Evidence of meeting #14 for International Trade in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was public.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to our witnesses. It's an interesting discussion.
I think we all recognize the opportunity that's here before us to finish these and have successful final negotiations on our comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union.
Mr. McIver, you had listed off four issues. I'll come back to supply management. We may be in a slight disagreement on that. I think there are four significant areas that are important to this agreement.
On procurement, the provinces and the municipalities have come to the table, so we do have some national procurement here.
On copyright and IP, we just put a new copyright bill through. It's going through the House. And we were behind; we recognize that. This is something we tried to get through the House before and were unable to. I think there's a general recognition from our side that we needed to improve IP and that there are direct results and benefit from that.
On your comments on IP with China and India, I agree, but I think they'll drive their own intellectual property marketplace, if you will. As the Indian and Chinese marketplaces have become more advanced, the whole question of IP becomes more important, because they need to own their own technology. I think that will drive it more than any other single thing. They'll want patent protection, because they aren't just using somebody else's technology now, they're using their own technology. That will work on its own.
The labour certification, we recognize that. The European Union recognizes that. I think the biggest change in that particular issue is that the labour unions have finally come to recognize it. They're much less protectionist, because they're losing their membership and they absolutely have to have certified people within the unions. We have to get more and better tradesmen across Canada. I think that's the only thing I'd add to those.
But I have to say, on supply management, the concept--which I haven't heard either one of you say--that farmers are paid a fair and reasonable price for their product.... The supply-managed sector in Canada is the only sector of agriculture that's not subsidized in any way, shape, or form. You can say that because they have a quota system, the marketplace is subsidized. I beg to differ. It costs so many pennies to produce a litre of milk. They get a small profit on top of those pennies, and that's how the system works. It worked well in those specific areas for those specific farmers.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
I'm coming to that, Mr. Chair.
My question is, what's wrong with that concept?
12:35 p.m.
Director of Research, Atlantic Institute for Market Studies
I think the answer is that unfortunately, the areas in which we have supply management are the types of staple consumption goods that, if you want to talk family values.... I'm not trying to be dramatic here. Young families attempting to bring up young children are paying--I don't know what the price is now--a couple of dollars more a gallon--
12:35 p.m.
Associate Vice-President, Trade and International Policy, C.D. Howe Institute
[Inaudible--Editor].
12:35 p.m.
Director of Research, Atlantic Institute for Market Studies
No, but I'm saying compared to the U.S., it's substantial. I appreciate the counter-argument--and I've heard it before--that the Americans have substantial subsidies built into their production. Ours is built into the marketplace. I don't like subsidies under any circumstance. That's the type of economist I am.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
I beg to disagree. You can't say that getting a fair price.... The Americans' price of milk is 60 cents a litre cheaper, within pennies. Yes, that's a lot of money. But the American government and the American taxpayers are paying the difference.
The principle of agriculture--and this needs to be worldwide--is that farmers have to be able to get the cost of production. If we were shipping that product, it would be anti-dumping, internationally--you could literally bring anti-dumping charges against any country shipping food cheaper than they can produce it. All we're doing here is saying that farmers have to be able to make a living, and that means the consumer pays what the product is actually worth.
12:35 p.m.
Associate Vice-President, Trade and International Policy, C.D. Howe Institute
Milk prices are higher than they would otherwise be without this system by a very large amount, and certainly—
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
With respect, where do you get those numbers from?
12:35 p.m.
Associate Vice-President, Trade and International Policy, C.D. Howe Institute
Simply from the import prices that prevail in other countries.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
I'll just interrupt you for a second.
If you look at Australia and New Zealand, New Zealand is a great producer, no question. They have a competitive advantage over us that they have great weather, and they don't have to put their cows inside in the wintertime. They're the best producers in the world.
We recognize that and we're envious of that, but that doesn't mean that you open your market up to them overnight.
12:35 p.m.
Associate Vice-President, Trade and International Policy, C.D. Howe Institute
No, I didn't say overnight. What I said is that consumers as well as producers that use supply-managed products—which we are driving out of the country because of this, preventing them from creating jobs—are paying more than they would, by a large margin, than if we had a more open trade system. The current system also prevents new entry by younger people into the business because the quotas are so expensive.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
No. New entries go into the supply-managed sector all the time, generally in family farms.
12:35 p.m.
Associate Vice-President, Trade and International Policy, C.D. Howe Institute
Let's just say that there ought to be a less trade-restrictive way and a more consumer-friendly and user-friendly way of supporting our dairy farms and other supply products.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I will pick this up, Mr. Chair. There are some other questions I have as well.
I will say, Mr. McIver, I don't appreciate one bit—because I am a past dairy farmer—that you are leaving the impression that dairy farmers are out there with a few head of cattle and the iconic life. Have you ever been on a dairy farm?
12:40 p.m.
Director of Research, Atlantic Institute for Market Studies
Yes. I've never lived on one.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
At 5:30 in the morning, 365 days a year, up at 2 o'clock in the morning looking after a cow.... I mean, look, you can attack the supply management system, but for Christ's sake, don't attack us as individuals in terms of—
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Look, I don't appreciate it a bit, Mr. Chair, because from some of these think tanks we are just getting too much rhetoric on supply management and misinformation.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
My argument is not that. In fact I agree with you. The issue is in how you display the question. Use parliamentary language, please.