Debates of June 7th, 2005

Supply Management

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the hon. member for her excellent remarks. The points she raised express concerns we have been hearing all over the country from everyone who produces any of these five supply managed products. I think that it is important.

As the hon. member suggested, we could look at applying article XXVIII to amend the list and its schedules.

I would like the hon. member to tell me something. She must have been extremely encouraged by what the minister told us about the many options the federal and provincial governments have on the international scene. What we want is a balanced market that allows us to export our products.

In my riding, I have seen producers lose domestic markets because of imports disproportionately subsidized at the production stage or the export stage, with which we cannot compete. It was therefore important to negotiate at the international level.

I think that it is a good idea to negotiate together, all the provinces and the federal government. This way, we can be a force to content with internationally when it comes to negotiating an acceptable system.

I was greatly encouraged by the minister's willingness to apply, if need be, article XXVIII to restore balance in order to protect supply management across the country, prevent the erosion of the market for products like ice cream, buttermilk and other dairy products that have been mentioned many times already.

I will ask the hon. member this. Was she not as encouraged as I was by the minister's remarks? Does she not agree that the best way to address on the international scene issues that are so important to all the provinces, producers and consumers—because supply management also protects our consumers—is to join forces? It is essential that all the provinces together and Canada negotiate on the international scene.

[Denise Poirier-Rivard, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague opposite for his question.

In fact, the Bloc Québécois cannot oppose negotiations on article XXVIII of the GATT, because we have always supported our producers and we are in favour of supply management.

Earlier, I had talked about this supply management. Are products subject to quotas subsidized? My answer is not one bit.

The market, not the government, provides milk, eggs and turkey. The United States and the European Union continue to hand out billions of dollars for their products. The consumer price index for poultry products continues to rise, while the farmers' share shrinks.

I want to give a few examples of the farmers' share of food products. We all go to restaurants on occasion for a meal. We do not often consider the producers who produce what we eat. Here are some typical prices. We pay $14 for eggs Benedict, the producer gets 31¢. A medium-sized pizza costs $13.50; the dairy producer gets 60¢. Grilled chicken on a bed of rice costs $8.40, the chicken farmer gets 19¢. I could go on and on.

When it comes to supply management, I cannot oppose an overture by the government to help our producers in Quebec.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Grey—Bruce—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to speak tonight to this important issue. I thank my colleague from the Bloc for her knowledge of the issue. I know I, my party and definitely my leader support, unequivocally, supply management.

I think I am one of the few in the House, and very proud of it, who, as a farmer, has been on both sides of the issue, on the supply management side and as a beef producer on the other side of it.

I kind of chuckle to myself when I hear the hon. member across from Prince Edward Island who has been heckling for the last couple of minutes. Not only is he trying to make us all believe that the Liberals invented supply management in a few minutes, he will try to have us believe that they also invented potatoes.

After reviewing the amendment to the budget by our new federal finance minister, the member for Davenport, could the member from the Bloc tell me how much money she has actually seen in the budget for agriculture? While she is at it, perhaps she could tell me how many pails the deputy finance minister from Timmins--James Bay has filled with milk over the years.

[Denise Poirier-Rivard, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member. I too would like to understand. Indeed, I do not understand the question. However, I can talk about agriculture, as I am a farmer myself. Of course, the Bloc Québécois and I will always protect the interests of Quebec producers as regards supply management.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Chair, I want to come back to a question I asked earlier around modified milk products, the imported ingredients that are now showing up in our product. The member spoke quite eloquently about what these were doing to our producers.

Earlier, when I asked the minister that question he talked about it being a labelling issue that we are considering under Bill C-27.

However I clearly understand that these imports are actually not just about labelling. They are having a direct impact on our producers and their ability to make a living. My understanding is that 50% of the ice cream market has already been taken away by imported ingredients.

Knowing that my colleague is a farmer, I wonder if she could talk about what it means to farmers in our community when they are not able to sell their own products because they are being replaced by foreign ingredients and we do not even know what is in them.

[Denise Poirier-Rivard, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for her question.

The importation of milk substitutes has a huge impact on Quebec producers. Milk is being replaced by butter oil.

As I said earlier, producers suffered losses of 50%. If a dairy producer cannot sell his milk, he should be able to get compensation somewhere. We all know that cows have to be milked twice a day. It is not like turning on a tap and turning it off.

It is very important to stop these massive losses caused by the importation of milk substitutes, particularly in Quebec. Indeed, Quebec is known as a milk processor, producing the best milk in North America.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is an honour to speak in the House. Every time I rise to speak I think of the people in my riding of Timmins--James Bay and I am very proud to be speaking here tonight. I am also proud to be speaking as the agriculture critic for the New Democratic Party.

