Debates of Dec. 14th, 2010

Department of Public Works and Government Services Act

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 15 immediately after oral questions.

(House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 9, Mr. Andrew Scheer in the chair)

Economic Negotiations with the European Union

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State]

moved:

That this committee take note of the current negotiations to conclude a comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union by the end of 2011.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to rise this evening in the House to speak about Canada's comprehensive economic and trade agreement negotiations with the European Union. These negotiations are at the centre of our government's ambitious trade strategy, which involves promoting job creation and prosperity for Canadians.

Canada has always been a trading nation. Our businesses count on selling their goods, products and services all around the world and they are counting on their government to open markets around the world for them to succeed. Our government will always stand together with our businesses and with our workers, opening free markets, because that is what Canada's economy needs.

Free trade is not an abstract concept. It creates real tangible benefits for people. It helps entrepreneurs succeed and win in global markets. It helps our businesses expand, strengthens their operations here at home, maintaining and creating jobs all across the country. When our businesses succeed, Canadians succeed. That is why our government is standing up for Canadian businesses through free trade, free trade with the European Union in particular.

We are proud of the progress we have made to date. Over the past four years, we signed new free trade agreements with eight countries and we are currently in the midst of negotiations with close to 50 others, including the European Union.

That, of course, includes its 27 member states.

Over the years, the European Union has become Canada's second largest trade and investment partner in the world, second only to the United States. In sectors as diverse as agriculture, banking and high technology, we can point to jobs and prosperity in both Canada and in Europe that are directly supported by our close relationship.

Canadian businesses are excited about the European Union's position as the world's largest single common market and biggest investor and global business hub. At the same time, our European partners are looking to Canada's own cutting-edge, innovative economy, talented workforce, and world-leading business community. They are also attracted to Canada's banking system, which is, as we know, the soundest banking system in the world. They look to our taxes, soon to be the lowest taxes across the board on businesses, and already the lowest taxes on new business investment.

I have seen this interest in Canada in my own travels just this year in Europe promoting our European Union-Canada free trade negotiations in countries like Estonia, Greece, Spain, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, Belgium and Bulgaria. These countries and more have all expressed a great interest in doing business with Canada. Recognizing the great opportunity, our negotiators have been working closely with their European counterparts to work out the details.

As we prepare for the sixth round of negotiations in Brussels next month, I am pleased to report the great progress that we have made to date. We have made progress across the board, including in the main market access areas like good and services, investment and government procurement.

We are well on track to having these negotiations concluded, we hope, by the end of next year.

Tomorrow, I will be meeting with the European Union trade commissioner, Karel De Gucht, here in Ottawa to take stock of the progress that we have made so far.

Given the high level of co-operation and the high degree of flexibility we have seen, I have no doubt that these negotiations will be fruitful and result in the signature of a comprehensive and ambitious agreement that will benefit all Canadians.

The benefits of such an agreement would be tremendous.

A joint study was done in advance of the negotiations to set the table to decide whether it made sense for both sides to proceed with the free trade negotiations. That study indicated that a deal of the type contemplated, a deal of the type we are on track to deliver, would deliver a benefit to the Canadian economy in excess of $12 billion annually.

An agreement would also give Canada a significant competitive edge against other countries. Canada would be the first developed country with a trade agreement with the European Union. What is more, that would put Canada in a unique position. It would be the only developed country in the world with free trade agreements with both the United States and the European Union, the two biggest markets in the world. Members should think of the competitive advantage that would give to Canadian businesses and workers. It is a unique position with which nobody in the world would be able to compete.

And yet, even with those kinds of benefits, we continue to hear voices from the fringe and the extreme opposing our efforts.

I should point out that these are the same voices that were heard during the debate over free trade with the United States, naysayers who believe, for example, that economic co-operation requires giving up our sovereignty or is somehow harmful to a nation's economy. They should tell that to the millions of Canadians who have benefited and continue to benefit from the North American Free Trade Agreement.

NAFTA did not weaken Canada's sovereignty in any way. It strengthened our economy and made us more competitive. Under NAFTA, international companies invested in Canada and will continue to operate here.

