I'll be very quick.
I'd like to thank Pierre for proposing this and talking to me about amending it. However, I'd like to go with my initial motion, and I'll explain why.
The motion reads:
That the Committee recommend the government immediately instruct Canada's negotiator to indicate through the proper channels at the World Trade Organization that the text which undermines or weakens Canada's State Trading Enterprises and Supply Management systems must be removed from the DOHA agreement and that this be reported to the House.
I'll read a very brief paragraph I received from the chief liaison officer of government relations, Ron Davidson, with the Canadian Wheat Board. It touches on state trading enterprises, and I'll show you how it's applicable to supply management:
...the paragraphs that follow elaborate in some detail on why it is critical that the Government of Canada proactively take the initiative and leadership to present and advocate in the WTO its publicly avowed position that decisions pertaining to how Canadian farm products are marketed be taken in Canada, not by other countries.
I know we have the support of the minister on this because he said this.
Time is of the essence, and unless such action is taken on a timely basis at the most senior levels, the right of Canadian farmers to choose how their products are marketed could effectively be conceded, by default, to the unilateral initiative of the former New Zealand chair of the agriculture negotiating group who prepared a draft text that targets solely the Canadian Wheat Board while at the same time exempting the kiwi agriculture exporting state trading enterprise of his own country.
I would like to add that this gentleman is from New Zealand, and they have made it public that they want us to wither down our supply management. It's very important. It has something to do with the way you take it out of brackets so it's just not on the table.
Then we can move on and look at all those other issues that Pierre mentioned--the export subsidies and all of that. It's crucial and timely. It cannot hurt our negotiations if we take that out. That's why I want to leave the motion as it is.