Debates of Nov. 18th, 2014

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to clarity is, where is the bill? I am not sure what I can vote for and what I am supporting if I have never seen the bill. The Conservatives do not have one. I know I do not get to ask questions. The questions come this way. The bottom line is they do not have a bill. They have an agreement in principle and they have some additional new text that explains it, but they do not have a bill.

Therefore, if he asks me which way I will vote, it is like asking me if I have a scarf on my coat that is blue or orange. Why not guess. Then again, they may say one, but they may be wrong.

The bottom line is that if you have a bill bring it out, get it on the floor, let us have that debate and you will find out how we will vote. That is what it is about. Put it on the floor, we would be happy to debate it and vote one way or the or the.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. I would draw to member's attention that questions and comments should be directed to the Chair, not to other members.

The hon. member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Welland, but I agree with him that it would be kind of nice to see the fine print and details before voting. I am absolutely sure Canadians would not want us to vote on something and commit ourselves to something without seeing the details, especially from a government that Canadians know they cannot trust. We are certainly not going to do that. We want to see the details of the plan.

The member for Welland talked about the opportunities here, and I agree there are. The parliamentary secretary talked about the billion dollar market availability. He said it would be there, but he cannot say definitely it will be. There is a market there. Will we seize it? We might.

I am going to give a little history on trade agreements, and the government should listen to this. I have looked at many of them and when it comes to trade agreements after Canada signs them, whether it is us or them, we do not do as well as our competitors under the trade agreement. Yes, we increase the economy and the GDP, but on a surplus deficit basis, we start to fall behind. Why?

I think the answer is that as a country do not have a strategic plan on how to take advantage of that market agreement that we sign. Canada signs a trade agreement and “There you are boys, go to her”. We need a strategic plan on how we will seize the opportunities in that.

Does the member for Welland think we are getting that from the government? Specifically on the beef issue, the member for Welland said that we did not fill the quota for non-hormone fed beef. That is true. Now we have more quota and we will not fill that market unless we have a a beef plant and infrastructure to get the beef into the plant, process it and market it in Europe. Would the member for Welland agree with me, and should the government be involved in providing that infrastructure and plan?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Malpeque raises some interesting things. The member has sat in the House for a substantial amount of time and has seen many agreements go back and forth. He is absolutely right when he says that the legislation is just waiting for a number to get slapped on it. Perhaps in his Thursday question, my hon. friend, the House Leader of the Official Opposition, will glean that information from the other side. Perhaps we will find out there is a new bill on CETA with a number on it. Somehow, though, I do not think so.

I have my doubts. I am still waiting for the tooth fairy, but I do not think the tooth fairy is coming to visit me anymore; I am a little too old. The tooth fairy has got a better shot of getting to me than I have of seeing legislation on CETA from the Conservative government before Christmas. I would actually wager on that one, and members know that I do not bet very often, but I probably would here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the common sense offered by the member for Welland, and I would like to hear his comments.

We have the Conservatives over here, who offer a little bit of the deal itself without providing the House with any of the enabling legislation, which we know would be hundreds of pages long. They have not put in place any transitional measures whatsoever. It is like asking us to buy a pig in a poke. They are saying “here is one wheel well, buy the whole car”.

We have been asking, what are the Conservatives hiding? Why do they not bring forward the enabling legislation? Why do they not bring forward the bills? What about the transitional measures that people across the country are calling for? The Conservative government has failed to do any of that.

Does my colleague from Welland think that the government is really being transparent with the Canadian public when it offers a deal but with no legislation and absolutely no transitional measures? How irresponsible is that?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, he is right. Why would one accept it? Yes, the Conservatives have concluded an agreement in principle and have a lot of details about it, but they do not have anybody's signature on it from the other side of the ocean yet. They have to go through that.

There are a bunch of governments that are going to have new elections. In fact, I had the great honour of being in Ukraine when it elected its new parliament. There are others. Ukraine is not in the EU, but many of us on both sides of the House are hopeful that that will happen. I would like to thank my colleagues on the other side who accompanied me on that mission.

