Andy Mitchell

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, the member mentioned his concern in terms of moisture challenges in some parts of Canada. I would also add, as I know the hon. member next to me would, that this has been a difficulty in Nova Scotia this spring as well. We should not forget that area either.

I have concerns about some of the hon. member's comments. Clearly the Liberal Party did not suddenly arrive at a conclusion to support supply management at a policy conference three months ago, as the Conservative Party did. The reality is that the Liberal Party has been supporting supply management and it has been supporting it well by the fact that it exists and thrives today and has for some 35 years. I do not think that this should be forgotten.

The hon. member is wrong when he says that we have traded away tariff reductions. The WTO negotiations have not concluded. In fact, during the framework agreement that was signed last July and which we were part of negotiating, we insisted on putting in there that we allow some flexibility in terms of how we move forward. The issue is not tariffs per se and the hon. member should know that. It is the issue of over-quota tariffs that we are dealing with here, not general tariff reductions, and that distinction is important. It is important to understand that distinction as we move forward.

The hon. member talked about the mini-ministerial. It is interesting to note that he did not mention the mini-ministerial that took place in Paris for which his party refused to pair with a minister so that people could attend. I do not know why he did not mention that; I think it had something to do with an attempt to bring down a government or something like that.

Let me talk about the bottom line here. I say this to the member, the former minister, in all sincerity. I know that he, like all hon. members here, feels passionately about agriculture and its importance. This has to be an issue that in many respects transcends political partisanship. We are all going to be partisan from time to time.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, our plan is to pursue the negotiations in a way that allows us and all countries to achieve increased market access by using a combination of tools and allowing individual countries the flexibility to achieve it. I believe this is critically important. If a country has an over quota tariff, what is referred to as a great deal of water in it, and there are countries that have such over quota tariffs, they can go around and say they need this great big cut in an over quota tariff and that they are compliant, but the reality may be that in terms of increased market access, the result may be zero.

That is why we believe the more appropriate way to ensure that there is real increased market access, the quota itself should be expanded. That is the position we have clearly taken. We believe it is necessary in moving forward on these negotiations that individual countries such as Canada be given the flexibility in which to achieve the objective of increased market access. As I have said to many of our trading partners, be wary of some of the suggestions that purport to provide increased market access which in fact really do not.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, a number of steps are taking place. The members in the New Democratic Party mentioned the labelling issue. As the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay mentioned, we have launched an appeal of the latest CITT decision. We have clearly said that we are going to monitor on a monthly basis and include the industry in that monitoring process. We have clearly stated what our objectives are in terms of the WTO result that we want to achieve.

We demonstrated it last July when we went to Geneva. We worked quite hard in terms of putting that framework agreement in a way that preserved our ability to continue negotiations along the lines we felt were important to take place. I believe that the labelling is one action but it is not the only one we have taken. We have worked hard to support supply management. We have not done it on our own. We have worked very much with the industry itself, with members from all sides of the House. That is something we are committed to continue to do as we go through a very critical point between now and when the negotiations are scheduled to come to the next milestone at the end of the year with the ministerial conference in Hong Kong.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Yes, Mr. Chair, the hon. member points out quite correctly that there is a series of issues beyond simply the WTO trade-related ones, and one of them has to do with labelling.

It is my understanding—and I have my parliamentary secretary right here—that during the discussions in committee, specifically on Bill C-27, amendments were put forward to deal with the issues of labelling. From what I have been able to see, those amendments make good sense. The agriculture committee is a hardworking group of individual MPs and they do excellent work. I may not always agree with all of the members all of the time, but I have to say that it is a hardworking group of men and women, dedicated to the well-being of producers and of the industry as a whole. They have taken steps in terms of amendments to Bill C-27 to deal with the issue of labelling, and I am pleased that the committee saw fit to do that. If I am correct, and I will ask the parliamentary secretary, that was unanimous in terms of the committee supporting those amendments.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, let me try to reiterate some of the things I have said in response to this issue, particularly in terms of dealing with other countries.

One of the things I said clearly in dealing with countries like Australia and New Zealand, et cetera, was, look, on the one hand you cannot take action against us when we try to export; you cannot take action against us when we try to control our borders to protect our supply management industry, and do not expect that you will get a reaction from Canada, because you know what? You will. If you attack our producers, if you attack their opportunity to have a livelihood, then we will respond.

Clearly what I said, and I will reiterate, is that we are determined to make sure we get a WTO result that achieves those objectives in terms of domestic supports, in terms of export subsidies and market access, but we are also determined to do it in a way that preserves the ability of our producers to choose to market their products using their own domestic choices, which means protecting supply management.

I will use the set of tools that allow me the best opportunity to do that. To me, the primary way of doing that is to achieve the results we want in terms of the WTO negotiations. If we are unable to do that, then we are going to have to take a look at what other actions we can take, and I have made it clear that we have not ruled out that an article XXVIII action is one of those.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

moved:

That this Committee take note of supply management.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in debate tonight in the House on the very important issue of supply management in Canada. Supply management, as I am sure the House is aware, is an important part of our agricultural industry. It represents 20% of our farm cash receipts nationally. In the province of Quebec it represents almost 40% of farm cash receipts. In fact, there are over 22,000 supply managed producers here in Canada, a very important part of the agricultural industry in Canada.

Let me say one thing at the beginning that I think is absolutely essential to make clear. The Government of Canada, the Liberal Party, supports supply management. In my view, it is clearly a system that works. It is one that provides consumers with a quality product, it provides an assurance of supply, and it allows for producers to get a reasonable return from the marketplace.

Over the years that support of supply management by the Liberal Party, by the government, has been a real support, one that has been there from the very beginning. In fact, we were there as a party when supply management was first developed and put into place, and that support has continued over the years.

