Charlie Angus

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, because of the member's experience in dealing with issues of displaced workers and EI, I have a question for him.

When we are talking about older workers in my region, whether they be miners, forestry workers, people working the land or people living in isolated communities, when they lose their jobs it is not only them who are displaced, it is the entire community. To add to that, many of these people have already suffered physical damage through the type of work they have done and are unable to be retrained. They are facing medical costs. If they are 48 or 49 years old and have worked 20 some years in the mines, their backs are gone.

When these people lose their jobs their entire community is affected. We are talking here about single industry communities. We have to add to the fact that while they have lost their income, they have also lost equity in their homes. Who will buy a home in a community where the mill has shut down?

We also see this in the loss of services. We cannot get doctors and nurses into communities where the income sources are dying. The young people will not return.

I also would like the member to comment on what is happening in northern Ontario now where the provincial Liberal government is committed to allowing the giant forestry companies to move the wood to wherever they please. They are creating super mills. The provincial government is allowing the large forestry companies that control the entire wood supply in Quebec and Ontario to move the wood where they want. They are then separating our resources from our communities.

Communities in my region, such as Opasatika, Val Rita, Kapuskasing, Hearst, Iroquois Falls and Smooth Rock Falls, are dependent on these resources. We are now being told by the provincial Liberals, which I believe is also part of a larger strategy at the federal level, that resources do not belong to communities nor to people any more, that they belong to the corporations.

With his experience, could the member tell us how we address the issue of workers who have lost their jobs in single industry communities when there are no alternatives and they are aging?

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a couple of questions of the minister about long term strategies for dealing with older workers. I thank our colleagues from the Bloc for having brought this to the fore, because dealing with an aging workforce is a major issue.

However, what I feel needs to be discussed is broadening this issue out into the big picture. We are moving toward the perfect storm for pensions. We have a number of issues that are all coming to the fore. First, we have an aging workforce. Second are the issues of globalization, outsourcing of our jobs and having to go up against countries like China in numerous sectors. Third, the fundamental issue that has to be put into the equation is we have had an agenda in corporate Canada for the last generation where we have moved from having employees paying into pensions toward contract workers.

In my generation, I could probably count on one hand people I know who pay into pensions on a regular basis. Most people in my generation have been working on contract with various jobs. They move from here to there. Some years they make some money and they put it aside, but when the times are bad they lose those savings. In my age group, mid-forties, I find that many people have not paid any significant amounts into pensions.

What is the long term strategy of the government for dealing with the fact that fewer and fewer people pay steadily into a pension fund?

We have an aging workforce and we are having to deal with the factors of globalization. The issue will start to hit very seriously in the next few years. We see a crisis now in segments with older workers. What is the long term vision to ensure that we have a pension fund for all Canadians that will be maintained well into this coming century?

[Agriculture, June 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the trade minister.

We are trying to get a sense in Canada whether the government will stand up for our farmers at the WTO. We want to know if it will invoke article XXVIII. We are hearing some prevarications from agriculture, but we want to know where trade stands on this.

Will the government invoke article XXVIII to protect our domestic market from the flood of modified milk imports?

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I have a lot of respect for the member for Leeds—Grenville. We sit in the heritage committee together and we have done some good. The question he asks is a good one. Dairy farmers want to know if there will be protection, if someone will stand up. I have tried to point out this evening that the record of the last nine years has been pretty woeful in terms of the government's willingness to stand up and act on it. It has not.

We finally are hearing now that maybe there is going to be some action on labelling. We are hearing there may be some action on standards. However, if we look at what has gone on up until now, there has been very little.

I would be worried if I were a producer. Our job from all parties is to ensure that the producers in all the agricultural sectors are heard in the House. Otherwise their issues will slip away and they will not be addressed. That is one of the reasons we are holding this debate tonight.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I would never want to be accused of being an angry and bitter man. I do not know any dairy producers in my area who can go and sell milk down the street to whomever they want. They are either part of a system or they are not. That is the fundamental pillar of how this thing works.

However, I would respond that it is nothing personal against him. I was asking the question about his leader's decision to make the hon. member the choice for the Wheat Board, when the National Farmers Union on May 16 accused the member of being either wilfully uninformed or conducting an ongoing smear campaign against the Canadian Wheat Board. That was not me. It was the National Farmers Union.

When I talk about sending a message to rural Canada, I am asking why the leader of that party decided to choose a man who has been completely dedicated to destroying the Wheat Board. The National Farmers Union has spoken up saying it is a disgrace to rural Canada. I have nothing to argue with the member's viewpoint. That is his viewpoint. However, the leader's choice sends a message and I think it sends a very clear message.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the minister's comments. I do not believe article XXVIII is just a symbol. I do not think symbols will help us at this point. We are asking for a commitment.

We have not seen the road map of action or any of the criteria that the government will apply to ensure that not only we protect our market but that we start to take back some of the market we have lost over the nine years. We have not seen that, so article XXVIII is a tool to respond to the crisis in which we find ourselves.