For example, since free trade with the United States was initiated, Canada's merchandise trade with the United States has actually more than doubled; and our trade since NAFTA with Mexico has increased almost fivefold.

Just think of all the jobs and economic activity, all the prosperity, all the families that are doing better today than before as a result of these free trade agreements and the opportunities they delivered.

In fact, 4.1 million Canadian jobs have been created since free trade with the United States became effective. Critics of free trade choose to ignore these facts. Instead, they think our businesses and our economy should be isolated from the global competition.

Our government believes Canadian businesses can compete with the best. We believe Canadian workers can compete with the very best in the world. That is what they have done and that is what they will do into the future. They have proven, time and again, that they can win in the markets of the world, and they are counting on us to stand up for them, to negotiate the terms of access they have been looking for so that they can sell their goods, their products and their services, the best in the world, into the 27-member European Union. We are not going to let them down.

It is not too late for our critics to join us in efforts to help create more jobs and prosperity here in Canada. It is not too late for them to join the chorus of support we have been hearing from our own business community, as well as from the provinces and territories, who have been deeply involved in these negotiations since the start. In fact, for the first time in Canada's history, the provinces and territories have been actually at the tables in these negotiations, helping us to deliver a broader and deeper agreement.

All of Canada is participating in this initiative, and we have seen a great deal of enthusiasm for the efforts we are making to establish closer trade ties with the world's largest markets.

We are asking members on both sides of the House to help us create new jobs and increase prosperity for Canadians by supporting our free trade agenda as we take an important step in Canada's history as a trading nation.

This is a tremendous opportunity for Canada. This trade agreement would be the most significant initiative since the North American Free Trade Agreement. This is a trade agreement that creates opportunities in every part of this country. This is a situation where Canada has the potential to set itself apart from any of our traditional competitors.

We can be very proud of the track record of our government, the free trade initiatives we have taken, the new agreements that we have already launched. In fact, our predecessors were timid about trade agreements and only did three in the 13 years of Liberal government.

We are in the process of actually enhancing and improving those three agreements, renegotiating them to meet our standards of an ambitious agreement. This is our chance to have the most state of the art, ambitious free trade agreement ever.

It is an opportunity we should not let pass by. It is significant at this time of economic challenges that Canada is showing this leadership. We are indeed the strongest of any of the economies in the G7, with the strongest economic growth, the lowest debt and the lowest deficit, and the most skilled workforce in the world, with the highest proportion of post-secondary graduates of any OECD country.

We can be proud of what we have been doing, but we can take that pride on the road, on the world stage, and create jobs and opportunity for Canadians across the country by delivering a free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.

I encourage all members of the House to get behind this very significant effort.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Chair, the hon. minister is creating straw men when he seems to suggest that there are still those who are deeply critical of free trade. I think there is no doubt that as a society we recognize the benefits of free trade. We know that it leads to economic advancement, and so on and so forth. But what is important, at least from my point of view as a Liberal, is that we have intelligent and strategic free trade.

That brings me to an issue about which I would like to ask the member: the issue of the municipal water services sector under these negotiations. As we have heard, European companies would like to have access to our municipal water services sector. They would like to bid on public-private partnerships as some municipalities decide to go that route.

However, many municipalities are concerned that they will be forced to accept bids from foreign water services companies such as Veolia and Suez, and so on, and that when these companies win a bid and start managing a water filtration plant, for example, a drinking water plant and things go awry, as things have indeed done if one looks at what happened in Atlanta in 2003, it will be very difficult for these municipalities to exercise their sovereignty, to exercise democratic control and break contracts with these huge foreign water services companies. They are very concerned that this will lead to problems for them.

I have noted that the United States, even though it is a free trading nation, even though it believes deeply in free trade, would never open its water services sector to that kind of foreign competition.

So I would like to ask the minister why he thinks it is a good idea for Canada to do that when the United States will not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will have to stop the member there to allow appropriate time for a response.

