Debates of Nov. 22nd, 2005

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as co-chair of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group, I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group respecting its participation at the Canadian/American Border Trade Alliance Conference entitled “The Canadian/U.S. Border--A Unified Focus” held from September 11-13 in Washington, D.C.

I am also pleased to present to the House a report, in both official languages, with respect to the meeting that was held in Mobile, Alabama from July 30 to August 3 .

Committees of the House

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts concerning Chapter 3, Passport Office — Passport Services, of the April 2005 report of the Auditor General of Canada.

In accordance with Standing Order 109, your committee requests a government response within 120 days.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. The committee has studied Bill C-71, an act respecting the regulation of commercial and industrial undertakings on reserve lands and has agreed to report it without amendment.

Petitions

[Dale Johnston, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this morning to present a petition from constituents in New Brunswick and other areas who call upon the Government of Canada to assert its sovereign right and to declare no rights of passage for LNG tankers through Head Harbour Passage based on Canadian law and the precedent set in 1976 when oil tankers were refused passage.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition respecting the same issue, that is the passage of LNG tankers through Head Harbour Passage. We have had many of these petitions presented by many members in the House.

The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to say no to the passage of LNG tankers through Head Harbour Passage for a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal on the American side of Passamoquoddy Bay.

The petitioners are saying that this passage is much too dangerous and it would put at risk our environment, our citizens and our economy. They are asking the Government of Canada to do as it did in 1976 and say no to the passage of those very dangerous ships.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary South Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions this morning from the citizens of Calgary. The first is in relation to the incidence of drug facilitated sexual assaults which occur on school campuses and the petitioners therefore call for immediate action to address this issue.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary South Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with regard to the memory of the slain RCMP officers and the petitioners ask Parliament to withdraw Bill C-17, the legislation designed to decriminalize the possession and use of marijuana.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, members in this place are only entitled to four questions on the order paper and I think I am up to the maximum.

The point I am making is that the government does have its 45 day period to answer these and I have requested an answer within 45 days. Some of the questions that I have on the order paper could be answered by the Government of Canada today. We need that information to do our jobs for our constituents. There is no reason the government could not provide those answers today. I know the parliamentary secretary will get on his feet and explain why it will not answer but the truth is that this is a routine excuse that the government always uses.

I am asking the parliamentary secretary to put some pressure on the government to get the questions answered so we can do our job to hold the government's feet to the fire on some very important issues.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for New Brunswick Southwest has, on a number of occasions, raised the issue of the timeliness of answers.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you are very familiar with our Standing Orders. Perhaps the Speaker had, at some point, suggested to the member for New Brunswick Southwest that the solution to his constant frustration here today should not be used on the House of Commons' time but maybe he should go to the procedure and House affairs committee and see if there is an interest in reducing the 45 day period to answer questions.

Two of the questions asked by the member for New Brunswick Southwest were received on October 27 and one was received on November 1. Those answers will be provided by December 10 and 15, respectively.

The member regularly uses this occasion to bring up what is clearly a very important issue, and I personally have a lot of sympathy for this issue, but this is not the forum and perhaps you could remind the member of that, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would remind all members of the House that it is their privilege to contact the procedure and House affairs committee and put something forward. Perhaps that committee would choose to address that. However I do not believe there is a point of order here so much as perhaps a point of information.

Supply

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should give its negotiators a mandate during the negotiations at the World Trade Organization so that, at the end of the current round of negotiations, Canada obtains results that ensure that the supply management sectors are subject to no reduction in over-quota tariffs and no increase in tariff quotas, so that these sectors can continue to provide producers with a fair and equitable income.

Mr. Speaker, today is a great day for the farming community and particularly for the defence of what Quebec holds dear, namely supply management.

I will read the motion again, although you have done a great job of it—and I thank you for that—because I want to stress how important this is. I want those listening to us to clearly understand what today's opposition motion is all about. It reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should give its negotiators a mandate during the negotiations at the World Trade Organization so that, at the end of the current round of negotiations, Canada obtains results that ensure that the supply management sectors are subject to no reduction in over-quota tariffs and no increase in tariff quotas, so that these sectors can continue to provide producers with a fair and equitable income.

It is no great mystery. It is important to understand why the House is considering this matter today, on this opposition day: the messages that the Liberal government is sending about protecting supply management are serious cause for concern.

First, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, then the Minister of International Trade and also Canada's chief negotiator are sending perturbing messages, just before the sixth WTO ministerial conference, which will take place in Hong Kong from December 13 to 18.

So there are perturbing messages, and not for the first time either. In February 1992—so this is nothing new—40,000 farmers in Canada converged on Parliament Hill to stop the government from giving up its quotas under article XI of the GATT.

