Debates of Nov. 18th, 2014

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just have a very quick question. There has been a lot of discussion about supply management. I would like to ask my colleague which one of the three pillars, if any, this EU trade agreement would impact negatively. Could she name the one that it would impact, and what that impact would be?

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, people have told me that they were worried about what would happen to dairy products. They do not know anything. People listen to the news, they listen to what the government is saying, but they are worried. I really have nothing more to add. People are worried and they are not sure that supply management is here to stay.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct pleasure to rise in the House to talk about this report and the amendment put to it. It is truly an honour to represent a riding of farmers. It will come as no surprise to the majority of people in the House that Pontiac is mainly an agricultural riding. All along the Gatineau River and the Ottawa River are farms. Settlers, whether they were Irish, Scottish, or French, picked this part of the country to settle because of the quality of its farmland.

They are worried. We cannot hide that, and they are right to be worried. It is not only the dairy farmers in my riding who are worried, but also the beef producers. It is mainly because of the lack of information. It is also because there are certain assumptions made, due to messaging from the government at the very beginning of the negotiations of CETA, about supply management that have, frankly, proven to be false.

In fact, supply management is being undermined by the measures of the Conservative government. It is called importation of a certain amount of product, which actually affects the supply management chain. One would think that before launching something of this magnitude, we would do the fundamental market research necessary to determine where our strengths and weaknesses are. When we go to the negotiating table, we would have that information with us to ensure that we negotiate a good deal for Canadians. That is just fundamental work.

I happened to have the privilege of being part of the original committee that went to Europe to study the free trade agreement. There were a couple of issues brought up by the Europeans. For example, back then they were worried about having their geographic indicators respected. We met with some of the agricultural industry in France. It spoke with particular concern about this. It also talked about the possibility of having Canadian beef flooding its market. It talked about GMO products. All of my colleagues on that committee across the way who joined me will recall those words.

That was the picture then. This is now. What seems obvious to me is that we have caved in on every single one of those worries that our European counterparts had. I do not call that negotiating. I call that lying down and allowing them to step all over us, and for what reason? All of us have to ask that question. What agricultural industry is pushing the Conservative government hard enough to put into question some pretty fundamental measures in place in our economic structures to protect our family farms and, particularly in Quebec, supply management?

There is another elephant in the room with regard to CETA, and many of the European colleagues brought this up. I remember asking this very pointed question of the negotiators that we met in Europe. I asked what guarantees there were that this agreement would go through all of the different legislatures that make up the European Union. There was not a single person we met during that trip who could answer how and if that were going to happen.

Does it surprise me that we do not have a bill dealing with CETA in front of us? No, because one thing that the Conservative government fundamentally did not take into consideration was the reaction of the national state members of the EU. We saw how that reaction blew up for the government when Germany suddenly decided that maybe it was not such a good deal. That is Germany, a major player in the European Union, but we have not dealt with the vast majority of the countries that are part of the European Union.

How can the government guarantee us today that all the member states are going to approve this agreement and it will go forward? That is the elephant in the room. That is probably why we have not seen anything come forward. Conservatives expect us to agree to this agreement without actually seeing the bill come to Parliament.

I will give a bit of context to this. I do not recall, but it has to be a couple of years since the Conservatives began this negotiation. Did we ever see a single text? We actually had to get the Europeans to leak a draft text to us so we could see it. What kind of transparency is that? They are touting it as the most fundamental, greatest, most magnificent trade deal ever in the history of Canada, well beyond NAFTA. When did we get the draft of NAFTA? If we go back and check the history, we will see that the process of NAFTA was 90% more transparent than this one. Therefore, I do not understand why, fundamentally, they did not make this information available to Canadians sooner.

Members can understand why farmers in my riding, in that kind of context, would be extremely skeptical with regard to the impact this would have on their lives. We have to take into consideration that there are not all that many family farms left in Canada. There is nothing wrong with industrial farming, but it has fundamentally taken over our agricultural market. There are very few family farms.

A family farm is not just an economic unit. A family farm is a community. A family farm is truly the heart of communities like Shawville, Campbell's Bay, Fort-Coulonge, or Gracefield. What is allowing these family farms to survive is a very reasonable, cost-effective, and very efficient supply management system. The Europeans subsidize their farmers massively. They would not stop doing that under this trade agreement. Therefore, tit for tat, we have to make sure our farmers remain competitive.