Our party requested this debate because we believe that the issue of supply management is a fundamental issue that has to be addressed and the time to address it is now, particularly with the issue of the flood of modified milk imports, our loss at the CITT and with the upcoming round at the WTO.

We asked for this debate because we in the New Democratic Party feel that we need to send a message to rural Canada. We have to rebuild trust as parliamentarians. We are here to work for the best of everyone in our country, not just to sit in this chamber and squabble about who gets to control power.

The issue we are discussing tonight is supply management and the question the New Democratic Party is asking is whether the government will invoke article XXVIII of the GATT to restore balance to our dairy markets. We have heard varying answers from the government and it is important to come out of tonight's debate with a clear message to our producers and to the international stage.

We are not talking about a complex issue. This is a question about whether Canada will send a message at the international level the we will stand and fight for our farmers. We want to tell our farmers and the world that we are committed to standing up and fighting for our farmers.

The question we are asking is a litmus test of resolve. Receiving different answers from the international trade minister and different possible scenarios from the agriculture minister does not address the fundamental question of whether we are willing to take a stand when the time comes.

We need to look at how article XXVIII plays out on the international stage. Other countries are always very clear. They fight for their farmers. Canada likes quiet negotiations. Quiet negotiations are fine, if they work, but the EU invoked article XXVIII against imports of wheat and barley. The U.S. invoked article XXVIII against Canadian wheat. Russia and Vietnam have shown their willingness to stand up for their domestic markets. Even the United States is making it clear now that it will start moving against modified milk products.

Why the silence from Canada? This silence says that we should trust the government, that it will work something out but that it does not yet have a plan in place so it is not willing to stand up for the farmers. We wonder why are we not willing to stand up and say that this is our line in the sand, this is where we begin our negotiations.

I believe we are at a crossroads in terms of the future of supply management. Since the issue of modified milk imports into Canada began nine years ago, what we have seen from the government is a record of inaction and a lack of response to the issues being raised. Meanwhile, we are losing up to $182 million of our market every year to this flood of unregulated milk products. This is equivalent to the entire milk production of Manitoba. We have just given it away, lost it, left it out there.

This is what has happened over the nine years since this issue was first raised by dairy farmers. At that time those farmers asked for action but they did not receive any. They were told the situation would be monitored. Now we have lost 50% of the ice cream market. We are losing serious chunks of yogurt, cheese and other dairy markets as well. Monitoring is not good enough because the plan in place has been a failure.

Should the dairy farmers of Canada trust the government to carry them through the woods into the promised land in this next round? That is the question. Let us look at the Liberal record. For nine years dairy farmers have been asking for action and in that time the market has steadily eroded.

In 2002 frustrated dairy producers crashed the Liberal retreat in Chicoutimi. To get action they had to embarrass the government. The government agreed to create a working group of stakeholders and government departments. That was the action it promised. That was some action because soon after the working group was struck the producers were kicked out. So much for Liberal promises on this.

When we look at the abysmal track record and the unwillingness of previous agriculture ministers to really get serious about the issues of labelling and serious on standards, we need to look at what recently happened with the CITT ruling and take this as a serious undermining of what we have right now in terms of our domestic dairy markets.

When the CITT ruled that Canada could not place promilk 872 B under the tariff line 0404, which allows us to apply the overquota tariff of 270%, it was not just that this case was lost but it made the further ruling that all the protein subjects that had been subjected to control since 1994 could not be placed in the overquota tariff line either. Therefore we are looking at what we have already lost, which is substantial chunks of our domestic market, and now we see that the floodgates have been opened.

The government has launched an appeal and we support it, but what if the appeal fails? Have we any trust that we will be able to turn back the clock, because at that point we do need plan B in place?

When we talk about what this is in terms of the dairy sector, the poultry sector, the ag sector versus other commodities that we export, it is not a question of Canadians not being able to compete. It is a question of whether we are going to stand back and do nothing in the face of heavily subsidized products that are being dumped into our markets.

We know, for example, that with casein production in the EU, the direct payments the EU pays for that production have heavily distorted the price. What we are seeing is a distorted trade practice where because of the EU subsidies, they are basically flooding our market. Is this the level playing field that Canada supports at the WTO? I do not think it is.

