Agriculture Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2010

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you, gentlemen. I am going to turn to Mr. Gauthier. I represent the riding of Compton—Stanstead where agricultural production is very prevalent, as is organic farming.

I want to go back to the issue of supply management. The issue always comes up because it's not the first time that attempts have been made to abolish supply management. I don't understand something. You said earlier that the EU wanted to abolish supply management because it was negotiable.

In your view, why would the European Union want to negotiate supply management when it is, itself, moving towards creating a milk board?

I read recently that an association was set up to defend the interests of dairy producers vis-à-vis processors and distributors which are highly concentrated in Europe. It is called the European Milk Board, and includes 100,000 dairy producers and 19 unions in 14 countries.

Where do they draw their inspiration from? From here. On the one hand, you talk about protecting supply management, and on the other hand, the European Union wants it to be negotiable. How can you explain what appears to be a double standard?

[Gilles Gauthier]

Thank you. Perhaps this requires some clarification. Our position is very clear: we will remain firm and defend supply management. As far as I know, the Europeans are not looking for supply management to be abolished, just as we are not asking them to abolish their common agricultural policy. Some things are not negotiable on either side.

I do not think that Europe is looking for anything that resembles a fundamental change to our supply management system.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I only have five minutes. That seems odd, because in 2007, Mr. Christian Lacasse, who was president of the UPA, walked the corridors at the WTO. He was the one defending supply management, whereas the Government of Canada was prepared to abandon it.

If I'm not mistaken, in February of this year you said that it was to Canada's advantage to quickly conclude the WTO, including for agriculture, because there were substantial gains to make in other areas. I am having trouble understanding that you want to defend supply management, but that you are perhaps prepared to set it aside in favour of the oil sector, for example, or western beef, or things like that.

I want to understand why you have chosen to defend supply management and to not defend it at the same time.

[Gilles Gauthier]

I think that the government has made it very clear that we must sign trade agreements, because the vitality of our economy, especially our agricultural sector, depends on greater access to markets and clearer and more predictable international trade rules. That is why we continue to support the conclusion of an agreement at the WTO and why we will continue to try to sign free trade agreements.

In doing that, we support the interests of all our agricultural sectors. Some sectors are more focused on exports, and others on the domestic market, but there is no contradiction in trying to advance the interests of all sectors in trade negotiations.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I know that New Zealand is at the negotiating table. In 2000, it abandoned supply management, and subsequently, many family farms went bankrupt. Large corporations took over, because the price of a litre of milk at the farm gate was less than it was under supply management. Consumers are paying a little more and producers are receiving a little less. The processors, as the intermediaries, are the ones benefiting from the situation.

That takes me back to the issue of supply management. Does New Zealand have any influence as regards supply management? In that country, the poorest farmers aren't the ones making money, the large corporations are. With this vision of conservative liberalism, at some point, there won't be anything left to protect smaller farmers. Only large corporations will be protected, and the others will be left out in the cold!

[Gilles Gauthier]

New Zealand is a member of the WTO and promotes its interests at WTO discussions, like Canada does. As I mentioned at the start, Canada's position on defending supply management is very firm. At this point, there is nothing to indicate that New Zealand's position will have any influence over Canada's position.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I certainly hope that is the case.

My next question is for you, Mr. Verheul. You negotiate in all areas. I know that Quebec has called for an exemption for culture at the WTO. Are you prepared to defend francophone culture at the WTO?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Are you talking about the free trade agreement?

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Yes, the free trade agreement. I apologize.

[Steve Verheul]

Yes, absolutely.

It's been an issue in the negotiations partly because the EU has raised some questions about the breadth of our cultural exemption in previous trade agreements, but by and large, we don't have huge differences with the EU over culture.

Certainly the Government of France has advocated a strong position with respect to not engaging in discussions that would have culture submitted to commercial or trade disciplines. While we're having some discussions about the form of our cultural exemption and the way that we've applied it in the past, and whether that fits exactly into the Canada-EU context, the EU has expressed some commercial interest in the issues related to books and publishing, and that kind of thing.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

We only have five minutes?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

No, your time has expired.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Just another short question, like Mr. Hoback—

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I've already given you quite a bit over, but if you're very brief and following up on the same thing, I'll allow it.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Yes, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Chair, you're the best.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Verheul, if culture is an exception, why wouldn't agriculture be one? It's not a boat, a clock or a watch—

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You're trying to stretch it into two or three questions, Madame Bonsant.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Why wouldn't there be an exception for agriculture, like there is for culture?

[Steve Verheul]

I think there is a very great difference between the cultural industry in Canada and the agricultural industry in Canada. Certainly from the perspective of agriculture in the west, and, for that matter, in parts of Ontario, Quebec, and the east as well, they have a great interest in export markets. They have a great interest in the commercial side of greater access to foreign markets. We're pursuing those interests vigorously on their behalf.

At the same time, as you've mentioned, we also have issues with supply management, where we're defending those interests in a much different kind of way.

With culture it's much different, because we have taken the position consistently that we would have a cultural exemption in our trade agreements. We have not had that kind of split within the cultural community or, more broadly, with some of them interested in very offensive issues and some of them interested in defensive issues.

So it's a very different kind of situation that requires a different kind of approach.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Okay, now it's Mr. BlackBerry...or Mr. Shipley.

Mr. “BlackBerry”? I don't how I got that confused, but....

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

That doesn't come off my time, by the way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

No, no.