There was already a sense that the federal government's position on this was weakening. The Liberals were in the opposition at the time. This is not the first time that they have made us such promises. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot said that he was here during the protest. He was among the 40,000 people who protested in order to defend this system. The Liberals, who formed the opposition at the time, had promised never to sign the agreement if article XI, which allowed a country to limit access to its market, was repealed. It was a wonderful promise, but it was not kept. So this is not the first time. As a matter of fact, after being elected in 1993, the Liberals did the same thing with this promise that they did with their promise to abolish the GST. They simply did not keep it. What did they do in 1994? They signed the agreement. This is an outrage, once again.

Let us come a bit closer to where we are now. In Cancun, in 2003, cabinet was given a secret brief. This brief proved that the federal government was preparing once again to abandon supply management. Here is an excerpt from this brief to prove what I am saying:

“The problem:—the document states— negotiations involve compromise. Sectors of the economy benefiting from protection which shelters them from foreign competition will object to any change in the status quo, particularly if it comes during an economic downturn. Supply-managed producers of eggs, poultry and dairy products, the textile and clothing industry—I will say more on this a little later—and certain service sectors will probably object to any changes that would lead to increased foreign competition.”

This is a French translation of the text. In fact, the Council of Canadians disclosed this document that was meant for cabinet. It was all these signs that made us say that the Canadian government and the negotiators were quite prepared to sacrifice important elements of the Canadian but especially the Quebec agricultural sector for possible market openings.

History is repeating itself. That is why we are in this House today. The Bloc Québécois will continue to do what it has always done and that is to defend the interests of Quebec and the interests of the agricultural sector in particular.

The speeches by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of International Trade and Canada's chief negotiator, as I was saying earlier, show that they are questioning their commitments to the unequivocal protection of supply management.

The ministers' commitments are a lot less firm today than they were in their speeches. In his responses to Bloc Québécois questions in the House, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food refuses to make a firm commitment to protect our marketing system and to get fair trade rules for agricultural products. The Minister of International Trade was quite pleased with the U.S. proposal to the WTO.

This proposal, and that of the European Union, it must be pointed out, imperil the supply management system. According to these proposals, Canada ought to cut its customs tariffs, while substantially increasing imports of milk, poultry and eggs. That is where we stand, and this is still a matter of interest for the 147 WTO member countries. Two powers, that is the EU and the U.S., want only one thing: to invade others' markets. It is not a matter of setting up extreme protectionist measures, but we do have to protect the way we have chosen to feed our population

As I have said from the start, the Liberal government's position is a source of great concern, and examples in support of that have just been given. While the U.S and the EU, which heavily subsidize their agriculture, can reduce their tariffs with no problem and thereby protect their markets, this is not the case for supply managed products. The federal government is trying to please the countries that wish to see the end of supply management and the opening up of our borders.

On the other hand, the Government of Quebec has a full understanding of the importance of this issue. Very recently, just November 16, all parties in the National Assembly adopted a motion unanimously. That motion was introduced by the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, a Liberal, but the Parti Québécois and the ADQ also voted in favour. It reads as follows:

That, with respect to the negotiations at the World Trade Organization, the National Assembly reiterate its complete support of supply management, an agricultural product marketing model that is fair to consumers, taxpayers, processors, and the producers whose livelihood depends on it; that it ensure that the federal government maintains its support of the current supply management system; and that the National Assembly call upon the federal government to give its negotiators a mandate that will ensure, at the end of the current round of negotiations, that Canada obtains results that ensure that the supply managed sectors are subject to no reduction in over-quota tariffs and no increase in tariff quotas.

I think that is clear. Here, the Government of Quebec is calling for what the Bloc Québécois has been calling for as well for a long time. It strengthens the position of the Canadian negotiators to know they have the support of a government with a very clear understanding of the issues currently surrounding supply management.

Let us also not forget that the Bloc Québécois motion presented on April 15 by the hon. member for Montcalm was unanimously passed. That motion provided that “in the current World Trade Organization negotiations, the government should not agree to any concession that might weaken collective marketing strategies or the supply management system”.

So, we are active in the protection of those interests that are important to us.

On October 23, a number of my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I participated in a rally, along with over 1,000 people in Montreal who were asking that the supply management system be protected. On that occasion, several prominent public figures expressed their support to agricultural producers. This was an extraordinary show of solidarity that was well worth witnessing. In fact, there is a reason why this march was held in the streets of Montreal. It was to make consumers, among others, aware of this issue. Needless to say, it is not in Montreal that the largest herds of cattle are to be found. However, people who buy their dairy products, their eggs or their poultry meat at a very reasonable price, thanks to the supply management system, may not realize what looms ahead, should the system be abandoned during the current negotiations at the WTO. Globalization may seem very far away or complex, but people are increasingly aware of what is going on.