The hon. Minister of International Trade.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Chair, first, I must correct the hon. member. It is thanks to this government that Canadian companies were able to bid on waterworks, as a result of the Obama stimulus program. There was a Buy American policy in place designed to keep out companies such as Canadian companies that traditionally supplied pipes and other services and water systems. We were successfully able to obtain a waiver to that, again gaining access for Canadians to other marketplaces.

There was a lesson in that. What had happened was that procurement at the subnational level in provinces and territories, and so on, was not part of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Only at the national level was procurement included. That left us vulnerable to protectionist actions whereby the Americans were able to lock out Canadian companies and Canadian workers. Millions of dollars were being lost. Jobs were being lost. Canadians were being hurt because we had not secured that market access.

We made progress earlier this year when we achieved a waiver from those policies through an agreement with the United States, where we got a commitment and we signed on to the government procurement provisions of the World Trade Organization and thus got guaranteed access in a large portion of the United States. As a result, Canadians can bid on that, and we need to be able to bid on that.

We believe those kinds of opportunities are important, but I can assure the hon. member that nothing in any agreement will compromise the ability of Canadian municipalities and provinces to set water quality standards to ensure safe drinking water for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Chair, the minister said nothing about supply management or agriculture. Supply managed farmers are very concerned and are wondering why Canada, for the first time in the history of international free trade agreement negotiations, has left supply management on the table.

I would like to quote Steve Verheul, Canada's chief negotiator:

It is up to the European Union to make proposals that may relate to products under supply management.

So it is appropriate to be concerned.

My question is for the minister. Why, for the first time ever, leave supply management on the table, especially when the negotiator for the European Union, Mr. Maurizio Cellini, says that the Europeans are interested in the cheese and poultry markets?

That obviously opens the door to negotiations that might spell an end to supply management. We have seen this attitude previously from the Minister of International Trade in relation to other free trade agreements, such as the transpacific alliance, which is getting increasing attention. The minister even said himself that he was prepared to negotiate supply management. In fact, La Presse Affaires published an article saying so on November 16.

I would like the minister to explain himself on this point since he said that he did not want to jeopardize supply management and is prepared to negotiate. I would especially like him to confirm, once and for all, that the Bloc Québécois's 2005 motion will be honoured and that there will be no increased market access or a drop in tariffs.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Chair, our government's position is clear: we support the supply management system. This support is clear and categorical. There are negotiations underway and all topics are on the table. These negotiations are different from any previous negotiations. However, our position is clear. In these negotiations, we have supported and intend to continue supporting the supply management system, and that support is robust and unequivocal.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, it is a little surprising to see the minister come out so aggressively attacking organizations such as the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Dairy Farmers of Canada and the Canadian Health Coalition, all of whom have raised very valid concerns about the minister's negotiating stance.

As we saw with the softwood lumber sellout and the shipbuilding sellout, Canadians have good reason to fear when the minister moves forward with his own agenda.

The only credible study on the actual job losses resulting from this agreement show job losses of about 150,000. The minister tried to rebut this and it was a botched rebuttal. He forgot that Mexican auto production was part of North American auto production. It was extremely embarrassing for the minister. He has not yet apologized for that botched rebuttal on this issue.

We have had a number of issues raised and not too many answers yet on supply management, which is clearly on the table, and on our public water systems, which are clearly on the table.

I want to ask the minister one thing. With the proposals that are currently on the table, has he done his due diligence to see how much more it will cost provincial drug plans and how much more it will cost Canadians who are getting those pharmaceutical drugs for their good health?

The latest estimates show a 30% increase. Does the minister have the figures that show how much--

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am going to have to stop the member there.

The hon. Minister of International Trade.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Chair, I can only say that the hon. member is living in a parallel universe that I am not familiar with, because the incredible study that was done in advance of this indicated a $12 billion annual benefit to the Canadian economy.

That actually means more jobs when the economy grows by $12 billion a year. That inevitably means jobs and income opportunities for thousands of Canadian families. That is what the study shows.

