Debates of May 7th, 2003

Parliament of Canada Act

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor to end the debate. I was informed this morning by the government House leader that the government was in favour of this bill. This was also confirmed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, today.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I would point out to the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, who appears to be seeking the floor, that when I asked whether any member wished to speak, no one rose. I then gave the floor to the mover of the motion who, under the new Standing Orders, has five minutes to conclude the debate.

If, however, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst really wants to speak, I can suggest that he seek the consent of the House. Then we shall see.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I shall do. I therefore seek the unanimous consent of the House to take part in the debate on Bill C-408.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent to allow the member for Acadie—Bathurst to speak for ten minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Therefore the question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The recorded division is automatically deferred to next Wednesday afternoon according to the new rules for private members' business.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between the parties, and with the concurrence of the member for Ottawa—Orléans, I think you would find agreement to re-defer the recorded division requested on Bill C-408 to Tuesday, May 13 at 3 p. m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Agriculture this question at the request of supply managed farmers in dairy, poultry and eggs in my riding. I am grateful to the minister for his reply. I know he supports supply management, but I want him to know that he has strong support in this from urban and rural MPs in our caucus.

Supply management is a made in Canada system of agriculture that costs the government nothing while producing fine, safe, affordable food. It is a system which has attracted young farmers, thus securing the future of these sectors of agriculture.

When I mentioned this debate to my wife, she said “Give me a dozen eggs, six ounces of cheese, and three litres of milk and I will give you a good meal for six at little more than $1 a head”. When I mentioned it to a supermarket manager, he pointed out that eggs and poultry sales go up in tough economic times when customers are looking for good, low cost food.

Supply management is based on three pillars: import controls; product price setting; and product production discipline.

Import controls do not mean closing the border, but limiting imports to amounts negotiated by the WTO. These controls provide the safety net within which our farmers can competently provide their products to Canadians.

While supply management has been shown to be an effective system for eggs, poultry and dairy, it is facing international challenges that should not be underestimated. We are now facing a new round of WTO negotiations. The Harbinson paper, a background document for these negotiations, caused great concern among farmers. Thankfully it is no longer on the table.

I know the Government of Canada opposed the Harbinson approach. It is our job to defend the fine system of agriculture it threatened. I urge that we fight harder. My colleagues and I are very willing to help the minister do this at home and abroad. He knows that two of the five parties in the House of Commons have doubts about supply management, but he has cross-party support from the other three. All Liberals support it, including rural members, and urban members like the MP for Toronto--Danforth who regularly speaks out on this. We also have allies in other WTO countries.

Our system is being challenged through the WTO. However import controls are also being challenged by the use of loopholes in the customs system for bringing dairy products into Canada. For example, butter oil sugar blends have been designed to deliberately circumvent the system. Importers argue that their blends are not butter substitutes, substances that cannot be imported under existing rules. Yet these blends displace 30% of Canadian butter in the manufacture of ice cream, representing $27 million or 270 dairy farms worth of produce.

I urge the ministers involved, and it is not just the Minister of Agriculture, to recognize butter oil sugar blends and others for what they really are, butter substitutes that are illegal imports. I urge the government to act promptly and publicly on these matters. Farmers and consumers across Canada will support the government in this.

Let us say loud and clear that we designed this supply managed system, that we are proud of it, that we intend to keep it and enhance it, and that we encourage other countries to use it.

I await the parliamentary secretary's reply.

[Claude Duplain, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Peterborough for his question, which is a very important one. We are discussing it at this time because it is of great concern to the government as well as to dairy producers; in fact, all supply-managed products are affected.

The hon. member spoke of maintaining supply management, of how important supply management is to producers. Yes, supply management in Canada is very important for many agricultural producers. Many times, ministers have supported supply management. Many times, they have said how important it is for Canada. I can assure the hon. member that this is an issue the ministers care deeply about and which they are going to defend; that is what they are doing at negotiating tables everywhere.

But these are controversial and difficult points. We know that. The ministers are in discussions with leaders of the WTO as to future amendments and future conditions. We know that the Harbinson report was put on the table, and that the minsters did not like it at all.

Discussing the report presented by Mr. Harbinson is out of the question, because we are not backing off on supply management. This also includes the three pillars of supply management. They are extremely important to the ministers too, and the government does not intend to alter its course.

Of these three pillars, one specifically relates to a problem frequently raised by dairy producers. I am talking about imports of products such as butter oils. After dairy producers raised this issue, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister for International Trade attended a tripartite meeting. In August 2002, a committee was struck to address this problem and find a solution.