If, some day, we find, for example, milk from Australia or New Zealand on our shelves, there is no guarantee that prices will be similar to those that are currently in effect under the supply management system. The government must very careful in making decisions, so that we do not, some day, become dependent for our food. After all, the way we feed ourselves is rather important in our lives. Therefore, we must avoid a situation whereby, some day, our food would come from other countries, market prices would fluctuate and consumers would have a hard time buying even just a litre of milk.

One must be very careful on this subject. When we were marching in the street, the people clearly understood why we were doing it. I know that we have the support of the entire population of Quebec on this subject.

I was also part of a cross-Quebec tour with two colleagues and the vice-president of the Bloc Québécois. This tour was about occupancy of the land in the context of globalization. We went everywhere—central Quebec, in my own riding where I met with people, the Gaspé Peninsula, Montérégie and Abitibi-Témiscamingue. We did a tour of Quebec, a tour which we intend to repeat after the next election campaign. The farmers were there and everyone was clear on this subject. They sent us a clear message for the federal government, the message that Canada must accept no compromise on the supply management system. Everywhere this was the unanimous verdict. All the people we met with were most definite about it. There was no question of touching a single strand of the supply management system. If that is not a clear message, I wonder what it will take for the government to understand the issue we are faced with today.

What I would like to know is whether the federal government has taken the trouble to listen to this message. Today we are going to have some fairly clear responses on this subject. This message has been sent by the 30,000 members of GO5—Coalition for a Fair Farming Model, Supply Management—as well as by its English Canadian counterpart, SM-5, the Supply Management Five, by the UPA, the Quebec Union of Agricultural Producers, by the Government of Quebec, as I was saying earlier, which tabled a unanimous motion on November 16, and by all the parties of the National Assembly as well as the Bloc Québécois.

This entire coalition is aware that we are now in a critical time for agriculture, particularly for Quebec agriculture as we know it.

We are not crying wolf. Many people are now standing up to send a cry of alarm to the federal government, which will be gone very soon. It is now November 22. From December 13 to 18 in Hong Kong, it will be time for the federal government to demonstrate that it is capable of standing up. That is what we ask of it. That is the mandate we give it and it will have our support if it does so.

The message it is sending us is that it is already prepared to cave in. That is why we want to have this opposition day today, so that the government, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, can rise and tell us that it has finally heard the message, that it will stand up and go to the WTO with this clear mandate not to touch the supply management system.

The danger of genuflecting to the WTO is that Canada will compromise its capacity to feed itself with what it produces. It will jeopardize our agricultural values and methods, which are on more on a family scale. That is what is happening. What we find in certain countries is mega-industrial agriculture. We need look no further than our neighbours to the south, with their mega-farms that are major industries. It is a choice. I make no judgment on the way that others do things. We have a different sort of farming here.

Supply management, moreover, is not even a subsidy. In the example I cited a moment ago, in the United States they subsidize farm production with Farm Bills and all kinds of outright subsidies which add up to billions of dollars. That is not the case here. I do not see why other countries would see fit to ask us to make concessions over a system which is not a subsidy. They have some work to do in the United States, notwithstanding the proposal they presented to convince us that they are going to abolish their farm subsidies.

There are some very interesting statistics on Quebec. There are 14,600 agricultural producers subject to supply management, whose production is worth at least $2.2 billion, and who provide employment, directly or indirectly, for over 62,000 people. That accounts for 40% of Quebec’s gross farm income. All these people demand that the Government of Canada take a firm position.

If what I have just described were to come about one day, Quebec’s agriculture would collapse, it is that simple. I am also talking about all the agricultural producers in Canada who are subject to supply management and whom the government, of course, also has an obligation to protect.

I am asking this House and the federal government to listen to this clear message by supporting our motion. If the government refuses, the consequences will be very serious.

I was speaking previously about subsidies and I wanted to stress this: several countries are attacking the supply management system for no reason. These are not subsidies and moreover, there is room to manoeuvre.

There is a framework agreement which dates from 2004 and the federal government knows that there is already access to an average of 5% of the market. If one takes all the types of produce subject to supply management: namely milk, poultry and eggs, there is a 5% window in which other countries can sell their produce. Canada currently imports 6% of the dairy products consumed here, 5% of the eggs and 5% of the turkey, 7.5% of the chicken and 21% of the hatching eggs sold. By comparison, again taking the example of the United States, they give only 2.75% access for dairy products, and Europe allows a mere 0.5% access for poultry. Canada is one of the few countries in the WTO to open 5% of its market for each product under supply management. We thus already have a good line of defence for the Canadian government to say to other countries that our market is not totally closed, that it even compares advantageously to the United States and Europe, if only someone would pay attention to the figures I have just outlined.