The question in terms of the WTO is there continues to be concern among farm families in Canada about just how successful Canada will at the WTO. That is why it is not a meaningless symbol. We have to send a message that we are clear. We look at what is on the table.The WTO is dropping the 5% de minimis, opening questions on our Wheat Board and promising action on over-quota tariffs. This is what we are discussing.

It is all very well and good to say that Canadian farmers should have the choice of the kind of marketing system they want to apply. However, if they do not have the proper supports in place to make that marketing system work, then supply management is meaningless. That is why we need action on article XXVIII and we need to send a very clear message that in the next round of WTO we will not give away anything more because we really have nothing left to give.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, it is an honour to speak in the House. Every time I rise to speak I think of the people in my riding of Timmins--James Bay and I am very proud to be speaking here tonight. I am also proud to be speaking as the agriculture critic for the New Democratic Party.

Our party requested this debate because we believe that the issue of supply management is a fundamental issue that has to be addressed and the time to address it is now, particularly with the issue of the flood of modified milk imports, our loss at the CITT and with the upcoming round at the WTO.

We asked for this debate because we in the New Democratic Party feel that we need to send a message to rural Canada. We have to rebuild trust as parliamentarians. We are here to work for the best of everyone in our country, not just to sit in this chamber and squabble about who gets to control power.

The issue we are discussing tonight is supply management and the question the New Democratic Party is asking is whether the government will invoke article XXVIII of the GATT to restore balance to our dairy markets. We have heard varying answers from the government and it is important to come out of tonight's debate with a clear message to our producers and to the international stage.

We are not talking about a complex issue. This is a question about whether Canada will send a message at the international level the we will stand and fight for our farmers. We want to tell our farmers and the world that we are committed to standing up and fighting for our farmers.

The question we are asking is a litmus test of resolve. Receiving different answers from the international trade minister and different possible scenarios from the agriculture minister does not address the fundamental question of whether we are willing to take a stand when the time comes.

We need to look at how article XXVIII plays out on the international stage. Other countries are always very clear. They fight for their farmers. Canada likes quiet negotiations. Quiet negotiations are fine, if they work, but the EU invoked article XXVIII against imports of wheat and barley. The U.S. invoked article XXVIII against Canadian wheat. Russia and Vietnam have shown their willingness to stand up for their domestic markets. Even the United States is making it clear now that it will start moving against modified milk products.

Why the silence from Canada? This silence says that we should trust the government, that it will work something out but that it does not yet have a plan in place so it is not willing to stand up for the farmers. We wonder why are we not willing to stand up and say that this is our line in the sand, this is where we begin our negotiations.

I believe we are at a crossroads in terms of the future of supply management. Since the issue of modified milk imports into Canada began nine years ago, what we have seen from the government is a record of inaction and a lack of response to the issues being raised. Meanwhile, we are losing up to $182 million of our market every year to this flood of unregulated milk products. This is equivalent to the entire milk production of Manitoba. We have just given it away, lost it, left it out there.

This is what has happened over the nine years since this issue was first raised by dairy farmers. At that time those farmers asked for action but they did not receive any. They were told the situation would be monitored. Now we have lost 50% of the ice cream market. We are losing serious chunks of yogurt, cheese and other dairy markets as well. Monitoring is not good enough because the plan in place has been a failure.

Should the dairy farmers of Canada trust the government to carry them through the woods into the promised land in this next round? That is the question. Let us look at the Liberal record. For nine years dairy farmers have been asking for action and in that time the market has steadily eroded.

In 2002 frustrated dairy producers crashed the Liberal retreat in Chicoutimi. To get action they had to embarrass the government. The government agreed to create a working group of stakeholders and government departments. That was the action it promised. That was some action because soon after the working group was struck the producers were kicked out. So much for Liberal promises on this.

When we look at the abysmal track record and the unwillingness of previous agriculture ministers to really get serious about the issues of labelling and serious on standards, we need to look at what recently happened with the CITT ruling and take this as a serious undermining of what we have right now in terms of our domestic dairy markets.

When the CITT ruled that Canada could not place promilk 872 B under the tariff line 0404, which allows us to apply the overquota tariff of 270%, it was not just that this case was lost but it made the further ruling that all the protein subjects that had been subjected to control since 1994 could not be placed in the overquota tariff line either. Therefore we are looking at what we have already lost, which is substantial chunks of our domestic market, and now we see that the floodgates have been opened.

The government has launched an appeal and we support it, but what if the appeal fails? Have we any trust that we will be able to turn back the clock, because at that point we do need plan B in place?

When we talk about what this is in terms of the dairy sector, the poultry sector, the ag sector versus other commodities that we export, it is not a question of Canadians not being able to compete. It is a question of whether we are going to stand back and do nothing in the face of heavily subsidized products that are being dumped into our markets.