Let us talk about beef, because the Conservatives are touting that this would have a fundamental impact on the amount of beef that would hit the European market. The beef producers would actually have to modify the way they produce beef, particularly with hormones. Hormones have an incidence on growth rates, so we have to keep that in mind with regard to the amount of production that can go forward. We have to check that with the amount of beef that can actually be exported. Also, if that transformation is going to occur, where would the transitional money come from to allow those producers to go forward, change the way they do their production, and export. Fundamentally, that is a change that matters to the farmers of the Pontiac.

Because the member of Parliament opposite suggested that perhaps this report should go back to the committee, I would like to move the following subamendment. I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding after the word “negotiated” the following:

“and the Committee only report back to the House following the introduction in the House of Commons of all implementing legislation and the announcement by the government of all transitional measures, including financial compensation.”

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The subamendment is admissible.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, like the member's riding, has a lot of dairy producers in it. Probably the biggest dairy producing region in British Columbia is in Chilliwack and the district of Kent.

I am little perplexed. The government has taken action any time the Dairy Farmers of Canada has raised a concern, whether it be on milk protein concentrates, compositional cheese standards or pizza kits. It has been our government and our ministers of agriculture who have taken action to protect supply management.

It was our party that had the protection of the supply management system in our last election platform, something none of the other parties had.

Perhaps the reason the member's farmers are afraid of the Canada-EU trade agreement is because he is spreading misinformation and fearmongering in that group of farmers.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, that is an interesting theory, as if I could tell my farmers what to think. Obviously, the member does not know his own farmers if he thinks that is the case.

Second, he should listen to Mr. Wally Smith to get a sense of what they think officially about what the Conservatives are doing to supply management.

I need to congratulate the member for Welland as well as the member of Parliament for Berthier—Maskinongé for the incredible work they have done on the file, particularly wrestling out of the government a commitment to compensate farmers who are under supply management.

To add to my answer to the member's question, where is the compensation package?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if I did not know any better, I would suggest that maybe this subamendment might be kind of a weasel way of getting out of possibly voting for the amendment itself. This is very interesting. I think we might even potentially support the subamendment. I do not know if we will get the government to support it, which means that it could be defeated at the end of the day. It would then force the member to vote on the amendment.

If that were to happen, how would he and his party vote? Do they believe the principle of the agreement that is being referred to is something that will benefit Canada?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the fundamental point here about this amendment is to ensure that due process is in place, that we actually follow some kind of logical progression with regard to introducing bills and legislation in the House.

That would not be too difficult to ask the government to do, for once. It could actually look at things, put things in a logical order, start where we should start, and that is to figure out how this will be implemented and what the compensation package is, and then come to the House for a full debate.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like many members in the House, I represent a region whose economy depends largely on agriculture, and particularly the dairy industry. Therefore, I welcome this subamendment.

I hear many concerns expressed by dairy producers, because they do not have all the information at this time. Yes, there is a free trade agreement with the European Union, and farmers know that there will be changes; however, the government promised countervailing measures, but we know nothing of the details of those measures.

I wonder whether the member for Pontiac, who did an excellent job talking about this file, could discuss how the government seems to be dragging its feet regarding an announcement on compensation. The issue of compensation is not just relevant for agriculture and dairy producers. It also applies to intellectual property, pharmaceutical companies and the provinces. We need to know why the government has been slow in making an announcement. Dairy producers are very concerned and are anxiously awaiting such an announcement.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

The French are far ahead of us when it comes to protecting intellectual property. Laws in Europe are not consistent with ours. That is why we must ensure that Quebec's pharmaceutical industry remains competitive in the context of an international free trade agreement.

This simply shows that the government did not do enough industrial research during the negotiations.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an opportunity and a pleasure to speak tonight on CETA. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, and I look forward to hearing his intervention, following mine.

As chairman of the agriculture committee, I want to first thank all the members of all parties for their interventions and the work that was put into coming forward with the report on the economic trade agreement with Europe.