There are other things to do with this yet. We have clearly outlined in committee, in good faith, why we do not accept this. We put a report together that does not show dissent but how we think we can improve it and in which we added a couple of recommendations of our own. Of course, the government did not respond to them, which was really disappointing. It would have been nice if it had responded to our recommendations, though I realize it did not have to do so. In my view, the recommendations were not offensive but were there to try to augment the report. That is why we do a supplementary report.

Clearly, we await the debate on CETA and the implementation language. As mentioned earlier, we do not debate trade here but debate enabling legislation. The debate comes after that. Let us be honest and admit that it does. We do not actually do that, but we sneak it in sometimes. When the legislation comes forward, it is not about the different viewpoints and how we do trade, but about whether we want it or not, and here is the deal. The Speaker allows us to go around it a bit and do that sort of stuff, but the bottom line is that we do not actually have that debate.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was absolutely right when he talked about being a younger man at university and remembering the great debate in the eighties on the first free trade agreement. That really was a debate about free trade and what groups wanted this or that. It was the last time that such a debate happened. He was absolutely on the money when he said that. It was the last time, but the Conservative government is responsible for that because it does not bring trade agreements here to talk about trade. It brings them here to enable what the government has already decided to do.

Perhaps the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons should read his own remarks in Hansard tomorrow and find out if maybe he wants to have the policy discussion here, instead of enabling legislation and simply having a “yes” or “no”, “up” or “down” vote. Perhaps the House leader of the government would take a look at Hansard and decide to do something different in the future.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, my wise colleague, the member for Durham.

Mr. Speaker, the creation of jobs and economic growth for the benefit of Canadian businesses, workers, farmers, and their families continues to be our focus. That is why I am honoured to take this opportunity to speak about the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.

The EU is the largest economy in the world, with its 28 member states, over 500 million consumers, and annual economic activity at $17 trillion. The EU is the world's single-largest import market for goods. In fact, the EU's annual imports are worth more than Canada's total gross domestic product.

Last October, the Prime Minister announced that we had reached a historic agreement in principle with the EU. This September, at the Canada-EU summit, our government released the completed text of the agreement.

Yes, these are exciting times for Canadian farmers and processors. Thanks to this agreement, the future looks particularly bright for the industry's continued growth and success in the world market. A joint Canada-EU study that supported the launch of the negotiations concluded that a trade agreement between us would bring a 20% boost in bilateral trade and a $12-billion annual increase to Canada's economy. To put it in more general terms, that is the economic equivalent of adding $1,000 to the average Canadian family's income, or almost 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy.

In my home province of Saskatchewan, workers and businesses stand to benefit significantly from the preferred access to the EU market. The EU is the province's third-largest export destination and trading partner. However, the current tariffs on Canadian agricultural products prevent our producers and exporters from being able to compete on a level playing field with the EU market. As an example, the tariff currently applied by the EU to exports of oats has been estimated to add almost 52% to the price of a bushel of Canadian oats in the EU, and on common wheat the tariff can run up to $122 per tonne. These are not insignificant costs and represent serious barriers to market entry.

Our government recognizes that protectionist restrictions stifle our exporters and undermine Canada's competitiveness, which in turn adversely affect middle-class Canadian families.

When the Canadian-EU trade agreement is fully implemented, over 95% of the EU tariffs would be eliminated on our world-class agricultural exports, including oats, wheat, and canola oils. This would make all these products more competitive.

In Prince Edward Island, a significant portion of the province's world-class agricultural output is exported to the EU, which is the province's second-largest export destination and trading partner. As an example, the P.E.I.'s agricultural exports to the EU are worth an average of $4.5 million annually, but the average EU tariff on agriculture products is almost 14%. In the fish and seafood sector, tariffs peak at 25%.

On the first day the agreement comes into force, the deal would eliminate EU tariffs on the vast majority of fish and seafood, including PEI's renowned live lobsters. Also, agricultural products, like P.E.I.'s famous frozen French fries, which can currently face tariffs of almost 18%, would no longer be subject to these financial burdens.

When the P.E.I. exporters compete and win in the global markets, they create jobs for Islanders.

For Nova Scotia, the EU is already the province's second-largest trading partner and largest export destination. Nova Scotia's fish and seafood exports to the EU were worth nearly $160 million in 2013, making this sector the largest source of Nova Scotia's exports to the EU.

