House of Commons Hansard #83 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

World Trade OrganizationPrivate Members' Business

2:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

It is necessary that I read into the record the actual amendment to the bill:

That the motion be amended by adding after the word “system” the following:

“and should also seek an agreement establishing fair and equitable rules that foster the international competitiveness of agricultural exporters in Quebec and Canada.”

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

World Trade OrganizationPrivate Members' Business

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have felt personally touched many times today. Agricultural issues are often discussed here and they are close to my heart. It is therefore a pleasure for me to rise in support of this motion and of the proposed amendment.

The amendment seems a bit redundant. Right from the start, I consider that the rules governing supply management do not in any way infringe on trade. Justice and fairness are an inherent part of this system.

Contrary to what others sometimes say, the rules governing supply management do not infringe on trade. First, they apply to the domestic market, the Canadian market only, and not to the exports, at least not those that have been produced according to the rules. Second, there are no subsidies offered and so, no one can claim that they are distorting the market. That is a second element of fairness. Of course this whole system was defined under the GATT, particularly article 11.

To me, it is obvious that this amendment is not redundant since fairness is already inherent in the text. However, if this can reassure some people, that is great. However, the rules governing supply management already contain this element of fairness.

We have witnessed, over the last several years, the evolution of the supply management system in Canada. Let us recall that these measures were adopted under a Liberal government, several years ago. Let us recall as well the strenuous efforts of the hon. Eugene Whelan, the agriculture minister, who managed so well to defend his interests against a group that was then called the Consumers' Association of Canada. This group derived pleasure from constantly badmouthing the supply management system. It contended that it was damaging to free markets and all kinds of other things. In a nutshell, if a scapegoat could be found somewhere. according to those and other people, supply management was always the culprit.

However, it should be pointed out that producers who were governed by the system supported it. Of course, several parliamentarians showed their mettle, in the beginning, to support this system, as it otherwise would not have survived for so many decades.

In the riding I represent, there are maybe 600 or 700 milk producers, which is a lot fewer than before. When I was first elected, there were maybe 1,100. But that does not mean production is decreasing. In reality, there has been the phenomenon of consolidation, as we well know. There are now, in my riding, very large farms having a lot more quota and more livestock. These days, the farms are bigger. But, in my area, they still are family farms, even though they may describe themselves differently now.

We only have to ask ourselves what would have happened to farming and milk production had these rules not existed. Would we have seen the phenomenon that appeared in the northern United States? For example, in the State of New York, there is one dairy farm that spreads over thousands of acres and is not subject to any quota system. Some of its employees have probably rarely or never seen the owner of the farm. That is the kind of farming they are doing. There was some consolidation in our area, but on a much smaller scale. We were able to preserve this lifestyle because of supply management.

Our farmers have always benefited greatly from this system, and we must continue to defend it in this House.

When I sat as an opposition member, I was one of two agricultural critics for several years, and I fought for this for a long time. Incidentally, I was just telling some of my employees that during the election campaign I drew up a 10-point priority list for my constituents, and protection of supply management was on that list.

I would like to go back to the issue raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland—Quinte West and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. He was talking about a resolution his riding association and mine co-sponsored at the Liberal convention. It provided for the continued support and enhancement of supply management. The debate on the motion was minimal. If my memory serves me right, all speakers at the convention were supportive of the points I just raised. That tells us how much Canadian farmers have benefited from this system.

This may be a bit controversial for some, but I think we should consider setting up a similar system for beef production in this country. I notice some members opposite do not agree. If it had been done 10, 15 or 20 years ago, our producers would be far better off today. They would not have all the problems and hardships they are having today. I see a Conservative member shaking his head. He is quite free to disagree, but I think we did something very good for the poultry industry, where it applies. Almost all species except ducks and geese are included in the system.

Farmers in my riding make a good living or at least a better living than those who do not have a supply management system, such as the producers of beef, field crops, grains, oilseeds, and so on. They are really struggling. Those who are in supply-managed products are better off.

