Debates of June 7th, 2016

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that he would be sharing his speaking time with the member for Shefford. Therefore that member cannot share his speaking time. He will have 10 minutes to speak and five minutes for questions, but he cannot split 10 minutes into two five-minute periods because the 20-minute speech has already been split.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, it will be a 10-minute speech. I will pick up where I left off.

How can the Conservatives claim to defend our Canadian producers while questioning an innovative system that guarantees them a fair income to feed and house their families while they do work they love?

Agricultural land accounts for 75% of my riding, and 15% of our jobs are directly or indirectly related to the agriculture and agri-food industry. My constituents realize that they cannot put a lot of faith in that kind of doublespeak.

The Government of Canada is determined to promote research and development so that our dairy industry can prosper in a constantly evolving global economy. The Government of Canada even invested $19 million in the dairy research group. The group is responsible for 23 research projects and employs over 100 scientists from 15 institutions and eight government research centres in Canada, including the cutting-edge facility in the Sherbrooke area.

In its leadership role, the dairy industry focuses on a certain number of key fields, such as the nutritional profile of dairy products. These sizeable investments will also support the research being done by scientists at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in two key areas: improving the quality of forage crops in Canada, which will help increase our milk production capacity, and understanding the role played by dairy-fat products, including their positive impact on people with type 2 diabetes.

We support this report. We are quite aware that diafiltered milk is not the only concern here: we also have to ensure that our supply management system functions effectively and over the long term in a global economy that is constantly changing.

To fully understand the sector’s concerns, we promised to consult with its various players, and that is exactly what we have done.

While others are working to abolish supply management, the system that allows farm families to earn a fair and dignified living from their calling, our government is making every possible effort to protect it.

In recent weeks, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada officials, the minister, and his parliamentary secretary have held discussions with representatives from all dairy sectors, ranging from small farmers to the bigger producers, processors, and the provincial and national producers’ associations.

These consultations have been very productive. They have enabled us to collect quality information that will help us build solid long-term bases for our dairy sector and for our supply management system.

Let us turn now to the future of agriculture in Canada, a promising future filled with opportunities for expansion, given the constantly growing global demand. More and more Canadian consumers are choosing Canadian dairy products because of their quality. To help our agricultural and agri-food industry seize these opportunities and build a solid, promising future, the federal, provincial, and territorial governments have committed to developing the next agricultural policy framework, which will guarantee better results for the sector.

This framework will be more focused on innovation and on strengthening the sector’s competitiveness, while aiming to improve sustainability and opportunities for the various links in the agriculture and agri-food supply chain.

The next policy framework will also enable the sector to properly manage risks in a productive manner, in order to provide farms with more stability. We are currently meeting with industry representatives to discuss the challenges before us.

In closing, productive and effective consultations, huge investments in R and D in the dairy sector, and the development of the next agriculture policy framework, which will focus on innovation, marketing, and risk management ,are all measures our government is taking to protect Canadian agriculture.

I am confident that all the effort and energy that our government is putting into this in the interest of Canadian farmers will result in a strategy that will ensure the long-term sustainability of our supply management system.

Supply management helps provide farmers with a fair and stable income in return for their dedication, while allowing them to remain competitive. This system also helps ensure that Canadians receive the best-quality products, produced by farmers in our own communities, processed in our communities, and at stable, predictable prices.

We on this side of the House will denounce anyone who would abolish such a system. Unlike the Conservatives, who say that the fundamentals of supply management fly in the face of their fundamental values, to the Liberal Party, those values are in our DNA. We fought to introduce supply management 40 years ago, and today we will do everything we can to protect it.

As the government, we want to ensure that our farmers are in the best possible position and that our food processing sector is on the leading edge of technology, and we will defend supply management against anyone who wants to eliminate it.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals have supply management support in their DNA. What are you actually and practically doing to serve and help the farmers who protested last week on the Hill. They are waiting for the government to do something about it?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member as well to address his questions through the Chair and not to individual members.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be able to answer my colleague's question.

As I mentioned earlier, agricultural land accounts for 75% of my riding, and I am proud to see that farmers are taking charge of their affairs. They came here to mark World Milk Day and to tell us that supply management is important to them.

I met with them and I agree with them.

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

Madam Speaker, the region of Timmins—James Bay has a large dairy sector. One of the fundamentals of the dairy sector is that it does not have the boom and bust that has affected grain prices and the cattle industry. It is because it is a principle in how production is carried out.

Canada has basically the only system in the world that is not subsidized. We are going up against international competitors that pump billions of dollars into their export-driven milk industries, subsidized by taxpayers. Our system is not subsidized.

When the government is signing negotiations, signing away pieces of the market here and pieces of the market there, the overall stability of the sector becomes destabilized. We have been hearing this message from family farms across our region.