When the agriculture agreement comes into force, almost 96% of the EU tariff lines for fish and seafood would be duty-free. Seven years later, 100% of these tariff lines would be duty-free, making these world-class goods more competitive and creating the conditions for increased sales. Increased sales would directly benefit hard-working Nova Scotians through more jobs, higher wages, and greater long-term prosperity.

EU tariffs, for example, would be eliminated on live lobster, from the rate of 8%; on snow crab, from the rate of 7.5%; frozen scallops, from the rate of 8%; frozen shrimp, from the rate of 12%; and cooked and peeled shrimp, from the rate of 20%.

With its focus on quality, innovation, and value-added opportunities, Nova Scotia's agricultural and agrifood sector is well positioned to take advantage of these new opportunities.

There are more examples of these economic effects across the country. For example, the Canada-EU trade agreement would present new and expanded opportunities for Alberta producers. Agricultural products represent the second-largest source of Alberta's exports to the EU. The agreement would provide new market access opportunities for key Albertan exports of beef, pork, and bison.

Under CETA, Canadian farmers will have yearly duty-free access of up to 81,000 tonnes on pork, 50,000 tonnes on beef, and 3,000 on bison. Increased sales of these and other agricultural quantities will lead to more jobs, increased wages, and greater long-term prosperity.

In Quebec, producers will also benefit from these new opportunities in pork. As well, Quebec will be able to lock in duty-free sales of frozen blueberries and cranberries, which currently carry up to 17.5% duty.

Maple syrup producers will also benefit with the elimination of duties of 8%. Yes, even maple syrup producers will benefit. How could anyone oppose an agreement that allows Canadians to sell more maple syrup to the world and create more jobs here in Canada? In addition to the opportunities we have created for producers, we will work with the industry to help protect maple products against unfair competition from substitutes in the EU. We support the committee's recommendations on the issue.

As well, the Canada-EU trade agreement will establish a joint collaborative process where issues that impact trade can be raised and worked on jointly.

Trade has long been a powerful engine for Canada's economy, and even more so when there remain challenging times for this global economy. In fact, more than 60% of our gross domestic product is directly related to trade, and exports are directly linked to one in five Canadian jobs.

That is why our government is currently pursuing the most ambitious trade expansion plan in our country's history. By actively pursuing new trade and investment opportunities like this one with the EU, our Conservative government is providing Canadian workers and businesses with preferred access to the largest, most dynamic, and fastest-growing economies and regions in the world.

Our Conservative government is committed to protecting and strengthening the long-term financial security of hard-working Canadians. Thanks to the actions under our government's free trade leadership, Canadian workers, businesses, and exporters now have preferred access and a real competitive edge in more markets around the world than at any other time in our history.

We know that our Canadian exports can compete and win in the global marketplace. When our companies succeed abroad, jobs and growth are created here at home.

I had a round table in Tisdale this last weekend back in my riding in Saskatchewan. When I talk about trade agreements, producers and farmers are excited about having market access. They know what that means for them and their bottom line and to the communities they support, when they go to buy groceries, goods, and services. This is huge. This is a large market that we will be accessing, which will provide new opportunities. It is actually going to raise the price of grains by allowing our goods to be sold into those markets.

It is surprising when we look at wheat. At a tariff of $120 a tonne, we are still selling wheat into that market. However, when that tariff is eliminated, just think of how much more wheat we will be able to sell into that market. Also, if we look at the 52¢ a bushel tariff on oats and consider that an average farm in my area will grow 150 to 200 bushels an acre, it is a substantial amount of money that would return to farmers' pockets when we get access without the 52¢ a bushel tariff.

We are excited about this trade agreement. Saskatchewan is very excited about it and so are my producers. In fact, they are so excited about it they keep pressuring me and asking when we can get this done. They want it done now and ask why there is the delay and say that we should move it forward and get it done.

We look forward to seeing this deal move through this House, get completed, and get royal assent so that our producers, farmers, constituents, and communities can take advantage of all the benefits this deal has to offer.

