemn commitments.

Upon Mrs. Gauthier’s request – her again – Jean Charest intervenes (we didn’t know he was even interested in agriculture, the situation must be critical). He then calls upon Paul Martin in Ottawa. I don’t have a recording of the conversation, but I think it must have went something like this: “Listen Paul, Canada just can’t accept this text, and for crying out loud, do something.”

The rest is history. When the final version of the agreement is broadcast in the wee hours of the morning, after an intense night of negotiations, Article 34 is gone. Supply management is safe. Canada has played its hand well. However, the Canadian Wheat Board will not have such a reprieve: it already knows that it must scuttle itself in the relatively short term. But you know what? The next negotiations will be long and hard. At best, three years.

We could almost imagine that supply management will survive another round. Although it may come out of this whole exercise a little weaker and a little less generous, I can’t recommend that anyone leap into the speculative purchase of quotas. Because nothing has really changed, the Trojan horse is still inside our walls…