The government is talking about a consultation process and it is talking about that because it does not want to deal with the fact that it is going to have to start compensating and subsidizing dairy farmers for the trade deals it is signing.

We are either going to support supply management with clear principles or we are just going to hear more government hot air.

All morning long I have heard the Liberals tell us how much they love farmers and how important farming is to them. However, I have not heard a single commitment about dealing with the issue of the undermining of our markets. The flooding of foreign ingredients into our markets is undermining the ability of the supply management sector to stay afloat without subsidies.

Could the member tell me if the government is planning subsidies? Will it work with the sector to stop undermining a system that works?

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question. We talked about this earlier.

Last week I met with tens and even hundreds of dairy farmers in my riding and also on the Hill. They never talk about compensation. The farmers I met do not want monetary compensation. Let us be clear. They want the supply management system to be protected. They are proud of their system. They are proud of what the Liberal party established 40 years ago and how it protected supply management, how we are talking to them and how we consult them. They are also proud that we have entered into discussions to find fair and reliable long-term solutions.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Again, Madam Speaker, it seems the only thing the opposition seems to hate more than consultation is not being consulted. We are damned if we do and damned if we do not. The consultations, which have been wrapped up now, as we move toward the action that the opposition has asked us to take, are critically important.

My question is about the trade deal we have signed. I have not seen a trade deal signed and delivered to the House of Commons. I know not of what they speak. I know there are consultations about a proposed trade deal that has implications for the sector, but it has not been signed. In fact, we are now in consultation with the sectors, including the dairy sector, because all we have signed is the agreement on the wording that is to be discussed as part of a ratification process.

Would the member agree with me that no trade deal has been signed, despite what the opposition insists on today?

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, our new approach is to ensure that we liaise and hold discussions with the industry. In my opinion, the industry is very proud to be involved in the various discussions.

Obviously, the trans-Pacific partnership will be discussed in the coming weeks and months in order to ensure that everyone is comfortable with the situation.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased, yet rather surprised, to have to once again rise in the House to talk about the diafiltered milk issue. Everyone has been aware of this problem for months now. The problem is growing because nothing is being done. The problem is getting bigger and it is blowing up in our faces, here in the House of Commons, since 3,000 dairy producers came all the way to Parliament Hill to protest and express their frustration.

Dairy producers were not just here to mark World Milk Day. I heard a government member say that a few moments ago and it made me smile. Does the government really think that dairy producers took a day of their time in the middle of forage crop season to come say hello to their MPs in Ottawa, tell them that it is World Milk Day, and celebrate with them? Let us be serious here. Dairy producers did not come to Parliament Hill to celebrate World Milk Day. They came to protest against the importation of diafiltered milk. It is important to point that out.

I heard the previous speaker talk about a new government approach. The government is now taking the time to listen and talk.

This is not a new approach. Listening and talking is what the government has been doing for seven months. There is never any action or anything tangible. This is not a new problem. There was an election on October 19, and we had a change in government. It just so happens that during the election campaign, dairy farmers decided to meet with every candidate. What was on their minds? They asked us to resolve the problem of diafiltered milk. This was an existing problem and all the parties said they would take care of it, that they would resolve this problem once they were in government. We said the same thing. When we were in the previous government, we started working on resolving this problem. The Liberals came to power having made this big promise to our dairy farmers that they would resolve the problem. Seven months later, the Liberals are saying that they are going to consult, they are going to discuss, and they are going to negotiate.

Will the problem be resolved with the motion before us? It says that the problem is recognized. It is rather surprising that it took the government seven months to start recognizing that there is a problem. The motion says, “That the House recognizes that the government strongly supports supply management”.

The government needs a motion telling it that it recognizes a problem. I have never seen that before. I never would have thought that the government would need the House to tell it that it recognizes a problem. Unbelievable.

There is more. The motion calls on the government to recognize “the magnitude of the economic losses to Canadian dairy producers”. Producers lost $220 million in 2015. It is done. It is over. There were complaints; there were losses.

The motion also urges the government to “recognize that the industry call for the problem to be resolved rapidly”. It seems to me that we have been hearing this for seven months.

Then, the motion urges the government “to meet with dairy producers and Canadian dairy industry, within the next 18 days”. First, there was a 30-day deadline, more than 30 days ago. Now, the motion calls for another 18 days, which will take us right into the summer, when producers will no longer be mobilized and will no longer be able to come and meet their members of Parliament in the House, because we will all be back in our ridings. This is a way of watering down the problem and spreading it out across Canada. This is yet another deadline with no action.

Further on, the motion urges the government “to propose a sustainable solution toward modernizing the dairy industry”. That is all we want. The government was not ready. It got elected on false promises. I am not just talking about diafiltered milk, but most of the files that the current government has brought here to the House.