We are very excited. I hope all the opposition parties and all the other members will be equally excited about such a great deal as this one here right now.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be very excited too if the government actually introduced the bill in the House to get approval of it.

I find the topic of trade agreements with the European Union and other countries very engaging. However, I have seen the record of the government on producing good trade agreements over the last three years.

The member talked about how the farmers are excited and how they want these trade deals. However, the wheat is rotting in the farmers' fields in Saskatchewan and Manitoba because the current government has failed to get that wheat to the ports. The Conservatives have failed to provide the rail service. We have been pushing the government to pressure the rail companies to take that wheat to the ports, but the government has failed to do so.

Will the Conservatives stand up for prairie farmers and dairy farmers when it comes to getting their product out to the ports and pressure the rail companies to deliver the product on time?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I actually find this very hilarious, when the member talks about wheat being in the fields and rotting. Those were issues eight months to a year ago, against which our government actually took strong actions.

We put in minimum volume requirements for CN and CP to get that grain to market. Actually it did move a lot of grain to market. It did have results, but it took this government and this party to understand what the need was and actually get action, while the opposition sat on its hands.

It is interesting that they talk about the bill versus text. Why do they not read the text? Read the text. When you read the text, you understand how good it is. When they understand how good it is, they will be excited about the bill when it comes forward.

I would encourage you to read the text. It is very simple—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, order. Order. The member for Prince Albert has now referred three times to “you”, not being me or the chair. Please bring it back. We can have a bit more of a civilized discussion and debate. It has gotten way out of hand.

The hon. member for Prince Albert, complete your answer please.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do apologize. I am just so excited about the text. I am so excited about this deal that I just cannot help myself.

My farmers are really passionate, and they want to see this move forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can see the excitement in the member.

It is valid for opposition members to ask the government questions. The Conservatives have been talking a great deal about the agreement. In principle, we have indicated we support it in the Liberal Party.

Having said that, there is an expectation that the government will in fact materialize on the legislation. The question is very simply put. When does the member believe we will actually see the legislation that is being talked about? Will we get it before the end of the year? If it is such a high priority for the government, can we anticipate seeing it before the end of the year?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I sure hope we can see it by the end of the year. I hope we do it as quickly as possible. However, we have to get ratification over in Europe as well. We will see how the process unfolds over a period of time.

I want to get back to the text and what it means to Canadian farmers. It is really exciting. Maple syrup would have market access into Europe, duty-free market access into Europe. Is that not exciting? Maple syrup would be on the shelves in grocery stores in the U.K. and France.

I went to Europe many times when I used to work for my former employer. They love maple syrup. That is one of the things I used to take with me as gifts that I would give to farmers and friends over there. They are going to be excited to buy maple syrup when they get the chance after this deal goes through.

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

Mr. Speaker, not only is the member someone who has a number of agricultural producers in his riding of Prince Albert, but he was a great farmer himself and very active and involved in farm organizations.

I know he has been meeting with many of these farm organizations about how much they support our trade agenda.

Could the member talk a little more fully, not just about all the great work we have done here with CETA and the great opportunities that this would present to agricultural producers across this country, but also about other trade agreements we have brought into play and how they have impacted the producers in his riding?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question.

I look back and I just think of the beef sector. The member is very familiar with the beef sector. Let us remember what the beef sector was three or four years ago, when it was in its down cycle. It was a horrible situation.

What did the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food do? He hopped on a plane and went and sold Canadian beef. Where is the beef sector today? I was talking to Canadian farmers in the beef sector, and it is at $2,500 per steer. That is what happens when the market is opened up for products we produce, like steers.

When the beef is cut up, and the tongue is sold one place, the steak is sold one place, the roasts are sold in another place, and the goods that we do not necessarily consume here in Canada are sold in another place, then there is full extraction of value out of that product, and that return goes back to the farmer.

It is at $2,500 a steer. These guys are smiling all the way to the bank. That is what trade can do for Canadian farmers.