I know the member is repeating many of the same concerns that were repeated before the North American Free Trade Agreement and before the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, that we would lose our culture, which did not happen; that we would lose our health care, but the last I checked, the Obama administration was actually trying to move closer to Canadian health care; that we would lose our system of supply management, but we did not; or that we would lose our fine Baby Duck wine. We actually ended up with better quality Canadian wines.

Throughout all the issues he has raised, he is simply not accurate. He asked me to answer a specific question about provisions that have not even been negotiated yet with regard to pharmaceuticals, issues that are to be negotiated at the table, and we are doing that in a fashion that will defend Canada's interests.

It is important to recognize also that nothing in this agreement will affect the provinces' ability and mandate to deliver health care in the best interests of Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There is just a minute left for a very short question. The hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Chair, Quebec was the first state in the world to approve the UNESCO convention on the protection and promotion of culture, generally called the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. Canada and the European Union were among the first to support and then ratify this UNESCO convention. Should they not set an example, therefore, and both agree to completely exempt culture from the trade agreement they are negotiating and include in the preamble to the agreement a reference to the UNESCO convention as a legal framework on which cultural exemptions could be based?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member is quite right. Both Canada and the European Union share an interest in the UNESCO convention in protecting our cultural heritage. The 27 member states of the European Union perhaps arguably have a greater interest in that than Canadians have with simply two languages and a diversity of cultures.

That said, whatever the case may be, I think both sides of the negotiation are on the same page, wanting to see culture legitimately protected. I believe that will be the basis of a Canada-European Union free trade agreement.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this take note debate on the Canada-EU trade agreement.

While there is widespread support for a Canada-EU trade agreement, concerns have been raised specifically as to what is on the negotiating table with respect to one of our key agriculture institutions. If nothing else regarding the negotiations on the Canada-EU trade agreement, the reality is, and remains, that supply management is on the negotiating table and has been from the very beginning. This fact was confirmed by Canada's chief negotiators,not once but at least three times before two committees of the House.

On June 15 before the international trade committee, the government's chief agriculture negotiator stated:

At the time the negotiations were launched, there was an agreement that there was to be a no-exclusion a priori.... That essentially left it open to each side to make proposals on anything of interest to them.

[I]t's up to the European Union to make proposals that may relate to protocols under supply management.

At the same committee, on November 15 the chief negotiator stated:

[W]hen we started the negotiations we agreed officially that everything was on the table. That was an explicit agreement at the beginning. As to whether everything will be on the table at the end of the negotiations, that's a different question.

More recently, on December 2, Canada's chief negotiator stated in the context of supply management that “everything was on the table when we began the negotiations”.

The rhetoric from the political side of the Conservative government about supporting supply management is, in many respects, suspect. In reality, one can support the idea of something until, to obtain something else, it is negotiated away. If the Conservatives were really honest in saying that they will defend supply management, then it would not be on the table in the first place, because there is the real possibility that although they support the idea of supply management, it can in fact be negotiated away for something else. It can be traded off. That is our worry in the official opposition. That is the worry of the Dairy Farmers of Canada.

We have in supply management one of the models for the world in terms of having a system whereby farmers collectively come together and achieve their cost of production and a fair return on labour investment in lieu of managing supply to meet effective demand and providing products at reasonable prices to consumers. It is one of the models that the world should be looking at, that we should be promoting to other countries around the world instead of running the risk of negotiating it away.

Even if the government allowed supply management to remain on the negotiating table which, so far as the EU is concerned is therefore subject to negotiation, the government can claim it supports it, but does it really? If the government were honest that it supports supply management, the government would simply state that the issue of supply management has been removed from negotiations of any kind.

According to Dairy Farmers of Canada, Canada has agreed that there would be no prior exceptions, but did indicate that this was a position which should be of concern, given the EU's common agricultural policy, CAP, is not on the negotiating table. It is serious that CAP is not on the negotiating table. What essentially is CAP and why should we be concerned that this program is not on the table?

CAP is what serves European farmers and serves them well. I spent considerable time a number of years ago studying common agricultural policy. On an annual basis the EU spends about 43 billion euros on CAP, of which 88% is in direct payments, with the remainder dedicated to programs focused on responding to declines in market prices of commodities.

