Thank you.
Mr. Emerson, we wanted to hear your views on supply management. That is why I requested that you testify here. You granted an interview to the Western Producer which appeared last December 21. This interview generated a great deal of concern amongst supply-managed farm producers. The national presidents of the five supply management sectors asked to meet with you, but this meeting has not taken place to date. You're here, and these are public debates: these people will therefore be able to hear your responses.
You could try to sweep this interview under the carpet, but the fact remains that this is not some little quote given during the course of an interview on some other subject. The entire interview pertained to supply management. In addition, you were interviewed by an experienced reporter. He has been attending all of the agriculture committee meetings since I came here. In other words, he knows the subject. I personally read the Western Producer as I read all of the other newspapers and magazines dealing with agriculture, and I know that you were not facing a new recruit. I believe that he reported your words accurately. Moreover, as you yourself said, you are not denying what was written.
In your opening remarks, you said that with this type of negotiations—and this is how things are occurring in the Doha Round—, you have to give and take. You also said that concessions were necessary, and therein lies the source of some serious concerns.
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth by saying that we will be supporting supply management while at the same time making concessions. What do you mean by that? You were there in November 2005 when we voted unanimously in favour of a Bloc Québécois motion stating precisely that there were to be no concessions. This motion clearly stated that there would not be tariff reductions or increased market access. And yet, you said in your opening remarks that concessions were required.
I would like to know what type of concessions you're prepared to make.