We have defended supply management through a number of international negotiations. As recently as last July, when we were in Geneva and negotiated a framework agreement with our other WTO partners, we worked to achieve all of Canada's trade objectives, but at the same time we made sure we had a framework agreement that would allow Canadian producers to do what Canadian producers should have the right to do, and that is to choose the domestic marketing system they want.

I have met on a number of occasions since that time with representatives from countries in various forums across the world, and in all of those I have taken the opportunity to point out that Canada, in working to achieve its objectives in the WTO negotiations, was determined to do so in a way that allowed Canadian producers to choose their domestic marketing regimes.

We have worked hard with the dairy industry on a number of issues. We have dealt with it on labelling issues and we intend to deal with it on a series of other issues, including standards. As I mentioned, we are committed to achieving a WTO agreement that respects and allows for the continuation of supply management.

I know there are some issues around the WTO negotiations and other issues in terms of how to approach the current situation. There have been suggestions made by many, including the Dairy Farmers of Canada. One of them is that we should proceed with an article XXVIII action immediately.

Let me make something clear. I am not ruling out taking an article XXVIII action, but I want to make one thing absolutely certain. My bottom-line objective, what I am trying to achieve, is to ensure that the outcome of the WTO negotiations is a favourable one in respect of maintaining and enhancing the supply managed industries here in Canada. I want to make sure that the steps and the approach I take lend themselves to achieving that objective. In my view, taking an article XXVIII action at this particular time does not assist in achieving that goal.

I should point out that by choosing not to do it at this moment in no way precludes the opportunity to use it at any point in time as we move down the road. It is our right to use article XXVIII, and we are determined to provide border protection for our supply managed industries. I understand as well that if we take an action next month or the month after or the month after that, there can potentially be some cost to the industry in delaying it for a period of time. But that needs to be clearly weighed against what cost there would be if we impair our ability to achieve our objectives under the WTO.

The issue of an article XXVIII is not one of substance. It is not one of trying to achieve what it is we want to achieve, and that is to have a strong supply managed system in this country. It is one of strategy. It is about the best strategic approach to take. It is important that we work on this issue on an ongoing basis.

To that end, we now have the agreement of the Canada Border Services Agency that it will provide to us on a monthly basis the actual imports that are taking place in those products the DFC has identified.

It is also my intent, and I have made this clear to the industry, that we will sit down on a monthly basis to examine exactly what is taking place in terms of imports on those particular products so that we can evaluate exactly what kind of action we should be taking on an ongoing basis.

Clearly, it is not something we are simply saying no to, but it is something we are saying we need to balance the appropriate time to take such action, and if we achieve what it is we want to achieve, which is the successful outcome of the WTO negotiations, then we may not need to use that tool whatsoever.

I have talked quite a bit about the WTO negotiations. Let us be clear. Supply management in and of itself is not something that is the subject of those negotiations. What is, is a number of issues within those negotiations that can have an impact on supply management.

From Canada's perspective, we are trying to achieve a number of important objectives and goals of the WTO. We want to see the elimination of export subsidies. We want to see the reduction of domestic supports. We do in fact want to see increased market access--a real increase of market access. But we also want to make sure that it is done in a way that allows Canadian producers, as I mentioned earlier, to make their choices about the type of domestic marketing system they want to have. So we need to deal with these issues.

Each one of these pillars in the WTO negotiations has a potential impact on supply management, whether it deals with export subsidies, which has an impact on our ability to sell our products abroad, or whether it deals with domestic supports. There are issues with domestic supports in terms of our administered pricing. Although that does not represent a cash outlay for the government, the amount does count against the total AMS, the total amount of domestic supports we are able to provide.

There are discussions that are taking place in terms of product-specific caps and the basis upon which those caps would be established, and that has the potential to impact in terms of supply management.

In market access there is a whole series of issues. It has to do with the whole issue of tariffs, with our over-quota tariffs, with the expansion of our quotas. Canada's position has been very clear; that is, as a government, as a country, we need to have the flexibility to achieve market access in a way that makes the best sense for us in Canada. That is an argument that we have taken forward in the WTO. It is an argument that I make on an ongoing basis with our trading partners. It is one that we believe is a sound approach for us to take. So there are critical issues for supply management that are at stake in these WTO negotiations.

I should mention that one of the things we have been determined to do, and that we continue to do, is to engage fully the industry in respect of our WTO negotiations. That is something that is very different between ourselves and other countries. When we go and negotiate, we are not there alone; the government is not there by itself. It is there with the industry. It is there with the supply-managed industries. It is there with other Canadian industries. We work with them, as well as consulting with members of the opposition, which we did when we were in Geneva last year, and with the provinces to achieve our objectives.

I want there to be no illusion. There are significant challenges ahead that we need to address and that we need to meet. But we have dealt with this before. We have faced those challenges before, we have been successful in meeting them in the past, and we are determined to be successful in meeting them in the future.

[Fisheries, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in this particular case the agent was in fact detected and a recall was issued.

[Forestry, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the longhorn beetle is a very destructive pest that puts in danger forests in the areas that it infests. The CFIA has been working hard over the years with many others to try to control this.

The hurricane has exacerbated this problem. We need to find new and creative solutions. The hon. member has been working very hard with my officials and officials from other departments to come up with those solutions. We intend to redouble our efforts in the days ahead to find suitable solutions for the woodlot owners and at the same time to protect the long term viability of the forestry industry.

[Agriculture, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the hon. member fundamentally misunderstands how the process works. When a bill is referred to committee before second reading, a process which the opposition has encouraged the government to do on an ongoing basis and which the government did in this case, it gives the committee the opportunity to shape the legislation.

The committee is in the process of doing that work. I look forward to the committee completing that work in the near future.