I have the framework agreement here in my hand, and it contains some very interesting provisions on treatment. Section 32 talks about the principle of substantial improvement that will apply to each product, while section 33 states, “'Substantial improvement’ will be achieved through combinations of tariff quota commitments and tariff reductions applying to each product. However, balance in this negotiation will be found only if the final negotiated result also reflects the sensitivity of the product concerned”. Finally, section 34 reads as follows:

Some MFN-based tariff quota expansion will be required for all such products. A base for such an expansion will be established, taking account of coherent and equitable criteria to be developed in the negotiations. In order not to undermine the objective of the tiered approach, for all such products, MFN-based tariff quota expansion will be provided under specific rules to be negotiated taking into account deviations from the tariff formula.

That is already in the framework agreement on sensitive products. I fail to see where there might be a problem of any kind in protecting our system as it currently exists.

I will conclude by reiterating what I said about the serious consequences if the government drops this protection that assures us stable incomes and also ensures that consumers pay a fair price. If it were to decline to support this motion today, it would be abandoning the Canadian agriculture industry outright, just as it has abandoned the regions since it came to power. It has also abandoned the textile industry, and I know a thing or two about that. It is appalling what we have had to deal with in my region in this regard, even though we have known for a decade what was going to happen on January 1, 2005, with the elimination of quotas.

There may be laughter on the government side, but that is a fact. Talk to people in Huntingdon and ask them what they find funny about what has happened in the textile industry. This government also abandoned the garment industry and the furniture industry, which I can talk about at length. Globalization led to the closing of a Shermag plant in Victoriaville.

Everything is a mess in this government. The government would at least have a chance to get back on track if it protected our agriculture industry. We are going to give it that chance. It has also abandoned the unemployed, older workers and the list goes on. It ought to make amends today.

I can say in closing that a sovereign Quebec will have a place at the bargaining table, that it will be at the WTO and will strongly defend its agriculture industry. Because we are stuck with Canada in the meantime and the Government of Canada is the only government able to defend us, we call on the government to stand up and do it. It has to be firm and not abandon our farmers.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment for the member. I could have agreed with nearly everything he said in most of his speech, at least for the first 10 or 15 minutes. It goes without saying that, due to his comments in the last 4 or 5 minutes, I and most Canadians think less highly of his speech. But never mind all that.

I want to start by saying that I support this motion.

Last week, I wrote a letter to the government House leader. This letter was co-signed by the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, who chairs my party's rural caucus, and the member for Kitchener—Conestoga, who chairs the dairy caucus. I myself chair the group of MPs interested in the poultry industry. The purpose of this letter was to ask for such a debate, which was set to take place this evening. As we now know, in light of today's debate, this evening's debate has been abandoned.

Here is my problem with what is happening. I must admit, I had hoped to be among the members going to Hong Kong. I think that members on both sides of the House were preparing to go too.

We are in a situation where, in a few days, the government could be defeated, causing an election during the holidays. There is no doubt that having this happen in the midst of these negotiations unnecessarily weakens our position. There is also no doubt that parliamentarians scheduled to attend will not be able to do so, including those who, like me, are about to retire. Usually, members about to retire are not sent to represent Canada, although I would be willing to go anyway.

Although I support his motion, would the member not agree with me that the timing—since his party is preparing to force an election in the midst of these negotiations where we all need to work together to defend the interests of Canada's agricultural industry— and the message he and his party are sending are contradictory? On one hand, they support farmers, but on the other, they are pulling the rug out from under the very government that is trying to defend those farmers. The member's statements are somewhat contradictory.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for announcing that he will be supporting our motion. That is a very good sign. I hope that his minister and his government will listen to him. I also hope that his Prime Minister will do likewise, as requested.

I find it rather ironic that such a spectre be raised concerning the election when, yesterday, in this House, all parties except the government party supported the NDP motion asking precisely that the government call an election after the holiday season.

Had his government supported this motion, as the Bloc Québécois did, from December 13 to 18, the minister would have gone to Hong Kong, but he will go anyway, even in the midst of an election campaign. This kind of scaremongering will not have me believe that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of International Trade will lose any legitimacy because we will be in an election campaign. If they take part in negotiations in Hong Kong, they should hold their own. As I said earlier, we will stand behind them even if an election campaign is under way. We will say that the minister is doing a fine job, if he does what is asked of him.

I imagine that, among the 147 WTO member countries, there might be some besides ours that will be holding an election around the same time. Will that take any legitimacy away from their ministers participating in the negotiations? Of course not. As if other countries would care about how long the minister will remain in office. Should his time be short, another minister will take over. That is not a problem.

I find that the hon. member is brandishing a totally ridiculous spectre, especially since he and his party had the opportunity, yesterday, to support, as we did, a motion that would have allowed an election to be called after the holidays.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, in reference to the hon. member's remarks I would like to put on the record the fact that the Liberal Party, the governing party, has been the party of supply management. We introduced the system some 30 years ago.