This government said it had a plan, but we are realizing that it was not a plan to govern, but to prepare for its governance. That plan was to consult people to determine how it should govern. If that had been presented to the voters, I am not sure the result would have been the same. However, that is how the Liberals chose to present themselves to the voters and, of course, to get themselves elected under false pretences. The diafiltered milk case is rather telling in this regard.

The farmers who came to the Hill last week were from every part of Canada and Quebec. The farmer who made the biggest impact on me was in the aisle opposite the front door of the House of Commons. I was talking to the farmers and, at one point, I saw about eight pairs of boots on the ground. I went up to the farmers and asked them why they had put their boots on the ground. They replied that it was to make the government realize that it needed to walk the talk. They said that, since the government was all talk and no walk, they were going to provide some boots. In other words, they said the government was not keeping its promises.

I hope that government members will use those boots so that we can finally find a solution and implement the solution that has already been proposed many times by the dairy farmers. By the way, I salute those who gave up a day’s work on the farm to be here and give that message to the government.

When I walked around among the farmers, they said they did not understand why the government still had not taken action. However, the solution is quite simple: treat diafiltered milk as a dairy ingredient, period. The farmers are telling us that if that were done, they would no longer have a problem. So why are we not doing it? It seems simple, but you have to understand that it is complicated.

Since we started asking this government questions about agriculture, and particularly about diafiltered milk, we have not seen much action. The Minister of Agriculture himself is mostly absent from the debate on diafiltered milk. His parliamentary secretary has answered most of the questions, probably because the minister is not very familiar with the diafiltered milk issue.

In fact, the Minister does not seem very interested in agriculture. In another bill that we are studying here in the House, Bill C-15 on the budget, there is nothing about agriculture. There is no mention of agriculture in the last budget, which we are being asked to pass and for which the government was forced to use a time allocation motion to prevent us from talking too much about it and from pointing out the budget’s flaws.

When we ask the government why agriculture does not come up in Bill C-15, we hear that it invested to improve Internet access. That does not really feed Canadians. Yes, we need it in our regions, and it is an extremely important issue for all of our rural communities, but why does the government talk about the Internet when we are talking about agriculture? The government seems to have a profound lack of knowledge about agriculture.

I did a little research in Hansard online. I discovered that the Minister of Agriculture deigned to reply at least five times to opposition members' questions about the diafiltered milk problem. Here is a sample of the minister's answers:

In May 2016, he said, “...I appreciate [his] concern. We recognize the importance”.

On May 11, 2016, he said, “We recognize that this is an important issue for dairy farmers, and we are working to reach a long-term solution”.

On May 3, 2016, he said, “Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that this government supports supply management, and we are fully aware of the industry's concerns about the use of diafiltered milk”.

On March 11, 2016, he said, “Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's question... I can assure him that I have met with many sectors in the agriculture industry, including the dairy farmers”.

Another contradiction: the Liberals were aware of the issue, yet they are asking us for 18 more days to resolve it. Today's motion requests 18 more days to meet with people again. What does the minister not understand? Why does he need more meetings? Is the solution not simple? We have put it to the House and to the committee a number of times.

In March 2016, the minister answered a question as follows:

Just to make sure the record is straight, I am not negotiating with anybody. It's the industry and the manufacturers that are in discussions, but I am not negotiating with anybody. My job is to make sure that both sides understand the regulations.

We understand why the Liberals are not doing anything; it is because they do not want to. They are trying to teach us something. They are trying to explain why they do not have a solution and explain the regulations. The cat is out of the bag. They are not interested in negotiating or coming up with a solution. They want to make sure that farmers become fed up, and they are waiting for the parliamentary session to end so that they can avoid taking a position and have a nice, quiet summer. They will not get the chance, because we will not let them get away with it. They can count on all the opposition parties to ensure that that does not happen.

The parliamentary secretary is the one who has answered most of our questions on diafiltered milk. In fact, he has answered our questions 16 times, so here is the score: parliamentary secretary, 16, and Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, 5. We see the importance the government places on the diafiltered milk issue.

What did the parliamentary secretary say on June 2, 2016? He said, “With respect to our commitment, we are still listening to the people in the industry...we are aware of the industry's concerns about the use of diafiltered milk in cheese production.”

The message was more or less the same as the minister's message.

On May 19, he said, “We are in regular contact with industry stakeholders, and we are listening to what they have to say about compensation. We are aware that compensation is important to the supply-managed sector.”

There is something I do not understand about that statement, but let us move on.

The parliamentary secretary answered 16 questions about diafiltered milk, while the minister answered five questions. We get the picture quickly of what this means. The best was when the parliamentary secretary said that he wanted to “act quickly”.