The historic agreement with Canada and Europe came about because there had been an incredible amount of consultation with farmers, which I am pleased to say has been my life occupation. When we talk about dairy, I lived that for a few decades. Thankfully, I still have the opportunity to be in farming by having someone to help manage it.

What we did as a government was make sure that we had a full impact, whether it was with farmers or processors. I guess we can talk about all the stakeholders. We did that because we wanted to make sure that when we got to the negotiating table, we had the support and the concerns of each and every one of those stakeholders.

We are at the stage now where we have the report. I am pleased to say that we have the committee's recommendations, and our government supports those. Basically there are five. It recommends that we approve the agreement to expedite the economic benefits it would bring to Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector; that we continue our strong defence of supply management, which seems to have captured a lot of the discussion here tonight; that we leverage this agreement to harmonize approvals for new agriculture and agri-food technologies; that we work with industry to protect maple products from unfair competition from substitutes in the EU; and that we continue to pursue additional comprehensive trade agreements. That last one is key to what our agriculture and agri-food industry wants us to do.

This, without a doubt, is one of the most exciting times to be in agriculture. This is an exciting time for farmers and processors. It is an exciting time for those in the agri-food industry. It is because of the 24 agreements with 43 countries that have been negotiated and finalized. What it means to our producers and our industry is that we have opened opportunities. We can produce and sell into markets and invest in our technology and innovation so that our industry looks forward.

I talk to the young farmers and the farmers who are coming along in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and Southwestern Ontario.

I am very fortunate to represent my riding, which is not unlike that of my colleague across the way from Pontiac. We talked earlier today, and we have similar ridings, very rural and agricultural with small towns, which means small family-oriented businesses. There is a diversity of livestock, supply management, grains and oil seeds as well as horticulture and greenhouses across my riding. There is incredible diversity, and each and every one of these businesses sees the opportunities in this trade agreement.

However, we are hearing from the other side: what about supply management? It is sort of an interesting comment, because everybody has their quotes, but for supply management, we must look in terms of the amount of imports that would come from this agreement, which I believe is around some 17,000 tonnes for cheeses.

Canadian cheeses are so popular. In fact, during the debates and witness testimonies in committee, we had a cheese producer from Quebec come in with some samples of cheese. I have to say that it was incredible cheese. The owner of the company commented that she did not have a concern with the agreement and actually saw an opportunity to market her product. She saw an opportunity to grow the market for these great cheeses.

We love cheese in Canada. The growth in cheese consumption in Canada is somewhere in the range of 8,000 tonnes per year. It seems to me that, when I listened to those producers and processors, they were saying that they have an opportunity and wondered why they could not meet that demand domestically in Canada. Those of us who are in the dairy industry and understand it know that it is true entrepreneurism. Those entrepreneurs think that this is a challenge and an opportunity.

When I talk to the young farmers in my riding, they are excited. The industry of agriculture is not unlike any other industry, such as high technology, and there is innovation and opportunity. This agreement talks about all of that. It talks about our farming generation that wants opportunity. The members of this generation want us to give them access to markets and then let them go.

Will they be able to provide hormone-free beef? Give them the opportunity and they will. Will there be processing plants to deal with the pork? We have had those conversations with the member from Manitoba, and we respect the concerns in Manitoba for that growth. However, we have opportunities in Alberta, where they want to build or expand a plant to process hormone-free beef. Why? It is because this agreement gives them the opportunity to sell it in a new market.

In closing, with almost half of Canada's total agriculture production exported, we have potential for growth in the sector, which lies in its ability to expand its markets abroad, making market access a key priority for this great industry that I am involved in along with many others across the country.

I ask the NDP in particular to stand and support this agreement, because not only will it be good across Canada, but it will actually also be good for those in Quebec the members keep taking about and are concerned it will harm. It will not. It is good for Canadian agriculture.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I have served with him on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts a few times. I know that he is very knowledgeable about this file, and I also know that he worked very hard on this report.

I have one main concern. As he mentioned, I have no doubt that our farmers can do very well from a trade standpoint and that they can develop their markets in the European Union. The question is whether they can be competitive given the subsidies, and the amount of the subsidies, that the European Union gives its own producers, for example, in support of market price. The issue is not whether our beef or grain producers are efficient and productive, in the sense of productivity, but whether they are efficient and productive enough to compete against European agricultural products in Europe.