Given that a single Canadian dollar has a 75¢ value in euros, the amount available under CAP, common agricultural policy, to the European farmer community is about $30 billion Canadian annually. That is serious.

The European community is willing to be there and support their governments. They are willing to stand up and not put it on the negotiating table. Yet on one of the most progressive and valued farm programs in this country, the Conservative government has actually put it on the table and has admitted so several times. CAP represents approximately 46% of the EU's total budget.

During the most recent hearings of the agriculture committee, officials negotiating the Canada-EU trade deal did not deny that the EU has removed from discussion the common agricultural policy. Dairy Farmers of Canada have indicated that “while the Canadian government remains committed to defending supply management the EU's insistence to gain access to the Canadian cheese market and obtain agreement that geographical indications be fully recognized”.

My colleague from the Bloc, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, raised a question with the minister a few moments ago, and he certainly did not get many answers. He in fact got none.

This is a government that is not transparent about how these negotiations are pressing forward. This is a serious issue, that our cheese markets could potentially be opened up and undermine our price structure in Canada. That is a serious issue. Geographical indications could also be a serious issue for some of our products that are produced in this country.

This is of serious concern to our dairy producers. They have maintained that the government defend our industry from this provision being weakened during these negotiations.

Finally, Dairy Farmers provided an analysis in November and stated that if the negotiations are continuing on the basis of the fourth draft modalities on agriculture, that is December 2008, that draft states that Canada will be required to “reduce over quota tariffs by 23% and agree to additional access to dairy products market potentially reaching 6% of consumption”. The DFC estimates that this would result in income losses in excess of $1 billion at the farm gate, or the equivalent of over 20% of proceeds from milk sales at the farm gate. That is serious.

According to a study conducted in April 2010 by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the position articulated by the EU in the December 2009 document on, for example, the Canadian Wheat Board, are consequential:

Hampering the procurement policies of the Wheat Board...complements the EU's publicly-stated goal of dismantling the Board, which it reiterated at the outset of negotiations.

This is an issue which requires full and careful consideration prior to any agreement being fully negotiated, let alone concluded.

Supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board are pillars of our agricultural policy in this country. Supply management maintains a system of supply in which farmers are assured their cost of production and a fair rate of return on their labour and investment. The Canadian Wheat Board maximizes returns back to the primary producer through orderly marketing or single-desk selling.

While we acknowledge that Canada is a trading nation and that our agricultural sector to a very great extent is dependent upon export markets, it would serve us well to keep in mind the reality that we cannot allow some of our main institutions to be negotiated away.

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will have to stop the member there as his time has expired, and open the floor to questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Chair, I do not quite know where to start my question for the hon. member, so I will start by simply correcting the record on a number of things the hon. member said.

Certainly we have protected supply management since we formed government and we have defended supply management in discussions and negotiations around the world. I have met with dairy farmers several times about this agreement. They have not expressed any shock or fear that somehow we are going to negotiate supply management away. As a matter of fact, they have been complimentary on the way that we have held our negotiations and have been very careful in our manoeuvring with the European Union.

On common agricultural policy, the European Union is in the process of changing its common agricultural policy. At this time it is in debate and in a state of flux. That is the reason it is not on the table. As far as geographical indicators go, there are some geographical indicators that we have concerns about. We have some geographical indicators in Canada that we would certainly like to see protected, but the Europeans have much more they want protected than we do. We are in a much better position at the negotiating table than they are.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, as I indicated on the record, the Dairy Farmers of Canada made it very clear to us that they are concerned. The quotes of the Dairy Farmers of Canada are accurate as stated to us in various documents. The parliamentary secretary went on at some length about how the government has defended supply management and to its credit, sometimes it has. But all we need is for it not to defend it once. That is what we are worried about. All we need to do to destroy the system is to lose it once. And supply management is on the negotiating table. The negotiators have made it clear. We are sending a clear message to the government, do not negotiate it away.

The other point the member made is that the EU is in the process of changing CAP. We have been hearing that since I studied CAP in 1988. It has been in the process of changing it year after year after year, but the fact of the matter is it is contributing about $30 billion Canadian a year to its farm community and our farmers have to compete against that treasury.