On May 9, he said, “I remind members that last Tuesday we committed to consulting with [the entire] dairy industry in the next 30 days”.

That was in early May and the deadline has now expired.

On April 21, he said, “We need to take action quickly. That is what we want to do, but first we need to take the time to come up with a lasting agreement...I understand the time crunch, but we are holding discussions.”

Blah blah blah: I just summed up in a few syllables what the Liberal government has to say about diafiltered milk.

I sincerely think that the government needs to take action. It needs to grab a pair of the boots that were left on Parliament Hill last week, put them on, and get to work. The government has to walk the talk. It needs to understand that this is urgent.

I could have shared the concerns of all the dairy farmers in my riding, and those from all the ridings in Quebec and Canada who talked about their major financial problems. The equivalent of their annual income is on the line.

These are not rich people, contrary to what many are implying. That money goes toward their wages. The dairy producers are often the only economic engines in our towns. While they struggle to make ends meet, the government spews its empty rhetoric.

It is important to remember that, basically, what we want is not complicated. We want the government to acknowledge that, in producing cheese, there is good cow's milk and there are dairy ingredients. The dairy ingredients have all sorts of names: concentrates, powders, isolates, diafiltered milk. That is clear. These are all ingredients produced from milk. It is not that these products are bad, but consumers have the right to know what is in the products they consume.

Unfortunately, this changes in the case of diafiltered milk, because at the border diafiltered milk is considered an ingredient. When it arrives at the plant, however, it is considered milk.

In front of the crowd of producers last week, the president of the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec, Mr. Letendre, challenged all those in attendance and all parliamentarians to sample a glass of diafiltered milk to see if it was really milk. He said he was sure that after trying it, no one would doubt that diafiltered milk is not milk. Milk is milk, and diafiltered milk is dairy ingredients. That is the way it is.

Once again, I will make myself the producers’ spokesman and invite the government members to sample a glass of diafiltered milk and take up the challenge launched by Quebec’s milk producers. They will tell us if diafiltered milk is milk. I advise putting it in the refrigerator for a few minutes before trying it. That might improve the taste a bit, but it will still be diafiltered milk all the same.

When we buy cheese and the label says that it is made of milk ingredients, we know exactly what we are getting. When we buy cheese that was made with diafiltered milk, the label merely indicates that the product is made of milk. The label does not indicate that the cheese was made with American proteins created to dispose of any surplus of American milk, which contains growth hormones that we do not want here in Canada. That is the reality and that is what Canadian consumers have the right to know. If we deal with this small problem, then we are resolving a big problem for consumers and a very big problem for dairy producers in Quebec and Canada. That is what the government needs to understand.

Many cheese factories in Quebec are currently having trouble competing and that is because of the unfair competition created by those who use diafiltered milk. There is a small cheese factory called La Bourgade in Thetford Mines in my riding. It uses only milk, which supports our dairy producers. The company is really proud of its cheese, but it costs $1 more at the store than the cheese made by producers who use diafiltered milk. One dollar does not seem like much, but it is a lot at a time when everyone is doing everything they can to keep money in their pockets.

In conclusion, enough with the Liberals' empty rhetoric. Let us take action now, not in 18 days. We are pleased that the government is being told by the House to recognize the problem. We did not think that the government needed a motion in the House to recognize a problem like this one. We will obviously support this motion, but I do not think that the producers, who are back home working hard on milking their 30 or 50 cows, understand the nuances of the motion before us.

Why did the government need a motion to recognize an existing problem? That is the real question. The government is not listening and is looking only to get an extension to find and implement a solution. I am reaching out. I am asking the government to act now and not to wait 18 days. Everyone, all the parties in the House, and especially all Canadian dairy producers will be pleased with the solution and the government's response.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

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

In it, he talked about empty rhetoric. I have been observing politics for 10 years, and I have been listening to empty rhetoric since 2010, when 4,800 tonnes of milk protein entered the country. All we heard from the government at that time was empty rhetoric.

In 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, the previous government spouted empty rhetoric and now, in seven months, we are being asked to solve the problem. When a house is damaged, it takes time to repair it, and that is exactly what we are doing.

It also takes champions in the House, and the members opposite are supporting a champion who is against supply management, namely, the member from Beauce. He said earlier that the opposition party would support this motion. However, some members of his own party do not support supply management.

I, too, was outside last week, and I spoke with dairy producers from Beauce who were not happy with their MP.

How can my colleague defend supply management if the members of his own party cannot even agree on this issue?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I like this question because I see that my colleague had no problem using lots of empty rhetoric. His question was full of it. The Liberals have a habit of doing that.