While the separatists continually talk about what they would do if they were to have a separate country, the fact of the matter is that ours is the party that put in the supply management system. Ours is the party that has constantly supported supply management at negotiations. Ours is the party that makes sure primary producers in Quebec in the supply management commodities can in fact have decent incomes. We were the makers of the supply management system.

I take the member's motion to mean that our negotiators should be absolutely inflexible, or in other words, that we really not negotiate. Through the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the UPA, the farm organization in Quebec, has taken a balanced position. It has put forward to the Government of Canada that yes, we do have a number of different commodities in the country and we need to take a balanced position at the WTO negotiations. In terms of that, there already is a motion in the House that in negotiations the negotiators support and uphold the supply management system.

Let us talk about the reality of the world and being absolutely inflexible at those negotiations. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has fought hard for this industry. He has been one of the leading people at the negotiations. He put forward a proposal whereby each country would have the right to protect its sensitive commodities. That would in fact protect their supply management system. We might have to open up a wee bit of access, but for doing that we move to the balanced position for all commodities so that all farmers in Canada can benefit.

If the member's position by this motion is that we be absolutely inflexible and do not move at all, then I believe that kind of position would be shooting our industry in the foot and would lead to a lose-lose situation. I believe we have to go forward with the position that the Minister of Agriculture put forward.

Is the member saying that we should be absolutely inflexible with no movement at all in terms of these negotiations?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have no choice but to demand firmness of the government, because it has given us a multitude of signs that indicate to us its readiness to abandon the supply management system. I have spoken of this on numerous occasions over the years. This is the kind of approach the government of the day was using back in 1992, which led to the disappearance of GATT article XI. We have some historical examples which lead us to believe, indeed oblige us to believe, that our concerns are well founded.

This business of the need to be flexible is exactly what we do not want to hear. Why should we be flexible? This is not a subsidy. Let the other countries toe the line if they wish, but our negotiators have all they need with the framework agreement to defend our position without any problem.

The parliamentary secretary likes to keep bringing up the UPA. I can tell him that the UPA also has some serious concerns with the current situation. I will read an excerpt from one of the Union des producteurs agricoles press releases:

Laurent Pellerin, president of the Union des producteurs agricoles and spokesperson for the GO5, has voiced serious concerns. He said “On the eve of the renewal of the Canadian negotiators' mandate, if what is currently on the WTO table is to be agreed to—that being the lowering of over-quota tariffs and increased access to our milk, egg and poultry markets—this would be a death sentence for any productions that are under supply management”—

These are not the words of the evil sovereignists, but of Laurent Pellerin.

—“Yet, judging by the signals we are getting from the Canadian government, it appears they are prepared to sign an agreement in Hong Kong, whether or not it is acceptable to agriculture. That is why we are so concerned.”

I would like the hon. parliamentary secretary to stand up again and tell us what he is in the process of doing, and what little marginal details he is prepared to let drop. I, and the UPA, the 30,000 supporters of G05, and Quebec as a whole, all would like to know. The Government of Quebec has in fact presented a pretty clear motion to the government. I would just like to know what are those little details they are prepared to let drop.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise in debate on what is indeed a very important issue, the WTO negotiations. It is obviously a very important issue for those one in ten producers who happen to use the supply management system. It is important for the other nine out of ten Canadian and Quebec producers who in fact do not operate under supply management. Indeed, as I am sure colleagues in the House and those who are watching know, these negotiations cover a much broader range than simply agriculture. These are negotiations about a whole range of issues, all of which are critically important to Canada, to Canadians, to our economy and to producers.

My view is that there are politics involved in things. There are a lot of politics on this floor, there is no doubt about that, and we are seeing a good amount of that here today, but this has to be about a little more than politics because we are talking about people's livelihoods. We are talking about people's futures. We are talking about the well-being of our economy. We are talking about the well-being of Canadians.

This cannot simply be a tossing back and forth of political rhetoric. There is a lot of that taking place. We just saw an exchange between the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell and the mover of the motion. It was a discussion about the timing of the negotiations. We can go back and forth one way or the other about what will or what will not happen, but we cannot deny the reality.

If the government of the day is voted down in regard to the confidence of the House, it is impaired in its ability to negotiate in international fora. It does not mean that it will not negotiate. It does not mean that the government will not be there, but this does impair its ability to do that. Anyone who wants to argue otherwise is simply exercising political rhetoric.

Yes, Canada will be there to defend its interests. Obviously it will be. We are not going to abandon our producers. We are not going to abandon the other sectors of the Canadian economy, but I ask opposition members not to try to suggest for a minute that they have not added one more handicap onto our ability to reach an agreement that is in the best interests of all producers and in the best interests of all Canadians. They have done that.

They cannot have it both ways. They cannot profess to be the defenders of something and then take actions that make it more difficult to exercise that defence. That is what the opposition members have in fact done.

