Claude Duplain

[Supply, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member for Brossard—La Prairie. The speech that he just made was very short, very measured, and very substantial, and expressed the government's position well, unlike what we have been hearing since the beginning of the day, for someone who is more accustomed to agriculture.

In this debate, I thought I would put myself in the position of the people who are listening to what is happening today, that is the fact that the opposition wants a debate on these issues. We heard the comments of the member for Saint-Jean and the words that I have noted are: I do not think so; possibly; perhaps; could perhaps. However, the government members have not indulged in speculation.

I wanted to congratulate our member, who knows how to assemble the facts to tell people exactly how the government can work cooperatively. We also heard the minister talk this morning about the smart borders strategy and the desire to pursue the dialogue and to sit at the table to be able to make decisions with our allies. He did a magnificent job and I was not the only one who thought so.

[Agriculture, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Frontenac—Mégantic has raised a very relevant question, since Newfoundland and Labrador is the first province to sign an agreement with the Government of Canada to implement the agricultural policy framework.

The federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods for Newfoundland and Labrador signed this agreement, and made the announcement this morning.

Congratulations to Newfoundland and Labrador. We are confident that we will be signing other agreements with other provinces in the very near future.

[Parliament of Canada Act, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Peterborough again. As we know, in the WTO negotiations, there are several positions, that of the United States, that of the European countries, and that of Canada, which is perhaps more middle ground.

For example, butter oils are a very complex issue. There are very serious trade, legal and economic repercussions, particularly when it comes to international commitments with our main trading partners. The member can be assured that the ministers are taking into consideration the farmers' request.

[Parliament of Canada Act, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Peterborough for his question, which is a very important one. We are discussing it at this time because it is of great concern to the government as well as to dairy producers; in fact, all supply-managed products are affected.

The hon. member spoke of maintaining supply management, of how important supply management is to producers. Yes, supply management in Canada is very important for many agricultural producers. Many times, ministers have supported supply management. Many times, they have said how important it is for Canada. I can assure the hon. member that this is an issue the ministers care deeply about and which they are going to defend; that is what they are doing at negotiating tables everywhere.

But these are controversial and difficult points. We know that. The ministers are in discussions with leaders of the WTO as to future amendments and future conditions. We know that the Harbinson report was put on the table, and that the minsters did not like it at all.

Discussing the report presented by Mr. Harbinson is out of the question, because we are not backing off on supply management. This also includes the three pillars of supply management. They are extremely important to the ministers too, and the government does not intend to alter its course.

Of these three pillars, one specifically relates to a problem frequently raised by dairy producers. I am talking about imports of products such as butter oils. After dairy producers raised this issue, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister for International Trade attended a tripartite meeting. In August 2002, a committee was struck to address this problem and find a solution.

We would liked the final report to have been tabled and the ministers to have reached a decision in this regard. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for the response. It is not a matter of ill will. This is an extremely complex situation. That is why the ministers are taking the time they need to fully understand this issue.

I want to reassure the public about supply management and its pillars. This is something that is being respected and that must remain in place. All the members on this side of the House support supply management and its pillars.

[Agriculture, May 6th, 2003]

It is a matter of food safety, Mr. Speaker. I think that all foods imported into Canada must be inspected before they are consumed by the public.

[Agriculture, May 6th, 2003]

No, Mr. Speaker. If we look at all meat products for human consumption in every area of federal responsibility, and cruise ships in particular, these products must comply with food inspection regulations. That is in the public interest.

[Agriculture, May 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has often expressed a desire to protect supply management. If supply management is to be protected, the three pillars of supply management also need to be protected. This is clear.

[Agriculture, May 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the hon. member. For some time now on a number of occasions ministers have stated here that supply management was included in the rules we wish to see complied with and wish to promote. The three pillars of supply management are an integral part of this.

[Agriculture, May 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, discussions are currently being held; I do not understand the question by the hon. member opposite. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is not waiting for someone else to do his job. Discussions on labelling with regard to this situation are currently being held with the United States.

[Canada Airports Act, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this bill has all the flexibility needed. If the member could prove to me that representatives of the airlines were not able to sit on the boards, then I might agree. However, in my opinion, thanks to the bill's flexibility, they can be a part of the boards.