When we look at wheat, we see there is $120 a tonne tariff on wheat. That is roughly one tonne per acre. For a 1,000-acre farm, $120,000 dollars is being collected from the farmer in tariffs. Would that not be better in the farm or in the community? That is what this type of deal would remove.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise tonight in this debate on the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union, negotiated by our government over several years in a form that is truly revolutionary for trade agreements. This agreement anticipates not only trade in mercantile goods and agricultural products but trade in services and sharing of professional services and professional recognition across the ocean, dipping into procurement and infrastructure projects. This is truly the 21st century benchmark for trade agreements.

As with all trade agreements that enter the House, one of the critical sectors for our negotiators has always been agriculture. The agriculture sector is well understood by this government, but more important, farming families across Canada are at the centre of much of what this government does on its trade policy work.

I would remind the House that Conservative governments have granted Canadian exporters, including our farmers, 98% of their market access around the world. Ninety-eight per cent of our trade opportunities have been negotiated by Conservative governments. In many ways, trade and our success in the last few years under the present Prime Minister is one of the hallmarks of our economic track record of success that is leading the G7.

At the focus of the reason these new markets and new opportunities are important are farming families. I am speaking of farming families like the Mustard family in my riding of Durham, sixth-generation dairy farmers, and that of my colleague from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, who came to Parliament from a dairy background. We have farmers in our party. We heard from my colleague from Prince Albert. We have farmers in the House who bring their experience and their knowledge of what is important to farming families to the debate and to the negotiated outcomes of our trade agreements. We have always said we will not reach a trade agreement unless it is a win for all sectors, and that includes supply-managed sectors.

That 98% of market access that our government has secured was done while we have been able to maintain the four pillars of supply management. That, particularly in the global economy, is a real accomplishment, and it is an accomplishment because it is a priority. Our government set it out as a key priority when entering into these negotiations and obtaining outcomes that are wins for all sectors, including the supply-managed sector.

It is my privilege in my role as parliamentary secretary for international trade to meet with these sectors, including our supply-managed sectors. They see that we have been careful in our negotiations to secure wins for all agricultural commodities but, in particular, not sacrificing one for the other. We are proud of that.

The comprehensive economic and trade agreement, CETA, is an example of such success. When this agreement is implemented we would have 50,000 tonnes of access for our beef farmers. I have spoken to farmers in Alberta and Ontario who told me that they were struggling for many years, and only in the last two years have margins on beef become profitable. We have seen improper trade actions from our largest partner to the south, so those have encouraged us even more to get access for these farmers in global markets.

I am proud to be part of a government that has secured that with South Korea. It was so good that the NDP, after 50 years of opposing trade, had to acknowledge it was a great deal. Those members stood in the House to support it.

The European deal is equally ambitious, because our beef producers, some of the world's best, are effectively blocked by a huge 20% tariff. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association has estimated that CETA, when implemented for Canada, would represent a $600 million win in that industry alone. That is truly incredible.

Equally important is pork. We would be able to get 81,000 tonnes of tariff-free access for fresh or frozen pork products. I have met with the industry across the country, particularly in Brandon, Manitoba, where there is an underutilized facility needing new markets. If we can get the provincial government to address the moratorium on hog barns and get production levels up, we will have one of the world-class facilities there ready to ramp up to gain access to markets like South Korea and Europe for our pork products. It is another industry that has seen some challenges in the last decade, so securing new markets would be important.

Why is that important? It is because price would be assured, and a higher price is assured when there is more than one customer. Canada has been very lucky to sit on the border of a very large and hungry market, so we have been able to rely heavily on the U.S. trade relationship, which is still critical for our country, but having more markets secures better prices for our farmers and reduces risk by diversifying the markets into which we can export.

In debate tonight, members have already mentioned a range of other products, so I am not going to repeat a lot of them. I am going to focus on a couple that are very important to my riding of Durham in southern Ontario, which has some of the best agricultural land in Canada. Fresh apples have a 9% tariff rate that would come down with the European deal. The Kemp and Gibson families at Algoma Orchards in Bowmanville and Newcastle have been ramping up their operations, building a facility for processing. This would be a brand new market of 500 million consumers. Not far from them is the Stevens family, Charles, Judi, and Courtney, who are famous for creating the first blueberry marshmallows in the world. Fresh blueberries are at a 14% tariff.