As for the position of my colleague who is running for the party leadership, unlike the Liberal Party, we do not muzzle anyone. People have a right to their opinion. Our position is clear: we support supply management, period. We will not twist anyone's words. We will not claim that the comments made by one of our colleagues apply to everyone, as the member opposite has been tyring to do all week. It is unbelievable.

Dairy farmers do not accept that. Those I have met with are all well aware of the Conservative Party's position on supply management. They will cleary say that they agree with us when we say that we defend it. We have defended supply management in the past, and we will continue defending it.

We on this side of the House do not muzzle our members so that everyone says the same thing. People have the right to speak up and express their opinions. We have the right to disagree, darn it. We have the right to disagree with people who express their opinions. Yes, we do have that right.

Yes, we support supply management, and no, we will not engage in petty politics as the government is doing. It has no answer to give other than to try putting the ball in our court, because it does not know what else to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the folks back home who want to know what is happening today, this is an attempt by the Liberal Party to rewrite what has really happened. What the Liberals are trying to say is they meant to say they actually support dairy farmers. It is because the dairy farmers came, asking for action, and the Liberals turned their backs on them. There was a debate in the House about supporting the dairy farmers, and the Liberals turned their backs on them. Now they have heard from their constituents and have realized they have alienated the dairy sector, because at a time when they should have been standing up for them, they voted against them.

For folks back home, what is happening is this is a fiction we are debating, the importance of the Liberals to consult. The Liberals consult on everything. When we look up “consulting” in the Liberal playbook it means keep talking and do nothing. That is something people really need to understand. Every time they hear a Liberal say “consult” it means keep talking and do nothing.

That is not good enough for dairy farmers. That is not good enough for the farm families who came to Parliament Hill asking for action.

Therefore, I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he thinks about this spectacle that we are dealing with here, of debating something that was already debated, and the Liberals voted against a clear form of action. Now they are debating something to continue to debate, to show they are actually willing to debate. It is a complete waste of time and energy for the farm families of our country.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the question because it sums up the situation quite nicely.

The government talks so much that farmers had to bring boots to the Hill to encourage it to walk that talk and move things forward. That was a powerful and impressive image.

In terms of debates and whether or not to support the motion, it is like milk that is not milk, because the government has finally realized that diafiltered milk is not milk.

Now the Liberals face those representatives when they go back to their ridings. In the course of a week, they get such an earful from dairy farmers that they realize they have no choice but to reconsider. Now they are recognizing that there is in fact a problem.

However, the government was unable to get there on its own: it took a motion in the House for the government to recognize the problem. I think the real problem is with the Liberal government, not somewhere else.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the farmers in our region know that during the election campaign we promised to resolve the issue of diafiltered milk in the first days and weeks following our election, if we were elected. My colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable, I myself, and many of my colleagues in the Quebec caucus all agree. We will do what it takes to stand up for supply management.

People came to the Hill on behalf of the entire industry to urge the government to take action now that it has been in power for seven months. The Liberals also promised to resolve the issue of diafiltered milk. However, they have yet to do anything about it other than listen and talk without really saying anything at all. As my colleague just said, that is all we have been hearing in the House for weeks.

I would like my colleague to share what he heard on the Hill. The farmers are saying that they just want to earn a living from what they do. Is that what my colleague heard?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his work. He is a strong supporter of dairy farmers. He also came with us to meet the farmers in front of the House of Commons, to talk to them and understand their message.

These people did not take a day off right in the middle of forage crop season, sacrifice some of their work, and hire people to fill in for them, which cost a lot of money, just to tell us that milk is wonderful and white. They came to tell us that there was a problem with something that is not milk at all. The diafiltered milk problem can cost them up to $10,000 a month.

They are simply asking us to let them do their work, contribute to their local economy, and earn a living for their family. That is all they want.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat amazing that we have members of the Conservative caucus coming forward trying to portray that they are defenders of supply management. For years I sat on the opposition benches and the Conservative government was absolutely silent on this issue. When we take a look at what the Conservatives are saying today, we have to wonder where they were when they were in government.

There is a process we are going through. The Conservative members are attempting to make a mockery of the Liberal motion that we are debating here today. We have a government that is trying to express its concern with respect to a very important and vital industry to our country and the Conservatives are choosing to make a mockery of it as opposed to recognizing the value of the motion itself. We understand and appreciate the seriousness of this issue and we are working to resolve it.

The member made reference to the fact that we have had 20 answers. Most of the answers came from the parliamentary secretary. My question to the member is this. Given the concern the Conservatives have, why does he believe the NDP are asking more questions than the Conservatives and yet they are double in terms of numbers?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are many parts to that question.

First, the member criticized the previous government for being silent on this issue. It is true that we were silent, but we took action. Which is better, being silent and protecting supply management in our international agreements, or talking all the time and doing nothing? Frankly, I think we have the right approach. I prefer to talk less and take action. That is what has to be done.