Speaking of the WTO, it needs to be pointed out that while our producers have been trying to get the government to send a clear signal, Tim Groser, the New Zealand ambassador to the WTO, has also been sending Canada a clear message. He is telling us not to stand up for dairy. He is warning us not invoke article XXVIII. In fact, he is saying that the government's response will send a message of Canada's credibility on the international stage. Mr. Groser and I do not agree about too much but we both agree on one thing: this is an issue of our credibility.

Unfortunately, we have different interpretations of what that credibility means. Let us put it is this way. Canada is the fourth largest exporter of agriculture products in the world and maybe the fifth largest importer. The question we must ask is where are the trade minister and the agriculture minister getting their marching orders from: New Zealand or the farm families of Canada? We are not being partisan but the dairy farmers of Canada are fed up with what they call “Liberal stalling, ignoring and excuses” on this issue. They want action and they want it now. They know that with the upcoming round at WTO we need to make it really clear where are going to stand.

What is at stake if we allow this undermining of our ability to regulate our market? We are talking about the future of the most successful farmer operated system in the world. There is no parallel. Our farmers are not subsidized. They are able to compete and are able to compete in a market that not only brings fair, stable pricing to producers, it brings a great response for consumers.

The egg costs in Canada are at about $2.04. They are over $2.53 in most American cities. If we look at dairy costs in U.S. cities versus Canadian cities, we see that dairy costs in the U.S. are about 23% higher. Anyone out there selling this myth that we should get rid of supply management to open the market and consumers will have better choice, it is a lie. It is incumbent upon Parliament and the government to let Canadians know that we will stand up for supply management because what is attacking it is a lie.

I had the honour to attend, with some other agricultural members from all parties, a recent meeting with a trade delegation from New Zealand. The delegates seemed to give us the message that they would fight our over-subsidized dairy and supply market system. The message is not getting out internationally. We are not standing up and speaking out.

Why will we not invoke article XXVIII? Why will we not give the message very clearly that we are willing to invoke it now? It will buy us time. We will send a message at the WTO round to make it very clear that this is not on the negotiating table.

The New Democratic Party is committed to rural Canada. It is committed to supply management and to the principle that our domestic rural economy is something worth fighting for in the international stage. Right now being willing to stand up and invoke article XXVIII is a good way of showing that.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member is always a passionate individual when he talks about agriculture and rural Canada.

In terms of supply management and support for our industry, what it can achieve and what we want it to achieve, from a substantive basis we are very much in line. However, there is a difference on one very important thing.

I am not particularly interested in some sort of symbolic act. I am not interested in making a grandiose announcement and getting whatever reaction there might be. My objective is very straightforward and simple. That is to achieve a result in the WTO negotiations that allows Canadian producers to make choices about their domestic marketing strategies, that is to choose, to participate and to pursue a supply managed system.

I believe it is incumbent upon me, as we pursue those negotiations, to do it in a way that is most likely to provide that result. That is what we intend to do. I accept the fact that the hon. member and I may disagree about the best way to go about that, that is why we have debates in the House. It is not about making some symbolic act. It is not about trying to make some sort of statement. It is about achieving a tangible, positive result. That is what we need to do. It is not about not having acted.

When we went to Geneva last year in July, we achieved a framework agreement that allowed us the ability to continue to negotiate in the way we wanted. The supply management organizations that were with us in Geneva, although not thrilled with the overall prospect of where we had to go, were satisfied that we had been able to maintain that.

We have taken trade action in the past and we have been successful. We were successful in respect of pork in the United States this past year. We have been successful in our latest NAFTA issue in respect of wheat. We have been quite willing to defend our agricultural industry in the international trade arena. The hon. member, in fairness, did point out quite clearly that we have appealed the CITT decision and we have dealt with the issue of labelling.

There are other issues we need to deal with and we will. However, at the end of the day it is not about symbols. It is about achieving a tangible result, and that is to reach a conclusion that allows for supply management to continue in our country and to allow for those 20,000 plus producers to pursue agriculture in a way that makes good sense for them, that works for our producers and consumers and works for the industry as a whole.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the minister's comments. I do not believe article XXVIII is just a symbol. I do not think symbols will help us at this point. We are asking for a commitment.

We have not seen the road map of action or any of the criteria that the government will apply to ensure that not only we protect our market but that we start to take back some of the market we have lost over the nine years. We have not seen that, so article XXVIII is a tool to respond to the crisis in which we find ourselves.

The question in terms of the WTO is there continues to be concern among farm families in Canada about just how successful Canada will at the WTO. That is why it is not a meaningless symbol. We have to send a message that we are clear. We look at what is on the table.The WTO is dropping the 5% de minimis, opening questions on our Wheat Board and promising action on over-quota tariffs. This is what we are discussing.