When we start adding tariff rates like that to the cost of goods, they are essentially a wall to access. Through the work of this government in the last few years, we have been able to reach an agreement that would get rid of these tariff rates and allow these producers to gain access to a market that represents a bigger market than NAFTA, with some of the largest and most diverse economies in the world and with a strong middle class that wants world-class Canadian food products—across the board: meats, livestock, grain oil seeds, fruits, produce.

I met with the produce producers today, who are very bullish on the future due to trade, and this is an opportunity and a deal that represents a win from coast to coast on agriculture. We have heard about the wine and some of the fruits in British Columbia, through to the grain and oil seeds and durum wheat in the Prairies, to the beef and pork in Ontario, to fruits and maple syrup in Quebec, to frozen potato products, which have had a tariff rate as high as 17% for P.E.I. and parts of the Maritimes.

It is really once in a generation that we get such a tremendous opportunity for the agricultural sector as the CETA European trade deal represents. The last generational opportunity for Canadian exporters was the U.S. Free Trade Agreement negotiated with the vision of the Conservative government at that time. It really takes the Conservatives to open these new markets for our farmers, to allow them to diversify their markets and raise their average price.

It has been an honour for me as parliamentary secretary to meet with stakeholders from coast to coast to coast to work with them on their plans to get ready for the market access that CETA would represent. Whether it is the cattle or pork producers in western Canada or some of the fresh fruit and horticulture sectors here in Ontario, they are ambitious about this opportunity because we have some of the best agricultural businesses in the world and some of the best products to sell. Now we are giving our farmers more markets to sell them in. It is a huge opportunity, and I hope the NDP will finally get behind it.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, for his comments on this particular file and on trade in general. I have a couple of comments and then a specific question.

The member referenced the red-meat sector, and the numbers he used are quite accurate. They come out of the report, as I am sure he is well aware, based on his portfolio. The problem is that if we have access now, it is not going to be utilized. That is the what-if piece.

James Laws, of the Canadian Meat Council, said that his industry might need some investment and some government assistance to get the investment in those processors. There is no question in my mind that primary producers and ranchers across this country can indeed raise beef cattle for the European market.

My specific question is on the issue of supply management. Let me just be sure that I use the term correctly, because these terms get interchanged. It comes directly from the report. The milk protein substances tariffs would be phased out to give the EU the same access as the United States. However, the committee heard from the Dairy Farmers of Canada that it should be over 10 years.

My question is for the parliamentary secretary. Would that be a 10-year phase-out period, or would that simply disappear, and the Europeans would get the same access as the U.S. has now?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for that question, and I would like to thank my colleague from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex for recognizing that I said the “four pillars of supply management” when there are actually three pillars. I was thinking of a table as opposed to a stool, I guess. We know that those fundamentals are import levels, production levels, and price.

The hon. member is asking about timelines. I would ask him to recognize one thing. When the Prime Minister was in Brussels for the historic signing of the final negotiated outcome, when the negotiators had reached the essential terms of the agreement, the only industry the Prime Minister raised in his remarks at that international event was the supply-managed dairy sector. That was the case because it is a very important sector. Over a timeframe, we are going to see that if the slight adjustment to imports leads to a change in quota, and indirectly, therefore, to a change in the income of the farming family that is at the centre of what we do, we will build in a compensation structure to address it. That is a guarantee that, at the end of this, farmers will remain whole despite the small change in import levels.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to Brandon and the Maple Leaf plant, and he talked about some of the conditions around Brandon. There is no doubt that trade, in particular the Korean deal more so than the EU deal, would have a very positive impact on pork production in my home province.

With the Burns plant there, the member is quite right that there is a need for additional hogs, and there is a problem in terms of the moratorium the provincial government has put in place. However, when I toured the facility, one of the other issues raised in terms of meeting the demand was that they were not able to acquire the labour for the processing plant, and there was a reference to temporary foreign workers.

I wonder if the member might be in a position to provide some comment on that aspect of the plant. I know many of the management people in that plant are concerned about being able to get the workers they need to produce the pork that they know they can sell.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for that question. Certainly his experience in the Manitoba legislature gives him the background on the hog moratorium, which, in the case of the Brandon Maple Leaf facility, has impacted its ability to meet production levels to a point that the facility runs at a high efficiency rate.