I would like to know why there is practically no mention of the issue of subsidies in the committee report.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that the question came forward and I know it comes from his heart. The difference in philosophy between the NDP and us is that we believe that farmers do not want subsidization but markets. Farmers want the ability to expand and to have access to markets, which we in government have the responsibility of giving them.

One of the other great things is the ability to be competitive with some of the other farm subsidies, whether in Europe or the United States. That why we are going to have a debate in another couple of nights on Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, which is going to give an incredible amount of support and opportunity to farmers to be competitive. So hang in. I have all the faith in our farmers that they will compete. Give them the markets and they will compete and produce.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is related to supply management. The Liberal Party recognizes the great value that supply management provides to our farmers in all regions of our country. I had the opportunity to tour a dairy farm over the summer, and one could not walk away without feeling confident that through our supply management we produce some of the best cheese in the world and that the quality of our milk is second to none. Farmers as a whole see so much value in supply management.

It is nice that the Conservatives incorporated it into the amendment, providing some sort of affirmation of their support for supply management. However, the Conservative government promised to support the Canadian Wheat Board, but at the end of the day it got rid of that board's monopoly. Why should farmers be confident in the government's commitment to supply management today?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is that we are the only party in the House that has ever taken any concrete action to protect supply management and to meet the requests of supply management, whether it was the compositional structure of cheese or whether it was the pizza kits. Everybody wants to talk about it, but talking does not get us anywhere. We have to take action.

When supply management people come to us, of course there is a debate. There should be a full debate about how protection works. We have supported the three pillars of supply management, and every one of those will change over a period of time, as they should. Supply management is not in concrete. It is a living document. The industry is a living industry that will progress and move with what technology and innovation bring.

We always say we support supply management. Everybody says that. However, when it comes down to it, our party is the only party that has ever taken any action to protect it so that it will remain viable, strong, and sustainable for the long term.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to join in this important debate on the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, or CETA. As someone who formerly chaired the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, I want to compliment the members of the committee for the work they have done in putting together this report and allowing us this opportunity for debate. I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his amendment to have the committee revisit this report and make sure that everything has been properly considered before the signing of the final agreement.

As many in the House know, I am a cattle producer and someone who still feels very passionate about agriculture. Being from a riding that has a diversified agriculture background with grain, oilseed, and supply-managed farms, as well as a very large and vibrant ranching community, I can say that this agreement is well endorsed and supported by the producers in my riding. They are just ecstatic about the opportunity to expand their markets.

I have listened carefully to the debate and I am a little concerned that some members have suggested that maybe we do not need this agreement or that the markets are not there. As someone who lived through the BSE crisis, I and my friends and even my family had to endure some significantly difficult years. We saw the result of not being able to market our products around the world. We saw what happened to the prices of livestock in this country as markets all over the world shut their doors. Every effort that is made to open up those doors and to diversify market share for our agriculture producers is something that every farmer across this country supports. We cannot have all our eggs in one basket.

When I ran for election back in 2004 in the heat of the BSE crisis, the one thing that farmers were telling me—not just in my riding but right across the country, because of my former involvement with the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association—was that we have to diversify our markets and not be so dependent on the United States. The United States is next door and is easy to access, but at the same time we need opportunities to market. Therefore, moving to more free trade agreements, as our government has done, is something that is well regarded and very much appreciated by farmers across Canada.

Our agricultural goods and food exports have continued to grow over the past five years and have increased by 30%. Farmers are capitalizing on those opportunities and farmers are the ones benefiting from that expanded market. In the last year, we broke the $50 billion mark in the export threshold for the first time in our nation's history. That is huge. It is providing more dollars into the farming economy, it is creating jobs, it is creating prosperity, and it is something that continues to drive our overall economy and GDP as a country.

Today Canada is the world's largest agricultural trader on a per capita basis, according to Farm Credit Canada. What has led to this remarkable success? It is because this government and our Prime Minister believe in free trade and in having as many countries as we can to do business with. It is because of the hard work that we have seen from our trade minister and our agriculture minister as they continue to travel around the world, knocking on doors and creating sales opportunities for producers and manufacturers from coast to coast to coast. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has already led over 40 trade missions with industry, and each one has resulted in increased opportunities for our industry and benefited the economy. In fact, the minister just returned from his 11th mission to China, where he accompanied the Prime Minister to build on our trade relationship there and to continue to grow that lucrative market.