My parliamentary secretary, who has been a farm leader in this country for so many years that he probably does not want to even count them, made mention of the fact that supply management is, at least from the governmental perspective, a Liberal Party and a Liberal government invention. Certainly it was done with producers and for sure they need to take the credit for the system that is there, but it was a Liberal government that provided the regulatory framework to allow it to come into force. It has been a Liberal government that for 35 years has defended the supply management system in this country. The Liberal government was there at its birth and has been there for the last 35 years defending it.

People can throw out all kinds of historical references to what may have happened in the past, but the reality is that there is a supply managed system in Canada, it is a robust system, and it works. Otherwise, those members over there would not be defending it. The reality is that we have a strong supply managed system and what the government has done in the past is what has in fact led to that system.

The hon. member said that he is unsure of where the government is. Let me take the member back to not too long ago and make mention of the last election campaign, which unfortunately was not that long ago. At that time, the SM5, which the hon. member mentioned, asked for a certain pledge in respect of supply management. In fact, the Prime Minister was asked to provide that pledge.

I will read that to the House. It stated that we will ensure:

--that at end of the WTO negotiations, producers under supply management can continue to meet the needs of Canadian consumers and obtain all their revenue from the marketplace, based on their costs of production, including a fair return on their labour and capital.

Those are not the words of the government. Those are the words of the SM5.

The Prime Minister signed that pledge. He signed it on behalf of the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party stands by exactly that comment and is being governed by that in its negotiations.

Is that still not enough? Let me go to a motion in this House from earlier in this session. It stated:

That, in the opinion of the House, in the current World Trade Organization negotiations, the government should not agree to any concession that would weaken collective bargaining strategies or the supply management system and should also seek an agreement establishing fair and equitable rules that foster the international competitiveness of agricultural exporters in Quebec and Canada.

We supported that. We supported that because we believe in a strong supply managed system in this country.

The point I am making here is that it has not been simply rhetoric. Rather, it has been members from this side, and others, coming into the House and defending the interests of Canadian producers, including those who are supply managed producers. That is on the record. That is fact. That is what is there.

As I mentioned, the WTO negotiations are a broad based set of negotiations. Yes, they include agriculture. They include non-agricultural market access. They include rules governing services. There is a wide range of issues being negotiated in the Doha round. The Doha round is also dealing with the whole issue of developing countries and the Minister of International Development is here in the House for this, because out of that round, we must also be dealing with the needs of developing nations. This is not something that is simple. It is something that is complex. It is not something that is one-dimensional. It is multi-dimensional.

As we defend the interests of the supply managed systems in this country, which we do, we will also be defending and promoting the needs of large segments of Canadian society and, indeed, those around the world, particularly those in the developing countries.

Let us talk specifically about the agricultural negotiations, because what we are trying to accomplish here is something that works for all Canadian producers, 100% of them, those who are in supply management and those who are not. We do not want to leave any Canadian producers out at all. We want to strike a deal. We want to come to an agreement in Hong Kong, and beyond if it takes beyond that, an agreement that works for Canadian producers in general. This is an obligation that I take very seriously. It is an objective that my colleagues in cabinet and caucus take very seriously. It is one that we will stand by.

There are things in the proposed agreement that Canada very much wants to see supported. The framework agreement of last July called for the elimination of export subsidies. That is a good thing for Canadian producers. When we see the Europeans put an export subsidy on their wheat so that they can compete unfairly with Canadian producers, that is not fair, it is not right and it should be stopped. This agreement, which is calling for the elimination of those export subsidies, is positive for Canadian producers. Those in the grains and oilseeds sector need that kind of initiative. They need that kind of thing in the agreement. That is why we were pleased to see it in the framework agreement of last July.

Let us take the whole issue of domestic supports. So far in these negotiations, we have had an agreement whereby those who provide the largest domestic supports, the United States, the European Union and the Japanese, will be required to make cuts in their domestic supports in a much larger proportion than the rest of the developing countries, and that includes Canada. That is appropriate because they are providing domestic supports way out of proportion to what the rest of the world's countries are providing and they are doing it in a way that is distorting the marketplace to the detriment of Canadian producers.

When our corn growers in Quebec and Ontario and elsewhere find that the commodity price of their product is dropping through the floor, it in part is a result of the domestic supports being provided in the United States. An agreement whereby we can bring an end to the counter-cyclical payments and the deficiency payments that are provided to the United States is something that we ought to be working for and negotiating in Hong Kong, because it is absolutely essential for Canadian producers. It will give them a real tangible benefit and increase their ability to create wealth for themselves, their families, their communities and this country. That is what we are working for in this Doha round. That is what we are working for in the negotiations.

At the same time, we are working to maintain a supply management system in this country, as I mentioned in our support of those resolutions. We are making sure that the three pillars of supply management are viable and strong so that the system can be maintained. That is our goal and our objective. That is what we have been working on.