It is all very well and good to say that Canadian farmers should have the choice of the kind of marketing system they want to apply. However, if they do not have the proper supports in place to make that marketing system work, then supply management is meaningless. That is why we need action on article XXVIII and we need to send a very clear message that in the next round of WTO we will not give away anything more because we really have nothing left to give.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, I was sitting in my office about three-quarters of an hour ago when the member for Timmins--James Bay attacked me personally. I felt it necessary to come here and correct some of the mistaken impressions he has left. I do want to thank him for directing people to my website. He seemed to be enthusiastic about that, so I would encourage them to go there as well. It is davidanderson.ca. If anyone wants to look it up, that would be good. It does have a lot to do with the Canadian Wheat Board.

The member said that the Wheat Board was one of the fundamentals of supply management. I think the supply management folks who are here know that that is not true. I want to point out a few ways that it is not true so he can understand it and hopefully he will not make the same mistake.

[An hon. member]

I thought he was an ag critic.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I thought he was an ag critic too. Those of us from western Canada know that the Canadian Wheat Board is a completely involuntary organization. If we grow wheat in western Canada, we have to be part of it whether we want to be or not. Supply management is voluntary. If people want to, they can buy into the quota.

The Wheat Board is primarily international. It has some domestic marketing as well, but its main purpose is to market wheat internationally for farmers. Supply management is domestic.

Fifty per cent plus of the farmers in western Canada want a change in the Canadian Wheat Board. They want out of it. The vast majority of people who participate in supply management are very happy with the system and it is supported by its participants.

I had a chance to go to the trade talks in Geneva in late April. One thing he needs to understand is that the Canadian Wheat Board has already been sacrificed by the government. I do not know if he knew that or not, but it gave away the financial guarantees. It gave away the initial price guarantees. It gave away any of the foreign programs to sell the grain. It gave it way without getting anything back.

The only thing left, which is the part that most western Canadians want rid of, is the monopoly. He needs to be aware that the Wheat Board has already been sacrificed. Supply management people need to be paying attention to what the government is doing and ensuring that they do not get caught in the same situation.

Just to make the point again, western Canadians want the same choices that other farmers have such as in Ontario. We watched our grain sold for less money than we could get ourselves. We have watched our farmers go to jail because they wanted to sell their own grain.

If he would like, I am more than willing to sit down with him at some point and help him to understand this issue a little better. We have worked together at the agriculture committee. We have tried to help him there and I would like to continue to help him understand the agricultural issues, if I can do that.

He said that the NDP needs to send a message to rural Canada. No kidding. One of the reasons the NDP have such a hard time electing members in rural western Canada is because of the message he delivered tonight, which is one of anger and bitterness. Farmers do not want to hear that. They want a positive message such as we are bringing. They want choice. They want to get out there, do their business and be successful at it.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would never want to be accused of being an angry and bitter man. I do not know any dairy producers in my area who can go and sell milk down the street to whomever they want. They are either part of a system or they are not. That is the fundamental pillar of how this thing works.

However, I would respond that it is nothing personal against him. I was asking the question about his leader's decision to make the hon. member the choice for the Wheat Board, when the National Farmers Union on May 16 accused the member of being either wilfully uninformed or conducting an ongoing smear campaign against the Canadian Wheat Board. That was not me. It was the National Farmers Union.

When I talk about sending a message to rural Canada, I am asking why the leader of that party decided to choose a man who has been completely dedicated to destroying the Wheat Board. The National Farmers Union has spoken up saying it is a disgrace to rural Canada. I have nothing to argue with the member's viewpoint. That is his viewpoint. However, the leader's choice sends a message and I think it sends a very clear message.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Chair, as the member for Leeds—Grenville, I have a riding that is heavily dependent on supply management. We have the largest egg producer in Canada in our riding as well as many dairy farms. A lot of our economy in Leeds—Grenville is dependent upon supply management.

I just want to get it on the record that I am a former member of the Canadian Alliance and I was a strong member of the supply management system. I find it a little disingenuous from folks on the other side who seem to talk a lot about their support for supply management, but when the rubber hits the road, when they go to the trade negotiations, they do not instruct their trade negotiators to stand up for this system.

The farmers in my riding are always on edge that the system will disappear. There are concerns right now with the butter, sugar and oil blends and the imports of caseins and caseinates. The numbers now are having a major impact on our dairy industry in Canada.