We would liked the final report to have been tabled and the ministers to have reached a decision in this regard. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for the response. It is not a matter of ill will. This is an extremely complex situation. That is why the ministers are taking the time they need to fully understand this issue.

I want to reassure the public about supply management and its pillars. This is something that is being respected and that must remain in place. All the members on this side of the House support supply management and its pillars.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the minister and the parliamentary secretary.

I know that they are on side.

Here are some examples of steps to support a supply managed system from farmers in my riding. Having rejected Harbinson, let us continue the WTO negotiations with a new set of preconditions. These new conditions should include: no reduction in over quota tariffs; elimination of in quota tariffs; and a change in market access methodology. There should be no reduction in de minimis support and a faster elimination of export subsidies. Let us form alliances with our friends in the WTO so that we can present a united front to the EU and U.S.A., who consistently talk one way and walk another way.

I extend my thanks to all the farmers of Peterborough county for their patience and advice. My thanks also to a number of national and provincial farm organizations, including organizations in both Ontario and Quebec. And I thank the minister and the parliamentary secretary once again.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. parliamentary secretary has one minute to conclude this debate.

[Claude Duplain, Liberal, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Peterborough again. As we know, in the WTO negotiations, there are several positions, that of the United States, that of the European countries, and that of Canada, which is perhaps more middle ground.

For example, butter oils are a very complex issue. There are very serious trade, legal and economic repercussions, particularly when it comes to international commitments with our main trading partners. The member can be assured that the ministers are taking into consideration the farmers' request.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly like my name in the same sentence as ethics. Perhaps we could instill some of that in the government and we will all be successful.

The beautiful thing about the adjournment proceedings or the late show is that we can actually try to get some answers from a government that is not terribly forthcoming with those answers. We tried to elicit some answers from the government, answers to what I consider to be logical, well thought out, serious questions that are not too often dealt with by logical, well thought out, serious answers.

On February 20, I had the opportunity of posing a question to the Deputy Prime Minister. It had to do with what I thought was a very serious question of ethics. It had to do with the member for LaSalle—Émard, who in fact had left cabinet. But prior to leaving cabinet, the member for LaSalle--Émard was dealing with some very specific issues at that cabinet table yet was still having some serious investment involvement in a private sector corporation.

As a matter of fact, I asked if the member for LaSalle—Émard did not perhaps have a conflict of interest when dealing with such things as tax law or tax implications, perhaps, while sitting at the cabinet table but in fact perhaps putting some legislation in place that would be for the betterment of the private sector corporations that he had some interest in. The Deputy Prime Minister said no, that was not in fact true, because the Parker commission dealt with the definition of conflict, and in his opinion there was no conflict.

What do we know? We know that the member for LaSalle—Émard in fact met 12 times with the administrators of what is referred to as a blind trust. How can one meet 12 times with the administrator of a blind trust and still logically consider that to be a blind trust? There is a contradiction there that I do not think anybody in the House could see as anything other than a contradiction.

The second thing we heard was that not only did the member for LaSalle—Émard meet with the administrators, the Prime Minister said he had no idea of what was going on in those meetings because he was not part of them.

The third part of this was that the ethics counsellor said that he cannot reveal what happened because it is private. There is a Catch-22 here. The public unfortunately is caught in this Catch-22 and does not have the opportunity to find out in fact whether there is a conflict or not.

The member for LaSalle—Émard without question was at that cabinet table. Did he discuss? No. Did he influence, perhaps? No. In fact, did he direct the change to law that may well have benefited his private sector corporations? Is that in fact the conflict? The Deputy Prime Minister says no, because it falls under the Parker commission. If I may, let me very quickly quote what the Parker commission defines as a conflict of interest: “a situation in which a minister of the Crown has knowledge of a private economic interest that is sufficient to influence the exercise of his or her public duties and responsibilities”. That is pretty defined. Then it goes on to say, “A conflict, therefore, does not require acting on that knowledge. Simple possession creates conflict”.

Without question, the member for LaSalle—Émard was in a conflict when he sat at that cabinet table and the Deputy Prime Minister, unfortunately, in quoting the Parker commission, made my statement absolutely correct. There was a conflict and this government in the name of ethics has to identify that conflict.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is evident that the opposition, and in this case the Progressive Conservative Party and this member, is unclear on how the assets of public office holders are handled so that they can be in full compliance with the conflict of interest code. This is the area I want to focus on this evening. I want to start by going back to the 1997 commission of inquiry under Mr. Justice Parker that my hon. colleague referred to.

When I hear him say that it is unusual to have his name and ethics in the same sentence--