The member mentioned the South Korean deal. That is a very big win for that plant in particular, and they acknowledge that. The CETA deal is also, because as I said in my remarks, the more markets they have, the better overall price they will have.

The specific issue of temporary foreign workers has been addressed by our modernization of the program, which recognizes that the program is only intended for areas like Brandon that have almost full employment because of resources, agriculture, and other opportunities there. However, in areas of Ontario, like mine, the program was being abused and needed to be reformed.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be sharing my time with my colleague from Pontiac.

We would have liked the government to introduce a bill, but perhaps it will in the near future or a bit later, before the House rises in June, or maybe even on December 12.

During the study in committee, we heard from dozens of witnesses and we agreed on a few recommendations. Free trade is the cornerstone of economic development in the agriculture sector and will certainly provide exciting opportunities for many stakeholders in the sector. Technology now allows us to produce more, and faster. Nonetheless, we have to be able to deliver the goods. The more demand there is, the more we have to provide top-quality merchandise. Many provincial and federal sectors have welcomed this agreement with open arms. I sincerely hope it will help our farmers deliver the goods.

However, I cannot say that the government's response to our report is totally satisfactory. There are some contradictions in its responses with regard to what the report called for. I would like to clarify a small detail. The recommendations that we see here are the ones the committee adopted, but partisanship is commonplace in the committees and, as they do in Parliament, the Conservatives have a majority there. There were other recommendations that we wanted to adopt following the testimony we heard. Unfortunately, those requests by the NDP were rejected. That being said, I will come back to these recommendations.

My goal here is to show that the recommendations in the report arose from a Conservative consensus. I am surprised that the government is responding so weakly to its own recommendations. For example, on supply management, the government's response clearly indicates that it will continue to defend that system. However, I was expecting the government to do more than that.

The committee's report clearly states that the removal of tariff barriers could upset this management system, particularly for dairy products. I had many conversations with representatives of the Union des producteurs agricoles, egg producers, poultry producers and dairy producers. In the summer of 2013, I went on an agricultural tour of my riding, Joliette.

All of these people told me that the supply management system, which was chosen by the industry, is valid and effective and that the government must maintain it. The president of Dairy Farmers of Canada, Mr. Smith, said that the three pillars of supply management are still in place. These three pillars are production management, import controls and farm pricing based on production costs. I am concerned that CETA will weaken those three pillars, which is why we must make sure that the supply management system has the tools it needs to survive.

In its response to the committee's recommendation about that, the government says that Canada continues to strongly support the system on the international stage. That sounds like a good answer, but what does it really mean? As the committee indicated in the report, the dairy industry wants the government to strengthen the three pillars of supply management and to ensure a 10-year transition period to eliminate duties on milk protein isolates.

The most concrete measure in the government's response is about amending Canada's customs tariff to address the problem of goods packaged in such a way as to circumvent Canadian regulations. It would be interesting to hear more about that. That is certainly one way to circumvent our tariff barriers.

We saw this with the pizza kits that were disassembled when they got to Canada so that merchants could sell the cheese and get around the supply management system.

There were also problems in the poultry industry, when American exporters were selling us turkey as so-called mature chicken. When we go grocery shopping at Christmas, we may see the label “mature chicken”.

I was a farmer and I have never seen a mature chicken. A mature chicken is a hen or a rooster that is at the end of its reproductive years. However, it was shown that the mature chicken that is imported to Canada from the United States exceeds that country's entire production. Imagine how much poultry is not being accounted for in our supply management model.

I therefore hope that the government has done its homework on this and that that is what we are talking about here. I would even ask the government to clarify this issue.

What amendments are we talking about? When were they made? Frankly, the word “recently” does not correspond to a date on a calendar and I would like to know more.

In my riding of Joliette there are many dairy farmers, some artisanal cheese makers and a winery. These industries are among those that will have the most difficulty competing with European imports, which are often heavily subsidized. Indeed, last Sunday on La semaine verte, we learned that sheep producers in Iceland are subsidized.

That is why the NDP recommended that the government keep its promise to dairy and cheese producers. Unfortunately, our Conservative colleagues did not follow that recommendation, and I would like to know more about why since producers in those industries will need help to adapt and remain competitive.