Why does the member for Timmins—James Bay, my good friend, think his coalition partners on the other side are not standing up and asking for the invocation of article XXVIII? The minister told us that he is not interested in symbolism. However, when the rubber hits the road, when the negotiations are going on at the trade negotiations, Canada's interests are not being protected.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a lot of respect for the member for Leeds—Grenville. We sit in the heritage committee together and we have done some good. The question he asks is a good one. Dairy farmers want to know if there will be protection, if someone will stand up. I have tried to point out this evening that the record of the last nine years has been pretty woeful in terms of the government's willingness to stand up and act on it. It has not.

We finally are hearing now that maybe there is going to be some action on labelling. We are hearing there may be some action on standards. However, if we look at what has gone on up until now, there has been very little.

I would be worried if I were a producer. Our job from all parties is to ensure that the producers in all the agricultural sectors are heard in the House. Otherwise their issues will slip away and they will not be addressed. That is one of the reasons we are holding this debate tonight.

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Middlesex—Kent—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to rise tonight to speak on the subject of supply management. Perhaps I will spend a few minutes to educate those who are watching as to what supply management is all about.

Canada's supply management system matches production to Canadian demand and allows farmers to receive a fair price from the marketplace without relying on taxpayer dollars.

Supply management eliminates major fluctuations in prices at the farm processing or distribution level and ensures an efficient and secure food supply that respects Canadian safety and health standards.

The dairy, poultry and egg industries are important to Canada as together they contribute a net $12.3 billion to the GDP, generate $6.8 billion in farm cash receipts, sustain more than $39 billion of economic activity, and employ more than 215,000 Canadians throughout the country.

Supply management empowers farmers while benefiting processors, consumers, government and taxpayers. It exchanged the boom and bust cycles with a stable and orderly market, once again without costing the government or taxpayers a dime.

In Canada, pricing mechanisms are based on the farmers collectively negotiating minimum farm gate prices for milk, poultry and eggs. By acting together, farmers can negotiate a fair price for their food based on what it cost to produce that food.

In other countries without similar pricing mechanisms, an even smaller portion of the price paid by consumers is received by the farmers. For example, baskets of dairy products were surveyed in all cities in Canada versus cities in the United States by ACNielsen in June 2004. It was found that the cost on average in Canada was $89.75 versus $110.92 in the U.S. As a result, dairy products are approximately 23.6% cheaper in Canada than in the United States.

I would now like to speak specifically on issues related to Canada's dairy industry and the progress the government and the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food have made to address serious concerns facing dairy farmers.

The government has been working hard for some time to establish a fair and equitable regulatory regime for dairy product standards and the use of dairy terms. For the dairy producers there are two key issues: the definition of dairy products contained in the regulations; and the labels used to describe dairy products and food containing dairy ingredients. Both of these issues fall under the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the CFIA.

Let me first discuss the need for clear regulatory definitions. There are some inconsistencies in the dairy products regulations' definition of milk product and the definition included in the food and drug regulations. The government wants to remove these inconsistencies, but we should do it in a manner that is transparent to all interested involved. That includes both dairy producers and dairy processors.

The second regulatory issue involves the labelling used to describe dairy products and non-dairy substitutes. The hon. member for Montcalm and his Bloc colleague have been working with the Dairy Farmers of Canada on product labelling. Liberal members have previously tabled amendments regarding labelling and the Conservative Party has brought forward private members' bills relating to this topic.

The issues are complex. To make informed choices, Canadians rely on the accuracy and the truthfulness of product information. The CFIA protects consumers and industry and promotes fair market practice by setting and enforcing standards related to the accuracy of product information appearing on food labels.

In fact, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency launched an extensive consultation on food labelling related to highlighted ingredients and flavours which include new rules for dairy terms. The stakeholders who participated in this consultation included producers, including the Dairy Farmers of Canada, processors, exporters, importers and consumers.

Producers and consumers were very much in favour of rules for clear food labelling. The issue has been before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food as it studies Bill C-27, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Enforcement Act. I am sure that my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House applaud the breakthrough reached last week.

As hon. members may be aware, I brought forward an amendment that adds a clause dealing with the use of dairy terms. Under these provisions, it will no longer be possible to market an agriculture product using a dairy term on the label unless the product contains the dairy ingredient represented by the dairy term. Nor will it be possible to market an agriculture product that has a dairy term on the label if the agriculture product is intended to substitute for a dairy product.

There are exceptions allowed. One exemption applies to products that have traditionally been used under a specific name. No one wants the term “peanut butter” to be disallowed simply because it is not a real dairy produced butter. The other exemptions deal mostly with the words that now must be added to clearly inform consumers that these are not real dairy products. On product labels we will see more terms such as “artificial flavour” or “simulated flavour”. These words will tell consumers that the products do not contain actual dairy products.