I am saying to the Government of Canada, stand up for Canadian farmers and ensure that we compete on a relatively level playing field.

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

Mr. Chair, the hon. member for Malpeque is quite right. The agricultural sector and farmers under supply management get very worried every time there is a trade agreement. It is even worse when, for the first time, the government leaves supply management on the table. They certainly would not be so worried if it were not there. The hon. member for Malpeque and I are much better suited than the parliamentary secretary to say what farmers think because we meet them almost every day. We both sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and are both the agriculture and agri-food critics of our respective parties.

The hon. member for Malpeque is quite right when he says this is not the first time that supply management has not been well protected internationally in the negotiation of agreements like this. It almost happened already. In July 2007, there were texts on the table; the hon. member gave some figures a little while ago. The proposal at the WTO reduced Canadian tariffs by at least 23% and increased imports of sensitive products by 4%.

After the failure, fortunately, of the texts presented in July 2007, the two Canadian ministers who were there, the Minister of Agriculture and the former Minister of International Trade, former Senator Fortier, said they were very disappointed. In the texts they were looking at, there were things that might have been good for Canadian trade in general but we know for sure would have been catastrophic for supply management. There are reasons, therefore, why we think that when supply management is on the table, danger looms.

I would like to hear what the hon. member for Malpeque has to say about this.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I certainly welcome the question.

I welcome the work of the member for Richmond—Arthabaska in terms of his fighting for producers in the agriculture committee and for the supply management industry in this country.

He is absolutely correct. The record will show that in the 2007 negotiations there was a proposal on the table that would have reduced the tariffs substantially for supply management and that would have basically made it impossible for our supply management industry to survive over even the short and medium term.

The government had the opportunity to reject and object to that proposal, and it did not. If those negotiations had been successful, then the industry would have been completely undermined. Those are the facts, and that is the reality.

That was an instance where the government was allowing supply management to be negotiated away. Thank heavens for other countries that stood up, and the agreement did not proceed.

Hopefully the government has now seen the light and will stand more firmly behind supply management, not just in rhetoric and words but in actual action. That is what we want to see here. We do know it is still on the table.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, the member for Malpeque is a defender of farmers, and we appreciate that in the House.

Unfortunately, his party has not often stood up for Canadians. We saw that with the Liberal Party's support for the softwood lumber sellout, the shipbuilding sellout and the Colombia human rights sellout.

I think it is fair to say that the member for Malpeque and I would agree that the Conservative government has been egregiously bad for Canadian farmers, so bad that the farmers are now pressing to have agriculture research dollars restored to 1994 levels, and we have this sellout of supply management.

Given the huge significant increases in drug costs that are contained within the agreement, that have been put on the table by the Conservative government, and given the fact that supply management is on the table as well with huge implications for communities across this country, would the member for Malpeque stand and say that the Liberal Party will oppose this agreement with the provisions that are on the table now, given that this is clearly not in the public interest?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, as I made clear in the beginning, Canada is a trading nation. This is a very important agreement to Canada and to the industries in Canada.

However, what is going to be critical in the area that I have been speaking on, the agricultural sector, is that we are able to maintain our supply management system and are able to maintain the Canadian Wheat Board.

We are trading nation, and I think there is good economic value in this agreement for both countries. We have made it clear that we will look at the negotiations as they go along, but we as a party are supportive of trade. That is why I supported the Colombia trade agreement. There are a lot of benefits in that Colombia trade agreement for primary producers, as well as the spinoff through the economy.

It is important that we support trade, but we need to make sure that there are safeguards in those agreements from which our industries can benefit overall.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the fact that the member is saying he is going to support trade, and I certainly would hope that he will be very willing to support this particular trade agreement.

Going back to supply management for one second, we have to ask ourselves what the Europeans would have to gain by getting access to a market of 35 million people for dairy and opening up a market of 450 million people? What would they have to gain?

They have some interest in some specific areas, but they are not interested in wiping out supply management. They are interested in a number of others.