Agriculture, and the trade component of it, is not just about shipping cows and shipping bushels of wheat and canola. It is about technology now. It is about added value. It is about complete integrated systems where supply chains are met from one end to the other, and providing products that consumers want.

The opposition members say that we will be unable to move our beef into Europe because it has phytosanitary restrictions such as non-hormone beef. Guess what? If the market is there, our producers will raise those types of animals, and it is easy to do and it can happen very quickly. Even though there might be some production losses, if the dollars are more lucrative and there are more dollars in their pocket at the end of the day, they will not hesitate to jump on that opportunity.

As a case in point, my brother and my dad do a bit of organic farming. On the lands that they have certified for organic production, they do not get the same production that they get off the conventional part of the farm. They do not have the same quality of crops, in some cases, that they would under conventional farming. However, they do it because there is a market for it and it is lucrative. That is what motivates producers to make changes in production practices to meet the market. That is what this is about: creating more of those opportunities.

When the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of International Trade were in China, they saw some great deals being signed. One was with the canola industry in China, using more canola oil from Canada, at $1 billion. That is significant. It is $1 billion in just one country with that trade deal. Those are the types of things we are trying to accomplish with the CETA deal.

We are seeing all sorts of commodities benefiting from these increased opportunities in China. On the China trip there was a cherry deal signed worth over $20 million. There were $400 million in new market access gains in the minister's trip back in June, plus they signed $280 million worth of agriculture contracts. When we add it all up, over the past five years, just in China—never mind what we are trying to do in Europe—that has increased our sales by $5.6 billion in Canada. We are getting beef access into the China market, increasing beef sales back into Taiwan, which is the very last market to open up to us after the BSE crisis.

These are the things that really help promote agriculture, that provide the opportunity for that intergenerational transfer of farms from father and mother to sons and daughters. If we do not have dollars in our pockets, if we do not have the opportunity to make money, those transfers do not happen to the next generation.

When we took government, one thing we did was establish Canada's Market Access Secretariat just to concentrate on developing trade opportunities. That has brought industry together with federal government and the provinces, and it has built bridges with our trading partners. This type of coordinated approach allows us to identify and resolve trade irritants aggressively and strategically. It allows us, when we are putting together our trade agreements, to talk about what are the best practices in our experience with other trade agreements and to implement that so we have proper dispute resolution systems. Also, it allows us to build upon our competitiveness and where we have strength within the trade sectors.

As a result, we have identified target markets, which accounted for 85% of our total exports last year. When we take in the conclusion of CETA, add in the South Korean deal and add in Honduras, we realize that all of a sudden we have preferential market access in Europe, Asia and across the Americas. That is 38 countries that we now have trade agreements with, and when we add in the increase and continue to grow those, we will have access to over 44% of the world's agriculture and agri-food markets. That trade potential more than doubles when we take into account countries with which we are still negotiating. We will peak at 63% market access and we will have almost two-thirds of the world's agriculture import market.

We have trade agreements with more than half of the entire global marketplace, and that, just within the European context, is worth more than $138 billion.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

According to the executive director of the Canadian Meat Council, Canadian producers of prepared meats are worried about concessions on geographical indications made to the European Union. They are also concerned that the concessions are not reciprocal. These meat sector businesses could lose their trademarks for products with annual sales of more than $25 million.

What can my colleague say to reassure them?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Meat Council supports free trade and wants to see tariffs eliminated. It wants the tariffs on beef, pork, and other meat products of almost 14% taken away. It wants to see more market access granted, which is tackled in CETA.

Of course, there are always going to be small irritants about names and geographical issues when we deal with the Europeans, but that is also true here in Canada. There is a dispute resolution process that would find a way through this, so there would still be the opportunities we need for our meat sector.

