rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

Canada-EU trade talks continue this month, but Canadian ultimatum on beef too tough for EU tastes

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca today for as little as $1 per month!

Change the conversation, support rabble.ca today.

The New Year has barely begun and European trade negotiators are already in Ottawa for more work on a comprehensive, "gold standard" Canada-EU trade and investment deal (CETA). This is according to Inside U.S. Trade, which included a blurb about CETA in a look-ahead piece they ran online this week (subscription only).

"Chief negotiators could meet again in Brussels before the end of January, with a view to bringing together ministers from both sides early this year to finalize tough items like intellectual property protections and agricultural goods trade," said the article. International Trade Minister Ed Fast met European Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht in November to try to do the same thing then but reports suggest it didn't go so well.

But even though the CETA negotiations appear sluggish, with the Prime Minister missing his self-imposed year-end deadline for an agreement, the problem might be very specific: meat. If that's the case, an injection of steroids is (literally) the last thing the Harper government needs to get things moving.

Just before the holidays, former Canadian trade negotiator Peter Clark told the Wall Street Journal he expects the Canada-EU negotiations to continue for another three months but that the EU will want to wrap up before then so it can start (more important) "comprehensive" trade and investment talks with the United States. At about the same time, Postmedia reported that the CETA talks had "hit a hefty roadblock" with Canada and the EU "battling over how much access Canadian beef, pork and other agricultural producers should be granted to the European market."

We've known from the beginning that pork and beef are (excuse the pun) red meat issues for western provinces and the Harper government in the CETA negotiations, and obviously an important export sector generally in the Canadian economy. But as Maude Barlow and Paul Moist write in the Globe and Mail this week, the entire agreement appears to hinge on satisfying that one sector.

Leaked documents from November, which were posted to the La Presse website, suggest that Canada has made public procurement, intellectual property (drugs and copyright), dairy imports and other issues important to the EU contingent on immediate improved access to Europe for Canadian meat.

European negotiators are confused. The EU probably wouldn't have a problem in principle with more Canadian meat on European dinner tables. It's just that most Canadian beef and pork contains hormones that are banned from the European market.

This is a red-line issue for the EU, meaning negotiators cannot cross it. To meet the Harper government's request, not only would the EU have to increase Canadian quotas for beef and pork, as they did once recently, they would also have to relax health standards that are universally supported by EU member states and the public.

The EU is not ready to do this. In the late 1990s, Canada and the U.S. successfully challenged the European ban on meats containing artificial hormones at the World Trade Organization under the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement). But in a notable case of the public interest trumping the profit "rights" of industrial meat producers, Europe maintains the measures in place despite Canadian and U.S. sanctions on some European imports.

CETA could lift quotas for Canadian meat raised without hormones or other prohibited (in the EU) drugs like Ractopamine in pork, but it would take years for Canadian meat producers to develop a hormone-free export market to satisfy any increased opportunities in Europe. And from speaking to people close to the negotiations, this is puzzling the Europeans.

It will also not be an easy problem for the Harper government to solve. For example, the PM might not be able to sell a deal to the meat sector that opens imaginary new access for Canadian producers. They represent an important western and (currently) substantially Conservative constituency with influence in the Cabinet and provincially. Alberta's minister of intergovernmental relations, Cal Dallas, told Postmedia last month, "We've moved a mile in our mind on a whole number of issues, providing access provincially to items that were of key interest to the Europeans, and we continue to reiterate the needs that we have."

For all the complaints out there that Canada's supply managed farming sectors (dairy, poultry, eggs) are hurting Canadian trade opportunities, there is very little said about the Conservative's cozy relationship with Big Meat and its effect on current negotiations with Europe and Asia-Pacific countries in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

In the first case, Canada is trying to protect a non-trade distorting supply management regime (we don't export eggs or milk, for example) from foreign imports that would undercut the sector, and this is said to undermine a "gold standard" agreement. In the second case with meat, Canada is expected to undermine a non-trade distorting pharmaceutical regime, non-trade related public procurement measures, and other public policies for the sake of modest gains for a couple of other sectors, and this increases the quality of the deal.

I don't get it. I imagine a lot of other people won't either. And that, too, might become more of a problem for Harper as the year moves ahead.

To read this week's Globe and Mail op-ed on CETA by Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians, and Paul Moist, national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, click here.

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.