Second, I just cannot believe it. I love my colleague when he asks questions, because they always have a different angle, and this one is particularly good. My colleague says that the government is trying to express its concern about supply management. However, I thought it was the farmers’ role to express their concerns and the government’s to respond to them.

We are doing more than talking; we are taking action.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my speaking time with my colleague from Mirabel.

I thank the members for raising this important issue on behalf of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

We fully support the committee's report, and as a member, as part of the government's strong support of Canada's supply management system.

While I will be speaking specifically to Canada's supply-managed dairy sector, please understand that the Government of Canada fully supports Canada's entire supply management system. Supply management plays a tremendous role in Canadian agriculture and our government is proud to have such a strong and vibrant dairy sector in this country. Canada's supply management system is a model of stability, providing high-quality products at a reasonable and stable price, without any taxpayer or government subsidies.

Unfortunately, recently, we have seen members on the opposite side of the House speak against supply management. The member for Beauce, for instance, has called this model of stability a “cartel”, which is fundamentally unfair for farmers.

He also said that supply management impedes innovation. Either he does not take the time to visit dairy farms in Beauce or he is completely unaware of the facts. For us, in Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, a region that has more than 300 dairy farmers, innovation is very prominent.

Yesterday, together with a few other members, I visited the Sonibrand farm. The farm’s primary goal is to produce high-quality milk. To do so, the owners have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a robot that milks the cows in a manner that is more efficient and healthier for the animals.

Because of this investment, animal care has gone down 30%. Each day, they save three hours of chores related to milking and all cows are free-roaming in this barn. Because they are saving three hours a day, this saved time is spent on improving animal welfare. In fact, this farmer designed hay with less potassium, which is meant to improve hoof care or foot care for cows.

The member for Beauce believes that supply management impedes innovation, which is completely false. I respect his position. It is nice to have principles, but those principles also have to be backed up by true statements.

I am proud to stand here and say that every member of this caucus supports supply management and that our Liberal values align with supply management.

My colleagues can rest assured that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is deeply committed to supply management and is working with the dairy sector to ensure we find a long-term, sustainable solution that works for the whole Canadian dairy sector. Having been a dairy farmer himself, the minister appreciates how important supply management is to the sector and to Canada's economy.

In early May, our government announced our intention to initiate discussions within 30 days to help the dairy industry adjust to CETA, as well as work together on the issue of diafiltered milk.

We have delivered on that commitment, and we continue to talk to the industry. The minister and parliamentary secretary have held many co-operative, productive, and important discussions with Canadian dairy producers and processors from across the country over the past week.

I am constantly communicating with our dairy farmers, so that I can defend their interests. I know that the minister and his parliamentary secretary are as well.

I will provide an example. Yesterday, I talked to a dairy farmer. I later ran into the minister. The minister immediately telephoned the farmer to speak to him directly. Our minister is available to the dairy farmers.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade had a very productive meeting with the organizers of last week's rally in support of supply management. Together, our government will work with our stakeholders to ensure the best possible outcomes are reached and opportunities for the future are achieved. The dairy industry provides over 200,000 jobs for Canadians, supports 12,000 family farms, and contributes nearly $20 billion to our GDP. If we were to listen to Conservative values, we would lose a large portion of that contribution to our economy and our rural communities across the country. Canadians rely on dairy farmers to deliver the high-quality dairy products they feed their families.

The industry is doing great work in growing markets through branding, collaborating with industry, and harnessing innovation.

I would like to speak to the importance of innovation once again to this sector, to place the trade issue we are considering today in a broader context.

Innovation technologies and practices are opening new horizons in the dairy sector. The government is proud to support this innovative industry. Total federal investments in the dairy research clusters have reached $13.75 million over five years.

Our budget also announced significant measures to support Canadian agriculture, including supply managed sectors. Investments of $30 million over the next six years will support genomics research. Over $40 million will support the modernization of a number of research centres across Canada.

Budget 2016 highlights a new innovation agenda that supports Canada's innovators, including those in the dairy sector, so that they achieve success. Our government is committed to ensuring that this innovative trend continues and that Canada's dairy industry remains vibrant.

We realize the importance of further investments in the dairy sector to help it reach its full potential. Recent discussions have helped shape the collaborative approach our government is taking to work towards an appropriate mitigation package as part of the comprehensive economic trade agreement.

Canada committed to ratifying the Canada-European comprehensive economic and trade agreement. CETA will open markets for key Canadian agricultural exports, such as beef, pork, grain, and oil seeds, fruits and vegetables, and processed food. We will absolutely continue to advance all Canadian agricultural interests as we consider trade matters, and that includes the supply management sectors.