As was pointed out, Maple Leaf Foods, a major meat processor in Manitoba that is handling pork right across Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, is looking forward to having opportunities to access that market and maintain the employment levels it has created in Brandon. We know this would also provide great opportunities for expansion of the hog industry in the Prairies.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to a previous question that I asked one of the member's colleagues, with respect to the legislation itself.

Let there be no doubt that there is an expectation by the public that this European trade agreement will be converted into a piece of legislation that will ultimately allow Canada to move forward on the trade agreement.

Very simply, given the many words that have been said here this evening, can Canadians expect to see the trade legislation before the end of the year? Is the member in a position to indicate that we would in fact have some sort of legislation before the end of year with respect to the EU trade agreement?

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing that I am hearing from both the Liberals and the NDP is that they want to see the enabling legislation.

The agreement itself is online. All of the restrictions that have been placed by the provinces are attached to that agreement. Everything we need to know from a technical background on trade, as well as all of the baselines and documents as they pertain to how this is going to be implemented, is already available. Canadians can see it. The enabling legislation, when it comes forward, would only duplicate what is already published online. This whole idea that they have to see the legislation before they should support any motion is ridiculous. Everything has been made public. We have been extremely transparent.

When legislation comes forward, they will have the opportunity to vote on it, but right now we have a motion before the House that encourages the opposition to make up their minds and support agriculture and trade, otherwise they are going to use weasel words to get out of showing any intention of supporting agriculture across this great country.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. He certainly talks very eloquently. There is no question that he knows a great deal about red meat, because he comes from that area and represents folks from that area extremely well, because of his family background there.

I wonder if my friend would talk about the seafood industry, because a lot of folks talk about a lot of different things in agriculture and quite often the seafood industry is one that gets totally overlooked. It used to be like the wine industry before we made sure that the current government understood there was a wine industry in this country and that the agriculture committee actually got an opportunity to speak to them.

I wonder if my friend across the way could explain to Canadians whether the seafood industry really does as well as the red meat sector

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

Mr. Speaker, the principles and fundamentals for market access apply the same in seafood industry as others, including for getting tariffs out of the way and providing market access to over 550 million new customers. This is something that is incredibly important to the seafood industry. It is something that it would be able to capitalize on and benefit from.

Again, this is the NDP trying to distract from the real purpose of what the debate here today is about, which is agriculture, trade, and opportunities for our farmers from coast to coast to coast.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, I must inform him that there are three minutes left for debate on the motion.

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not expecting that. I thought I would have at least 10 minutes to speak about the matter at hand, namely, the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I will stick to the key points.

I asked the member of the government party questions about a fundamental issue, namely the ability of our farmers to compete with European farmers on their own turf. Of course, the government talked about opening markets. We are going to open our own agricultural markets to European producers. At this point in the analysis, my understanding is that there will be no subsidies to compensate for European products being exported here to Canada.

However, our products, whether we are talking about dairy, beef, pork or grain products, could and should be sent to Europe but will have to compete with products that are subsidized. We are not talking about small subsidies. The direct and indirect subsidies that the European Union gives its farmers represent 40% of the European Union's budget or 39 billion euros.

When we talk about supply management, about protecting it and about opportunities for other products to reach the European market, we have to consider the fact that our products will not be competing on a level playing field. I agree that our producers can handle the business-related challenges of exporting their products, but they need a chance to do that in a fair competitive environment.

This problem underlies the issue of protecting supply management. The pillars of supply management will not change, but the new foundation, especially in terms of new import quotas, will be a game changer for dairy producers.

Different parties speak out in favour of supply management. We strongly support supply management, and we have proven it time and time again. While columnists, politicians and commentators have said that we should eliminate supply management, institute a free market and bring in American and European products, I remind members that our agricultural subsidies were practically eliminated under the Liberal government.

I was in Cancun in 2002, I believe, when the Liberal government was all set to completely eliminate supply management until the Doha Round was cancelled because developing countries were reluctant.

However, supply management remains a key issue in the NDP's assessment of this agreement, and that is why I was very pleased to second the subamendment proposed by the member for Pontiac, which would give us a fundamental answer to a fundamental question: where is that compensation for this agreement that the federal government promised to dairy farmers?

I do not see how we could support the terms of this agreement without having the information that the government promised us a long time ago.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me a few minutes to share my thoughts.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the subamendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the subamendment?