It is through these measures that we have provided the solution to a problem that we have discussed and debated for some time now. I believe that this amendment and other approaches, such as making the regulatory definitions consistent, is the best way to address the issue.

It is important to note that the Dairy Farmers of Canada supports the amendment that I put forward, which was unanimously adopted by the committee. I wish to thank all hon. colleagues on the agriculture committee for their support.

In a recent letter sent to my office by the Dairy Farmers of Canada, it stated:

On behalf of the Dairy Farmers of Canada I am pleased to extend our gratitude for your contributions that resulted in the unanimous adoption of labelling amendments to Bill C-27.... These amendments are the culmination of several years of active lobbying to ensure that dairy terms are not misused or misleading. They will help to protect the integrity of dairy products.

We should be reassured by the progress that was achieved last week in the standing committee. We should continue to bring both sides together, the producers and processors, so that we can build a competitive agriculture and agri-food industry in Canada, one that maintains its worldwide reputation for quality.

To further this objective, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has offered to both processors and producers to establish a forum to discuss dairy issues and standards, to build a consensus on recommendations to him. We look forward to the results of these discussions.

Supply management is a valuable system that not only benefits Canadian farmers but also consumers throughout Canada. That is why the Government of Canada remains committed to defending the supply management framework and defending the ability of Canadian producers to choose how to market their products.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Chair, it was interesting that three or four weeks ago there was a large demonstration in front of the Parliament Buildings by the dairy farmers from Ontario and mostly from Quebec. They put to the government the need to invoke article XXVIII. They acknowledged that the labelling might have some impact.

I have two questions for the member from the Liberal Party. One, does she really believe that other than somewhere between 2% and 3% of the market is going to be regained by labelling? Is it going to be any more than that at all? Two, where is the downside to invoking article XXVIII? Where does that hurt this industry in Canada? Where?

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Middlesex—Kent—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Chair, as to the member's first question, yes I really do believe that we can make a difference.

On the member's second question regarding article XXVIII, I can assure the member that I have never been so confident as I am today standing in the House speaking to this subject matter that the Minister of Agriculture and his parliamentary secretary have worked so diligently on this, that the minister stands up for the dairy farmers of Canada at negotiations. He has never indicated that he will not use article XXVIII, but there are other avenues at his disposal which he is using and one never goes into negotiations without some tools left in one's tool box. I think that is where the Minister of Agriculture sits.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to rise in the House again to speak to this very important topic this evening.

We have a crisis in agriculture, a crisis in rural Canada. I think all sectors are feeling the crunch of commodity prices and the crunch of a lot of things.

On the issue of supply management, I would like to take the time first of all to thank those in my constituency who approached me before and during the election. They recognized that I am a grain farmer and a beef producer. They took the time to sit down and ask me what my beliefs were and what was the policy in our party on supply management.

I have always appreciated that the supply management folks would not just fall for some of the fear tactics that some of the other parties have used even here tonight, but to question me on this issue. I think of one dairy producer whom we call the senator who milks 400 cows up by Wainwright, Charlie Rajotte and his family. We are always invited to their kitchen table to listen to the frustrations, the concerns, the advantages in supply management and also to voice our own policy and to satisfy him.

The member has served on the agriculture committee for a long time. As a member of the foreign affairs and international trade committee, today at our committee hearings we had the Minister of International Trade. When asked questions in regard to supply management and to article XXVIII, he indicated that the government would not be invoking article XXVIII and would not be supporting the use of article XXVIII. He went on to say that the agriculture minister has a number of options that he will use, that he will let us know about, which would help the supply management.

Many of the people who have been advocating protectionist supply management have talked about article XXVIII. What are these options of the Minister of International Trade? I see the agriculture minister explaining some of the options to the member. Could she relay some of the options that may be used to protect the supply management?

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Middlesex—Kent—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I hate to upset my hon. colleague after he asked that question by saying that there is no big secret as to what was divulged or what the trade minister had said. I was not present at that meeting, so I cannot respond to that. In the past when I have spoken to the Minister of International Trade he indicated to me without hesitation that we are there to defend supply management.

We have to understand that we are one of 148 countries at those hearings. Just to explain to my colleagues across the way, there was a delegation here from New Zealand not too long ago. They met with the all-party agriculture committee which I must add for the most part works very non-politically. We do have a good committee.

At that meeting with the New Zealand delegation, I was really pleased that I was at one end and they were at the other end, because the subject of supply management came up. A gentleman from New Zealand indicated to us that it is a government sponsored agency and that there are government dollars in supply management.