CETA will no doubt provide many business opportunities in a number of industries and thus benefit the Canadian economy. However, it could cause a net loss for some industries that are quite prominent in the riding of Joliette, such as the dairy and cheese industries.

Could the government be more clear about the compensation these producers will receive? It is all well and good to say that they will be compensated, but how much will they get? Earlier, it was said that they would be compensated on the basis of their losses, but all that remains to be seen.

Since I used to be a farmer, I know that it helps to know where you are going, and the fact that the government is stalling right now must have producers in a cold sweat.

Another recommendation that the NDP would have liked to see in the report involves ensuring transparency in the harmonization of health standards. It is a major problem. Think about the listeriosis crisis. Quebec's artisan cheese producers lost millions of dollars in production because of preventative measures, while imported cheese arrived by the tonne and was not subjected to the same treatment.

It was said that the exporting country's food safety rules prevailed. However, in the interest of public safety, is it not important to take this more seriously and include that concern in our trade agreements?

The government recently cut the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's budget by $45 million. In the wake of the XL Foods scandal, I cannot say that I, as a Canadian, feel protected.

In a world that is increasingly interdependent trade-wise, basic common sense tells us that we should work to make our trade agreements more responsible and accountable to the people.

Earlier, I spoke about partisanship in committee. Let us look at recommendation number 5 in the government's response:

RECOMMENDATION 5

...that the Government of Canada continue to pursue additional comprehensive trade agreements to open new markets...

It is all well and good to say that, but then what happens?

Free trade became the new global economic reality more than 20 years ago. Should we not be concerned by the fact that there will be other agreements?

What is needed is a better framework and more transparency to ensure that these agreements are truly beneficial to those who matter most to us in the House: Canadians.

To conclude, I know that I did not speak to all of the recommendations, but I wanted to express my views and those of my constituents on certain parts of the report.

I would like to commend the government for supporting sugar maple growers. Quebec alone accounts for 96% of maple syrup sales abroad. It makes sense to ensure that the phrase “maple syrup” appears only on the original product, not on imitation products.

If the European Union has the necessary tools to monitor that, I would suggest that this recommendation be included in other potential agreements, notably in Asia, where we have seen the proliferation of counterfeit maple syrup.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, an amendment has been brought forward that in essence challenges the opposition parties to state what our positions would be, because we will likely be having a vote on this tomorrow. I am wondering if the member might reflect on the amendment that has been put forward this evening and give her opinion on whether it is an amendment we should be voting for.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all of these recommendations really need to be studied. We will see what bill comes back to us. We will study the recommendations and the bill. I look forward to seeing it. They proposed some recommendations, but we absolutely need to study this bill again.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague from Joliette for her speech this evening and also for the good work she does on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food. I also want to mention what a good job she does representing her constituents. As members may know, the riding of Berthier—Maskinongé is right next to my colleague's riding of Joliette.

I just wanted to talk about the fact that 17,000 additional tonnes of cheese will be imported under the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. I know that a number of stakeholders, especially in Quebec, had some serious concerns about this breach. A number of groups told us that if the agreement was implemented as is, it would undermine our supply management system.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the concerns in the province of Quebec, which produces a number of high-quality cheeses. Could she also talk about future trade agreements—perhaps the trans-Pacific partnership—about the uncertainty facing dairy farmers and about the future of supply management in Canada?

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the neighbouring riding to Joliette for her question.

Indeed, I just said that last year I did an agricultural tour of the riding of Joliette. Dairy and cheese producers are quite concerned. They are wondering whether supply management will continue to support them. It takes years of preparation to get good quality cheese. Not only does it take years of work to get good cheese, but there is also all the money that goes into research in order to produce a cheese that will appeal to consumers, not just in Joliette, but throughout Quebec and Canada.

The farmers told me they hope supply management is here to stay as it is. They do not want it to change. They know they will lose out if anything changes because all sorts of cheeses will enter the market. The farmers will suffer losses. The government is telling us that the farmers will get financial compensation, but they are worried.

Could the government truly reassure them by saying that supply management will be protected?