We achieved a very important milestone in July in the framework agreement, because that agreement called for the establishment of a sensitive products regime. Why is that important? It is important because it will allow countries like Canada to have the ability to treat its sensitivities, its sensitive products, differently than it treats other products.

That is exactly what we want to do with supply management. We want to designate as sensitive those products that we deem as supply managed products. They could then be treated in a sensitive way that responds to the needs of our producers and our country. That is what we achieved in the framework agreement. Every nation agreed that sensitive products will be part of this agreement.

In the same way that I will work to make sure there is no backtracking on the agreement to eliminate export subsidies, and in the same way that I will work to make sure that there is no backtracking on the agreement that countries will reduce domestic supports in the proportions talked about, I will also make sure that we do not backtrack on the July framework agreement that allows for and calls for a sensitive products regime as part of market access. That is absolutely essential to protecting supply management. It was this government that achieved the agreement of the other 147 nations in the WTO that there would be a sensitive products regime.

That is what negotiating is all about. That is--

[An. hon. member]

That's what governing is all about.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

My hon. colleague says that is what governing is all about. That is what we mean when we talk about achieving results that will work for our producers, and in this case in particular our supply management producers.

I want to make an important point here, because sometimes it gets lost in the international community. I thought that my hon. colleague across the way would have mentioned this. It is not just Canada that wants sensitive products. We have our sensitivities, indeed, which we usually refer to as our supply managed products. Other countries around the world also have sensitivities and also want to have sensitive products. I want to make it clear that Canada has indeed made the point with those countries that we need to have a particular regime for sensitive products. Indeed, we do not want to see countries trying to hide their treatment of sensitive products within their general tariff reduction formulas. The European countries suggested this and we rejected it because we think it is inappropriate. We do not think that ought to happen.

There needs to be an aggressive tariff reduction formula on non-sensitive products, one that would actually provide market access. There needs to be a separate sensitive products treatment, which the framework agreement calls for and which we were pleased to see was agreed to in the July framework agreement.

It is clear from both our actions in those negotiations and what we supported, including what the Prime Minister supported, that we are supporters of supply management.

As I mentioned, we need to have flexibility in how each country protects its robust sensitive products regime. How we may want to do it in Canada may not be the same way they want to do it in Japan. It may not be the same way they want to do it in the European Union or in the United States but, my goodness, we have to ensure we have the flexibility in there so we can choose to defend our sensitivities in a way that makes good sense for us, and that is the position we have taken at the WTO.

What we are trying to accomplish is something that works for all of agriculture, for our exporters and for those who decide to use a supply managed system. We want to make absolutely certain that is the case.

In taking my last few minutes, I want to speak directly and personally to the members in this House, which is not always done.

We are going to have some very significant and challenging negotiations in the WTO. We have already had them with Hong Kong and probably beyond Hong Kong, and they will continue. The timeframe for achieving an agreement is the end of 2006 and these will be challenging negotiations.

I, along with my colleagues, the Minister of International Trade, the Minister of International Cooperation and others, understand very clearly our obligation to all Canadian producers. We understand our obligations to reach a fundamental agreement that works in the best interests of those producers. We understand the importance of supply management. We have said that over and over again.

The reaction that I have taken in the negotiations has been there to ensure we have an agreement that will allow for the continuation of a robust supply managed system, as well as provide that environment, both in terms of domestic support reductions and in export subsidies, that will be in the best interests of producers generally.

In my view, it will be important that I have the opportunity to be provided with every potential tool that I can have in terms of achieving that outcome. It is my responsibility and my obligation because those negotiations fall to me. I say to the House that it is absolutely essential and important that I be given every opportunity and every tool to achieve a result that all of us want to achieve.

This is not about whether or not there is support for supply management. My goodness, this House has spoken over and over again in support of supply management. This is about the way we go about doing it and it is about providing, in my view, the opportunity for myself and those who will be negotiating with me every possibility for success. That is what I am asking the House to do.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska for giving us this opportunity this morning to discuss a highly important and highly delicate topic, namely the trade negotiations that are to begin in December.

The minister has just said that we were right to raise this issue. The answers he just gave in his speech make Canada's position during the Doha round all the more worrisome. Why? Because when we ask him why he is not taking a firm position on production methods and supply management, he tells us that is precisely what he is doing. He just said so again.

We are not talking about a list of sensitive products. We are talking about milk, eggs and poultry. These are not sensitive products. These are products that come from farmers through a supply management system, which ensures strict domestic production and stabler prices than in the United States or elsewhere. The prices are based on production costs.

The minister just said that is not the principle he will defend. He will not defend this principle whereby Quebec and Canadian farmers are strict with their production, do not flood international markets and do not create major surpluses like the United States and Europe do on several markets including the cereal market. He is presenting a weak position at the Doha summit, a position which consists in saying that there are sensitive products. These are not sensitive products.