I took the floor and said “Absolutely not”. This was a delegation that came to speak to the agriculture committee in Canada, uninformed or misinformed, I do not know which. When we have individuals coming from another country whom we are dealing with at negotiations and who do not understand the supply management system, we and our negotiators have a job to do. I have never had the opportunity to go to Geneva like some of my hon. colleagues across the way, but I think it is the duty of every one of us here to explain that the government has put in a framework, but there is not any government dollars in supply management. We have to understand that.

The process that needs to happen when we are over there is to certainly continue the fight that we have had with the negotiators and I do think they have done a good job, from what I hear. For those of us who go there, it is also our job to explain to other countries about supply management , and give them accurate information and not misinformation.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My colleague, who I have known for a number of years now, will recognize that I have sat through a number of discussions related to crises in a number of different industries in which the government has often waited so long to respond and actually get anything done. In a number of cases, nothing has ever been done. We are still dealing with the issues and the crises in the softwood lumber and the BSE situations. What I have seen actually has been quite disappointing, from the perspective of a government standing up for farmers in Canada.

As my colleague from Timmins—James Bay was talking, and I was hearing different comments from the background, I actually was envisioning the government and the representatives of the government fighting for the farmers in Canada. We have all seen those inflatable bags that are filled with air and that have sand in the bottom, and when you bop them they pop back up again. Quite frankly, that is how I saw the government, as an inflatable bag of air, not doing anything for the farmers of Canada. They keep getting bopped from every country and they are doing nothing. They are getting back up, but they are staying in the same spot, up and down, up and down, and accomplishing nothing.

So my question to my colleague is, at what point does she take a different position? At what point does the government recognize that it cannot wait until the industry is totally dead before it stands up and does something for the farmers in Canada and for the dairy producers?

My colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh mentioned that the labelling will only affect 2% to 3%. We have to take other measures if we are going to really have an impact on the industry. At what point does she see that happening?

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Middlesex—Kent—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I thank my hon. colleague for her good agriculture question. Being a farmer in my previous life, whether it was this government or any government, I have never seen where the Liberal government did not stand up for farmers. Being a past producer, I can strongly defend the fact that we have always been there.

Just look at the pork situation and the countervail duties. We were out there. Do not tell me we were not fighting for our pork industry, and successfully, I might add.

With a severe decline in market dollars from the marketplace, the government was there with over $4.2 billion, plus $1 billion in March. The member says we have done nothing?

Regarding the BSE, we are the first country that has had a BSE case that has had the ability to ship boxed beef to the United States, with very little difference in the shipping of under-30-month beef since the BSE situation. The member says we have done nothing?

We have been out there first and foremost. I am sure we will always find dissenting concerns from some farmers, but for the greater part, I am sure they understand that the governments are doing what they can do and are capable of doing. But I thank the hon. member for her question.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to take part in this take note debate on supply management in Canada. I know my Liberal colleagues are excited to hear me speak on this matter.

However, I want to start off on a very serious note. In my home province of Manitoba we are suffering quite a bit from a lot of rain. The fields are very wet and people have not been able to get their crops in. It is a very serious time. I know all members in the House want to express their concern about what is happening to farmers in southeast Manitoba and also to the west, where heavy rains have created a lot of damage. I want to urge both the provincial and federal governments to help our farmers in a significant way.

I invite the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to tour that area. Farmers want to know that the people in Ottawa care about them. There is no better way of demonstrating that than having high-level officials, like the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, tour that area and see what can be done. I leave that with the minister.

We have other pressures in agriculture. It is not just the weather. I know the Minister of the Environment, as much as we would like to blame a Liberal, is not responsible for the weather, but there are things the Liberals can be doing.

I want to state that the management of supply and the control of prices of dairy, poultry, and eggs are important elements in maintaining the economic strength of many parts of this country, particularly in my riding of Provencher in southeastern Manitoba. Indeed consumers, producers, and processors across Canada have all benefited from the implementation of supply management in these agricultural sectors.

I see it every day in my riding. People who have been involved in supply management have not only remained in supply management, but the capital at their disposal, because of being in supply management, has enabled them to get into other industries like hog production, which has taken off quite rapidly in the southeast corner of Manitoba.

Supply management has stabilized agriculture and has allowed farmers to expand into other areas without coming to the government. As a Conservative, I see that as a very important factor.

I know the members opposite were looking for a former Canadian Alliance member west of Ontario who actually supported supply management. They are not that rare a commodity in my area, and I am proud to say that I support supply management. I see the benefits that supply management has given to my community.