The Government of Canada wants to ensure that we find long-term, sustainable solutions that work for the whole Canadian dairy sector. That is why we are meeting with industry stakeholders and obtaining their views. There are tremendous opportunities for domestic growth in markets for fine cheese, yoghurt, and butter, for example, due to increasing consumer demand.

There are also technological advances to improve efficiency and to develop innovative new products. Taking advantage of these opportunities may require improvement in the competitive position of the dairy value chain. It will be a collaborative process, with government and industry working together to help dairy farmers capture these opportunities.

I must reiterate that the Government of Canada fully understands the importance of transition support for the dairy sector. In anticipation of Canadian ratification of CETA, we will move forward with a plan to help the industry adjust to market access commitments.

I will say it once more. We will move forward with a plan to help the industry adjust to Canadian market access in anticipation of the Canada-Europe free trade agreement.

The Government of Canada is working with the dairy industry on the diafiltered milk issue. There have been a number of productive meetings with diary producers and processors in order to find long-term solutions that will help not just today's dairy producers, but also their children and grandchildren.

Therefore, I am proud to say that we concur with the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

During the election, I was on the Hill with the dairy producers from my region, and I was on the Hill with them last week. I will always be there with them, and I will always defend their interests.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again I am listening with fascination to this concurrence debate the Liberals are bringing forward.

If people back home were listening, they would be thinking that this is an emergency debate to respond to the fact that a couple of Conservative members are running for leadership on the question of supply management.

We did not end up having any emergency debate when Martha Hall Findlay, the trade critic for the Liberal Party, campaigned extensively to destroy supply management. John Manley, a long-time Liberal, has been outspoken on supply management.

In fact, we had a debate here just recently in the House. It was on a very clear question of whether we were going to support the dairy industry in dealing with diafiltered milk, and the Liberals voted against it.

What we are seeing here is an attempt to sort of change the clock and create the impression that the Liberals actually support the dairy industry. What we have heard from them this morning is how much they love cows, how much they love their neighbourhoods, and how much they love all the people who put food on our tables, but we are not hearing a single thing from them about committing to standing up for the dairy industry as it is being undermined by the international trade agreements the Liberals are signing.

I come from farm country, and we have large diary and cattle interests. If I went to a farmers meeting and told them how much I loved them, and expected them to love me back, they would put the run on me. They would ask what I was doing for the industry, because they are the backbone of the region.

We see the Liberals standing up promoting their love for farming, without doing anything to respond to the issue of the undermining of supply management, and trying to change the channel on the fact that they voted against supporting farmers. Why are they wasting our time in the House with this useless debate?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I do not think this debate is useless, I think dairy farmers need to hear from our members across Canada.

On the NDP position with regard to fixing diafiltered milk, do they realize that what they are proposing would be only 10% to 20% of the solution? I could go back home to Timmins—James Bay, for instance, and tell my farmers that what we are proposing is only going to be 10% to 20% of the solution. It was not that long ago that if I went back home and had 20% on a test, my mother would not be happy with me.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is alarming to hear the issue of diafiltered milk being dismissed. In the big picture, we have a huge issue with the definition of this product. As another colleague has suggested, try and drink it. It is not milk. I do not care what percentage of a solution it is in the rhetoric of inaction right now. I would like to hear the member tell me the definition of diafiltered milk, because I do not believe that the government knows the crux of this very simple issue that could be fixed right now. Liberals turned their face on it when our hon. member brought a very simple solution forward. They should recognize their conflict in the definition.

What is the definition of diafiltered milk?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this issue is not new. MPCs have been coming into the country since 2010, and even previous to that, but they have exponentially grown over the past three years. Again, the solution they are proposing will not fix the issue.

I am not practising the politics of false hope. When I go back to my riding, we talk about modernizing the industry, from producer to processor all the way to consumers. We have to work with the entire dairy industry sector to ensure that we have a sustainable, long-term solution. Fixing the issue at the border will not solve the issue, and that is the truth they have to tell their members.

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to start off, I will take it upon myself to remind some of my colleagues what supply management is and what benefits it has.

The dairy sector, as well as the poultry and egg sectors, operate under this system. Supply management is based on a number of basic principles that prevent overproduction and shortages thanks to a production quota system designed to fully supply the domestic market without creating surpluses.

This system allows producers to cover all production costs and earn a decent income. With supply management, governments do not have to subsidize the industry. That is not the case for the U.S. My colleague from Beauce will like that. I understand that he supports cutting the size of government. However, I think that he is having difficulty understanding what is at stake because he wants to abolish the current system. I would advise him to go back to doing what he does best, which is election campaign jingles.