The only ones who respected the international agreements since the last accords in 1994 are the farmers from Quebec and Canada. Even for milk, a $6.30 subsidy was abolished a few years ago to satisfy international needs. During that same time, the Americans and the Europeans doubled their subsidies.

The minister must ask the United States and Europe to reduce their subsidies, which are causing imbalance, and to stop creating these so-called systems that are indefensible. What he must clearly defend is a management approach, a strict production system and a strict approach to imports.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me make three points.

First, the member refers to these negotiations to begin in December. No, these negotiations are not beginning in December. We are not stepping into something right at the beginning. We are dealing with something that has been going on for a lengthy period of time, years. I would suggest that the hon. member recognize that the defence of Canada and the defence of Canadian producers has been going on for all of that time.

The hon. member makes a valid point but he is just reiterating my point, which is the importance of the Americans dropping the level of subsidies that they and the Europeans provide. That is exactly the position we have taken at the WTO negotiations and exactly the point where the 148 countries in the WTO came together last July and said, first, that all export subsidies will be eliminated at a date specific. That date is part of the additional negotiations that are taking place. That is a very positive thing for Canadian producers and something we are working toward.

The hon. member talked about the increase in domestic supports. Absolutely, that is not something that we believe is appropriate. It is in fact distorting the marketplace. It is what is causing our grains and oilseeds folks a great amount of difficulty and it is something that we are indeed working on in the negotiations and again, why, in the framework agreement, there was an agreement that there would be higher reductions.

In terms of supply management, this is not a debate about whether the House believes that supply management is a good and valid system for Canadian agriculture. It is. The House has stated that over and over again. It is about the best way to achieve that result and the government is committed to achieving a positive outcome for all of Canadian agriculture, including the supply managed sectors.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the difficulty the government has in dealing with the World Trade Organization. I know talks have been going on for quite some time and I know about the unsuccessful talks that we had in Cancun and Seattle. This has been a very contentious issue for a long period of time but our agriculture producers right across the country, whether they are in grains, oilseeds, red meats or in the supply managed commodities like milk, eggs and poultry, want Canada to take a very strong position in the WTO talks.

One of the problems we have, and I think a lot of it is in the way producers see it out in the field, is that we have these mini ministerials that are happening on an ongoing basis across the globe. Some have been done in China and Korea and numerous ones in London and Geneva. I had the privilege of accompanying the minister on a trip to Geneva not that long ago, along with my colleague, the agriculture critic from the Bloc, and we saw those discussions first-hand. We appreciate the difficulty in the negotiations, especially with the hard line that has been taken by the European Union.

However the one thing producers here want and have been advocating for is that we have an official Canadian position, that we go in and take a leadership role. I know the minister, the Government of Canada and our very skilful trade negotiators have been doing a great job in talking to all the players at the table. This is a poker game to some degree and it is time for us to lay our cards on the table and say what we stand for on the aspect of sensitive commodities. The European offer of 8% does not go far enough to have full protection of our supply managed commodities. It needs to be over 10% and, as has been suggested by the Dairy Farmers of Canada, as high as 14% of our farm cash receipts need to be protected as supply managed and be fitted into that sensitive commodity definition and how they work that out.

We still need to have a very aggressive role in reducing subsidies, trade distorting programs for red meats, grains and oilseeds. When will the minister finally table that position to show the leadership that we are the third largest agriculture trader in the world and we want to take that leadership role in these discussions?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation for the hon. member's assistance when he accompanied me to one of the negotiations.

Canada has taken a very clear position on many of the issues that are part of these negotiations. As members may know, three separate pillars are being discussed, one on export competition. As I mentioned earlier, Canada had been very clear in saying that export subsidies must be eliminated by a date specific and we have promoted that the date be earlier rather than later.

On the whole issue of food aid, we are very supportive of legitimate food aid but we do not want to see it being used to replace commercial production. We have been very clear on that. In terms of domestic supports, the next pillar, we have been very clear on the ratio in that the largest providers eliminate it in greater proportion. We have been very clear on the U.S. proposal. Although we believe its suggestions on the AMS are reasonable suggestion, it needs to go further in terms of its overall cuts.

Although we appreciate the fact that they have suggested dropping the blue box from 5% to 2.5% of production, we have said that there needs to be some firm rules around that blue box so that it really is less trade distorting than the amber box. We have been very clear on that. We have been very clear that we want a robust tariff reduction formula so we can provide new access to Canadian producers. We have, at the same time, said that if that is going to happen we need to have a sensitive products regime, one that is sufficiently large enough to cover the needs of Canadians and that there needs to be flexibility in how individual countries deal with that.

As we move through the negotiations, we will use our best judgment as to how we make and deal with each specific issue as they come up. However we are very clear in our specific positions on the three pillars that I have outlined and in our overall position, which is to protect the interest of Canadian producers.