As the member of Parliament for Provencher, my constituents have consistently called for the protection of the interests of producers in supply managed agricultural sectors, because the facts demonstrate that supply management has benefited not only producers but also consumers and the economy generally. While the supply managed sectors also face difficult issues from time to time, they have faced those challenges without, as I have stated earlier, requiring a massive infusion of tax dollars.

Farmers, generally speaking, are proud to be independent, to pay their own way and to make their own living. This industry has demonstrated that with all the difficulties they have faced, they are the leaders in making their own way and enhancing the economy of this country. At the same time they have provided a fair return for producers, reasonable prices for consumers, and, above all, there have been no complaints about the quality of the products delivered by supply managed sectors.

I was very proud to see the new Conservative Party reaffirm the commitment the Canadian Alliance made to supply management. I know that was a matter of debate at the March policy convention, but I think the convention came down on the right side of that issue.

That policy states that the Conservative Party of Canada believes it is in the best interests of Canada and Canadian agriculture that the industries under the protection of supply management remain viable. A Conservative government will support supply management and its goal to deliver a high-quality product to consumers for a fair price with a reasonable return to the producers.

Canadian farmers are indeed hard working and independent, but I think it is demonstrated that in a world of competition that is crowding our Canadian farmer, cooperation among farmers is becoming increasingly important to make our producers competitive on global markets.

By organizing and developing supply managed systems, our producers are better able to better control their market supply and the prices they receive. That is why the Conservative Party calls upon the government to support farmer-led supply management systems. Governments must negotiate beneficial trade agreements, and when Canadian agriculture faces unfair trade challenges, Ottawa must go to bat for producers on the world stage with high-level delegations.

What is needed is a commitment that the supply managed sector will have input into the creation of a trade negotiating mandate. I want to say more and more of my supply managed farmers who traditionally used to vote Liberal do not vote Liberal anymore. I think they have seen the focus of the Liberal Party moving away from the agricultural areas of Canada and more focused on downtown Toronto. As important as downtown Toronto is, farmers feel neglected. They feel the party has left them behind, and not only do they simply say the party has left them, but with the industry having lost the attention of the government, we have seen mismanagement. Whether that is deliberate or neglect, I would suggest it is neglect. Simply speaking, the Liberal Party does not understand farmers generally and the supply managed sector.

Political pressure has caused the Liberal government lately to verbalize support for supply management. I think it is coming around and saying it has neglected the industry, and now it is starting to verbalize support, but unfortunately just talking does not help.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

That is unfortunate. Just talking does not help. My Liberal colleagues laugh at me, but the point is that they are in the position to do something and they have failed to do it. That is why it is time for the Conservative Party to take government, so that not only we will be able to talk about it, but we will actually be able to help our producers, other than simply giving constructive criticism, as I am doing tonight.

The poor Liberal showing at the WTO negotiations and the political and economic pressures from the WTO are forcing Canada to reduce tariffs on all agricultural products, including those in the supply managed sector. What my farmers in the supply managed sector are asking is, what are we receiving in return? They say they are being sacrificed. They are being told they have to give this up, and yet they see no tangible benefits coming back to them as farmers.

Canadian farmers have suffered from poor ministerial representation at WTO negotiations, and I think the recent example—and perhaps members have already mentioned it, but it has been mentioned to me—was the Liberals shirking their duties to Canadian farmers at the mini-ministerial conference in Kenya on March 2, 2005. At this meeting, member countries discussed their commitments to the Doha round, and the international trade minister and the agriculture and agrifood minister were not meeting because they were attending the Liberal convention.

I know that Liberal conventions are important. Politics is important. That is what makes this place go, but one would have thought they could have spared one minister to go there. I will say why it was so important to at least send one minister. Under the rules of the mini-ministerial, without a minister present no other representatives of that country are allowed to speak officially.

That is an example, I would suggest, of simply neglect, a poor choice of priorities. As important as the party might be to the minister, I think he could have sent another minister if he did not go himself. A minister should have been there speaking on behalf of our farmers.

I had some other points to make, but I know that the time for my remarks is coming to an end. One of my concerns about the recent NDP-Liberal budget was the fact that the NDP said it arranged $4.6 billion more for big cities but not a dime for the agriculture industry.

I was disappointed that our agriculture industry was overlooked by the NDP. If that party is going to get into bed with the devil, it should at least help people who need help. That is a problem. The NDP has a lot to answer for by refusing to acknowledge the difficulties farmers are facing. Big cities are important, but what about the smaller family farms that we need to support in order for Canada to remain a strong independent nation?