On May 16, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food adopted a motion urging the government to do four things: recognize the problem and recognize that the industry is calling for the problem to be resolved, meet with stakeholders in the dairy industry, propose a sustainable solution, and present a plan to the committee.

The government has been telling us for a year that it has a plan. I hope it will tell us what that plan is, because we cannot wait to hear it.

The Liberal members on the committee felt the need to adopt the motion, to encourage the government to recognize that there is a problem. That is a start. Since they have a habit of saying nothing, this meaningless position is already an improvement. At this rate, they may get the job done in 40 or 50 years.

Incidentally, 40 or 50 years is about how much time has passed since the Liberal government expropriated 97,000 acres of agricultural land in my riding for an airport that is now being demolished. Parliamentarians who live in Quebec see this historical fiasco every time they take highway 50 to get here, to Parliament.

The diafiltered milk problem could have been a major issue for the thousands of families that were kicked off their land, but since the government stole this land from them nearly 50 years ago, the only issue for these families is the return of the expropriated land.

Let us come back to the committee. The report is really weak, toothless, and ineffective. Rather than calling on the government to recognize the problem and continue to discuss it, the committee should have called on the government to enforce its own regulations. That is what likely would have happened if the Bloc Québécois had been a part of the committee, because we are not in the habit of kowtowing to the government like the Liberal members from Quebec sitting on the other side of the House. All they do is repeat the government's talking points.

It is important to remember that an MP from a pan-Canadian party is not very reliable when it comes time to stand up on a major issue for Quebec. The energy east pipeline and the oil sands make for a good example, but that is not what we are talking about here, even though that remains a major issue.

What we are talking about here is supply management. Most of Canada's agricultural production occurs in the western part of the country on farms that produce one crop for export. That is the opposite of what we do in Quebec with our food sovereignty model. The federal government wants to open the borders to make western Canadians happy. It opens them a little from time to time: 5% under the WTO, 7% under CETA, and another 4% to come under the TPP.

Every time negotiations are held, western exporters gain foreign market shares and Quebec loses domestic market shares.

Pan-Canadian MPs are torn between supporting western Canada and supporting Quebec, and they go through the motions of signing this type of agreement even if they are not truly convinced that it is a good idea.

That is why we have such a weak report before us today. I do not see any other reason for such a weak report when the regions came to Parliament Hill last week to express their outrage and were ignored by the government and by a minister and his parliamentary secretary who have clearly chosen to forget where they came from in order to further their careers.

Earlier, the parliamentary secretary gave a lovely speech. I liked the way he spoke about himself in the third person when he talked about meetings with dairy industry representatives.

There are three theories here. One, the parliamentary secretary has become really full of himself. Two, he is not the parliamentary secretary and did not attend these meetings. Three, he is only reading the lines his party gives him. I will not ask him to choose among these three options, but none of them is very positive.

I would have liked to see the Liberals march with us in the rain last Thursday, with my colleague from Joliette and my many colleagues who were there on the Hill. I would have liked to see them trade in their dress shoes for work boots and stand up for their people, like I do every day when I come to Parliament. I would have liked that, but that is not what happened, because they were too busy taking limo rides.

Power corrupts, and since the Liberal Party did not change its corporate culture during its 10 years in opposition purgatory, the minister and the parliamentary secretary have let power go to their heads.

The Bloc will support today’s motion because one cannot be against the right thing. However the motion remains totally trivial and void of value because the government has not the courage to enforce its own regulations and follows the whims of the American market, which decides what it does. At this time, the government is thus nothing but the puppet of the American government.

The Liberals have no interest in defending the agricultural industry as a whole. All they do is neglect the families that feed us and bring them to bankruptcy. That way they will not have to buy back the quotas before abolishing supply management. This is in fact what will come of their economic liberalism. With this sort of Liberal colonialist policy, Canada simply proves once again, as it did in numerous files, that Quebec and its agriculture would be much better served if Quebec controlled its own laws, taxes, and treaties itself. Canada is simply proving, once again, that Quebec would be better off free and independent.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there is a couple of things I could take issue with in terms of the member's concern over the province of Quebec. I can assure the member that Quebec members of Parliament within the Liberal caucus are very strong advocates, not only for the province of Quebec but for Canada also. We see that as a positive thing, given the important role and recognition that Canada gets as a nation.

Having said that, I am wondering if the member would acknowledge that there are significant dairy industries in the provinces of Quebec, Manitoba, and other regions of the country, and that the issue we have before us today is not something that was created overnight. The creation of a false expectation or a false hope that this issue can be resolved overnight does not do just service to the many dairy farmers who are looking for answers. The government is looking for those answers and is doing the necessary consultation and the prep work in order to get this issue dealt with in an appropriate way.

Does the member feel that the Conservative government was successful in any fashion in dealing with this particular issue?