We have more proof of this. Even where quotas offer some protection, for example in the case of dairy products, there is an unprotected area, which is that of cull cows. Unprotected areas do not fare well. We have demonstrated that the system protects some areas, but that where the system does not apply, there are problems.

I do not think that beef producers would want to establish a similar system. I hear what is being said in the west and even in my own province, except in my riding, where I believe beef producers would agree to such a system. Even elsewhere in my province, I can see that there is little interest in a system of quotas for beef production. Nonetheless, I believe that such a system would have avoided many of the problems we have today.

All of this to say that I support the motion before us today. Earlier today, I raised the issue in the House with the Minister of International Trade. I called on him to use section 28 of the GATT to establish some protection in areas where we were hurt recently by the Court of International Trade. Therefore, I will support wholeheartedly the motion and its amendment, as they were presented to us today, although I think that the motion was good enough as it was and did not need to be amended. Nevertheless, I support both and I recommend their adoption to the House.

World Trade OrganizationPrivate Members' Business

2:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. member for Montcalm has five minutes to summarize and conclude.

World Trade OrganizationPrivate Members' Business

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House what supply management, or SM5, is all about. Supply management is a tool enabling milk, chicken, turkey, hatching and table egg producers to achieve the best balance possible between supply and demand for their products across Quebec and Canada.

This way, producers only produce just enough products to meet Canadian needs and avoid producing surpluses which would then have to be cleared at a loss. This planning process, coupled with import control and a mechanism that enables producers to negotiate collectively a price based on their production cost, assures them of a stable and fairer income, without governmental subsidies.

At the request of dairy producers in Quebec and Canada, who met with the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant and me, it was agreed to add the following to the motion. Allow me therefore to read the new, amended Motion M-163:

That, in the opinion of the House, in the current World Trade Organization negotiations, the government should not agree to any concession that would weaken collective marketing strategies or the supply management system and should also seek an agreement establishing fair and equitable rules that foster the international competitiveness of agricultural exporters in Quebec and Canada.

That is what the Dairy Farmers of Canada asked for to help exporters. Let me read an excerpt from the press release of Grey, Clark, Shih & Associates, Limited, International Trade & Public Affairs. It reads as follows:

The Canadian government must do more at the WTO to ensure a better balance in agricultural trade.

Ottawa, April 14, 2005.

“The Government of Canada must be more firm in its negotiations on agricultural trade at the WTO, because the current framework of negotiations will not make it possible to alleviate the imbalances between participating countries. If the ties between subsidies and tariffs are not taken into consideration, this will perpetuate and worsen existing imbalances in the WTO rules that apply to agricultural trade”. This is what Peter Clark, from Grey, Clark, Shih & Associates, said during the presentation of the findings of a study sponsored by Canada's dairy producers. The presentation was made yesterday, in Quebec City, at the annual general meeting of the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec.

Peter Clark used empirical data to demonstrate that the subsidies granted in countries like the United States allow their producers to better absorb the impact of tariff reductions. In 2003, American dairy producers benefited from direct and indirect support to the tune of $13.8 billion US. This means that the subsidies that they receive from federal, state and local governments account for about 40% of their revenues. These subsidies have the effect of restricting access to the U.S. market. The United States is advocating tariff reductions, because it can restrict access to its market, while trying to export American products abroad.

In conclusion, all political parties in this House must agree with motion No. M-163, as amended, to protect our five supply management groups, which do not cost Quebec and Canadian taxpayers a penny.

World Trade OrganizationPrivate Members' Business

2:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?

World Trade OrganizationPrivate Members' Business

2:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

World Trade OrganizationPrivate Members' Business

2:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

World Trade OrganizationPrivate Members' Business

2:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Amendment agreed to)

World Trade OrganizationPrivate Members' Business

2:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The next question is on the motion, as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

World Trade OrganizationPrivate Members' Business

2:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

World Trade OrganizationPrivate Members' Business

2:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

It being 2:27 p.m. this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:27 p.m.)