Evidence of meeting #39 for International Trade in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was producers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
10:40 a.m.
Past-President, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance
Just to make something clear, and I hope Mr. Laforge would agree with this, right now at the Doha Round—the Doha negotiations, or the “soft negotiations”, or whatever they call the negotiations right now that aren't happening but are happening—no one's talking about supply management. They're talking about tariff reduction formulas.
I've had the amazing opportunity to represent CAFTA in Geneva, and I've met with dozens of missions. Nobody has ever challenged the idea of Canada operating a domestic policy called supply management.
I've done a lot of work with the head of the American Farm Bureau, representing the major farm group in the States. His name is Bob Stallman. He has never brought up the issue of having concerns around supply management. When we discuss sensitive products, they're talking about tariff reductions, at a level different from the general level.
It is interesting that in Canada it's a big deal. The last we talked about it.... Mr. Julian, nearly all your questions are directed towards that, and I was hoping you'd ask us more, too. But around the world it's not an issue. Tariffs are an issue, but that's not.
You talk about value-added and the government's role in it. I am positive that this won't align with the goals and values of the NDP, but I really believe in our strong entrepreneurial sector in Canada. Despite $360 billion in subsidies, despite mega-tariffs that are 300% and 400%, over half of us in this country do compete in international markets and do add value. Just give us the tools, let us go at it, and we will provide jobs for Canadians across this great country.
10:40 a.m.
Second Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
Thank you.
You asked about the Canadian Wheat Board. I think the issue there is that if your biggest competitor doesn't want you to have a tool, you should consider why. But again, it's our position that producers should be the ones to decide this.
Relative to value-adding, we are in a situation in this country, and have been for many years, where we have asked our producers to compete against the U.S. treasury. We've asked the rest of the industry, pre-farm gate and post-farm gate, to take on a small piece of it, but it has ultimately been the producer who has had the largest battle.
If we're going to be able to add value in this country in a real, substantive way, we need to have competitive tools to deal with it—not just at the producer's level, but certainly the producer needs to have those tools; so does the rest of the industry. We can't ask an industry to compete against the U.S. treasury. It can't happen in a sustainable way.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
Now we go to the official opposition Liberal Party and Monsieur LeBlanc, for five minutes.
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your very interesting comments which were not contradictory, but did sometimes present varying points of view on the highly important topic of farm production. I thank you for being so candid.
Mr. Shauf and Mr. McCreery, among others, and Mr. White, I believe, spoke of the importance of looking into the possibility of concluding agreements for bilateral trade with other countries. I think that my colleague, Mr. Maloney, also touched on this issue, as did the parliamentary secretary.
Perhaps I could just pick up on Mr. Maloney's question, where he asked you to talk about bilateral agreements. I agree with the parliamentary secretary: that since 2001 we have not successfully concluded agreements is something that should cause us some concern.
As all of you know, and this is a public discussion, the previous government and this government are working towards agreements, for example, with Korea, and with the Central American countries. I know that some companies in my part of Atlantic Canada—for example, McCain Foods, amongst others—are hoping that some of these markets will offer opportunities.
I think it was Mr. Shauf who mentioned China and India. They are obviously huge markets. Could you prioritize for me: if you were the Minister of International Trade, which agreements that we're working on now—maybe it's EFTA, maybe it's South Korea, maybe it's Central America, maybe it's Singapore—of the ones that are in the hopper, if you will, now or that are being looked at now, or which other ones do you think the government should pursue? If you would rank them, I'd be curious to know where you think the greatest opportunity for Canadian agricultural exports lies and what advice you might have for the government and this committee as to what we could do to try to move them forward.
10:45 a.m.
Clinton Monchuk Policy Analyst, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
Right now we're negotiating quite a number of different agreements. Right off the bat, the South Korean FTA would probably be one of the biggest kind of positive notes for primary producers.
When we start looking forward and looking at other agreements, we had an industry group get together to look at where we needed to go, and we prioritized them already. Obviously number one was China, just from the sheer size of the country and where they're going for liberalized trade.
Moving on, Japan is obviously another big trading partner of ours. Mexico is already going through an agreement with them, then the Andean community, India, and Morocco. So that would be the list of prioritized countries, as we see it.
10:45 a.m.
Policy Director, Canadian Canola Growers Association
I'll respond from a canola-specific perspective. We see bilateral opportunities, certainly with the South Korean one, which is in progress. They're all priorities. It's hard to distinguish which one holds the key to better prosperity for us, but China is right up there, then Japan, Pakistan, and of course the European Union.
Those countries also have huge market potential for canola, if we can get some of the tariff issues resolved around them.
10:45 a.m.
Past-President, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance
Thank you.
That's an excellent question, and I'm going to give you a two-pronged approach.
First, there's always a fear that when we go into the bilaterals, sensitive products will be left off the table. I had the opportunity to make a presentation to a Japanese delegation about agricultural products, and they basically said, agriculture sensitive, full stop. So I just looked them in the eye and said that in Canada we might consider cars sensitive; is that the way you want to negotiate?
So I really encourage this group to push for agriculture access when they go after the bilaterals. There are different markets for different industries, which I get to represent today, so it's just an overall statement. Please remember us and actually make movement for us when we get into these agreements, because the Koreans, the Japanese, and the Europeans really don't want to talk about agriculture to any large extent. So please get us access when you go into them.
I don't want to talk too much about the importance of bilaterals, and they are important, because I don't want to let you guys off the hook. I know there are a lot of really tough decisions around Doha and balancing 100% of this great sector, but it's more than just agriculture.
All of the Canadian economy relies on the WTO, and if we come to you today and say, go after the bilaterals and forget the WTO, since it's dead, we are letting you off the hook.
I know it's tough. I know you're getting pressures from all sides, but it's so fundamentally important to all of us in Canada that we have a successful WTO.
Thank you for allowing me to get on the soapbox again.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
Thank you again.
I'm following up on Mr. McCreery's final comments about the importance of this. We tend to forget that agriculture is the building block of all world trade. If we can't get an agreement on agriculture, we will not get an agreement on services. We will not get an agreement on non-agriculture market access. So we're letting down all of Canada's industries, as well as going back to my comments about least developed countries.
A lot of this is based on sensitive products. We heard the comment about how many sensitive products there are, and I would like someone to address this, perhaps Mr. McCreery, because I sense you started on a bit of a rant, and I'd like you to continue.
Every country's export is someone else's sensitive product. How do we deal with that in plain and simple English?
10:50 a.m.
Past-President, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance
In very simple English, the WTO has come up with the July framework that attempts to deal with that. Basically when you strip away all the terminology, hopefully there are going to be two tariff reduction levels: the major tariff reduction formula for most products and another tariff reduction formula for those designated as sensitive. It's that simple. That's the way we have to approach this.
A Machiavellian response would be, let's make them all product-sensitive, come up with one tariff reduction formula, and get it over with. So there's the answer. The excellent negotiators and the ministers from around the world have come up with two tariff reduction formulas. It's that simple. One is the general reduction; one is the sensitive. That's what we're talking about today.
Does that answer your question, sir?
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
Yes. I did want it explained in plain English, so I do appreciate that.
I think this is doable, but there has to be the will on behalf of Canada and on behalf of many other countries. In Geneva this weekend I sensed that a lot more countries were interested in moving forward. Although some pretty much still had their feet nailed to the floor and didn't want to move, fewer countries had their feet nailed to the floor than what I saw when I was in Hong Kong. I'm encouraged by that.
I think you have another comment.
10:50 a.m.
Past-President, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance
Now I get to hold your feet to the fire, Ted. Only one country in the world has set zero tariff reduction on sensitive products, and that's Canada.
We are working on convergence. We are working on consensus. That is the position we're in right now. As I said before, I know it's a tough political thing for everyone in this room to deal with, but that's the reality we face.
You want plain language, there it is.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Menzies, Mr. Laforge has indicated that he would like to respond too. Maybe it would be appropriate, seeing the way the discussion is going.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
10:50 a.m.
President, Dairy Farmers of Canada
I just want to point out that it's not that simple. It's not just about over-quota, about tariff reduction, about all that stuff. Countries manage their TRQs, their in-quota, their market access, and their over-quota through a number of elements.
We never said we don't want a tariff reduction. We said if we're going to take tariff reduction from a dairy perspective, it has to be an in-quota tariff reduction. Other countries are saying the opposite, that we'll take an over-quota tariff reduction but we don't want an in-quota tariff reduction because we don't want to give market access.
You have to decide which one you want, which one is most precious to you. If grains and oilseeds in India decides to reduce the over-quota tariff when the in-quota tariff is not going down, because that's the system they have, it doesn't add anything. They're better off having an in-quota tariff reduction. Mexico is a prime example of that.
So it's not that simple. You have to target what you want, protect what you want, and negotiate that way.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
When I was in India on a trade mission two years ago, we were talking mostly about pulse crops. About 97% of India's pulse crops come from Canada. I was talking to some of the importers, and after the discussion was over, they came to me to plead for Canada to export cheese. They said that in India they don't like the taste of the bitter cheese from Europe; they love Canadian cheese. They asked me how they could access cheese from Canada. They love our cheese, and they'd like to buy it. They wanted to know what system was stopping them from being able to buy cheese from Canada.
Mr. Laforge, please.
December 5th, 2006 / 10:55 a.m.
President, Dairy Farmers of Canada
Nothing is stopping India from buying cheese from Canada. If they come and ask, we'll gladly sell them cheese. We'll do the same for any country that wants it.
It's not that we don't want to do this, but it has to be profitable. That's the bottom line. You can't not get government subsidies and keep these export activities. If you're able to export without subsidies and be profitable....
The dairy industry is exporting now. It's not in big quantities, because we're staying inside our limits, but the dairies export out there to different countries, non-subsidized. That we do, but nobody sees it. And it is profitable; we do it inside the domestic system.
If you can give me those names, we'll gladly ship them cheese.