We know, for example, that with casein production in the EU, the direct payments the EU pays for that production have heavily distorted the price. What we are seeing is a distorted trade practice where because of the EU subsidies, they are basically flooding our market. Is this the level playing field that Canada supports at the WTO? I do not think it is.

Speaking of the WTO, it needs to be pointed out that while our producers have been trying to get the government to send a clear signal, Tim Groser, the New Zealand ambassador to the WTO, has also been sending Canada a clear message. He is telling us not to stand up for dairy. He is warning us not invoke article XXVIII. In fact, he is saying that the government's response will send a message of Canada's credibility on the international stage. Mr. Groser and I do not agree about too much but we both agree on one thing: this is an issue of our credibility.

Unfortunately, we have different interpretations of what that credibility means. Let us put it is this way. Canada is the fourth largest exporter of agriculture products in the world and maybe the fifth largest importer. The question we must ask is where are the trade minister and the agriculture minister getting their marching orders from: New Zealand or the farm families of Canada? We are not being partisan but the dairy farmers of Canada are fed up with what they call “Liberal stalling, ignoring and excuses” on this issue. They want action and they want it now. They know that with the upcoming round at WTO we need to make it really clear where are going to stand.

What is at stake if we allow this undermining of our ability to regulate our market? We are talking about the future of the most successful farmer operated system in the world. There is no parallel. Our farmers are not subsidized. They are able to compete and are able to compete in a market that not only brings fair, stable pricing to producers, it brings a great response for consumers.

The egg costs in Canada are at about $2.04. They are over $2.53 in most American cities. If we look at dairy costs in U.S. cities versus Canadian cities, we see that dairy costs in the U.S. are about 23% higher. Anyone out there selling this myth that we should get rid of supply management to open the market and consumers will have better choice, it is a lie. It is incumbent upon Parliament and the government to let Canadians know that we will stand up for supply management because what is attacking it is a lie.

I had the honour to attend, with some other agricultural members from all parties, a recent meeting with a trade delegation from New Zealand. The delegates seemed to give us the message that they would fight our over-subsidized dairy and supply market system. The message is not getting out internationally. We are not standing up and speaking out.

Why will we not invoke article XXVIII? Why will we not give the message very clearly that we are willing to invoke it now? It will buy us time. We will send a message at the WTO round to make it very clear that this is not on the negotiating table.

The New Democratic Party is committed to rural Canada. It is committed to supply management and to the principle that our domestic rural economy is something worth fighting for in the international stage. Right now being willing to stand up and invoke article XXVIII is a good way of showing that.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the critic's comments. I have absolutely no doubt about her commitment to supply management. My question is about the fact that I have absolutely no belief that the member's leader has any commitment to supply management. As for any Canadians who fell for that, my God, what would they buy at the market? A cow with no legs?

The fact is that we have to look at the choices. Who did that leader choose for the international trade critic? A man who has been an avowed attacker of our supply management system at the WTO, a man who is on record as saying we slept through the WTO and how we had to stand up and make sure we would not do that anymore. That is who the international trade critic is. That is the man who is going to speak for the Conservatives at the WTO.

Let us look at the Wheat Board critic. The Wheat Board is one of the fundamentals of supply management. If we look at the website of the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, we will see that it is like a conspiracy theory; the black helicopters are coming.

He stood up in the House and made accusations about the farmer led Wheat Board being involved in illegal and corrupt activities. We had the national farmers union writing to the leader of that party demanding his removal because it was a disgrace, his treatment of and his lack of respect for one of Canada's great success stories, which is the Wheat Board. In fact, I will refer to the Western Producer of June 2, which talks about the sudden shift in the Conservative Party on supply management and which it suggests is being done so the party can win some votes in Ontario and Quebec.

I would find that the record on supply management support from that party has been almost entirely zero.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I am sitting in on the Bill C-27 hearings and the New Democrats brought labelling issues forward, as did other members. We have been working on that. The question is, is it sufficient to start to win back the 50% of our ice cream market that we have lost? We are losing serious chunks of our yogourt and cheese markets because we have seen nine years of indifference on this file. The dairy farmers have been pushing for this for nine years on labelling issues and suddenly now we are getting action. Are we getting action because we have a minority government? I would think so.

Is this going to be sufficient? We have seen nothing in the past from the government on the issue of labelling and nothing from the CFIA on labelling. It was just allowed to happen and all the while we saw our market share continue to erode. Is this a first step? Yes, it is, and it is a good first step, but are we actually going to see a second step? We have to look at the record of the government and it has been pretty poor on this file.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the minister being here tonight to discuss this. He has been open to discussion with us in the past.

The question on which we want a little more clarity is that we have a promise from the government to monitor what is coming over the border. For nine years we have seen what has been coming over the border. We have lost 50% of our ice cream market and we have not seen any action.

Maybe this minister is a little more energetic than the last minister, but we want to have a real clear message to producers that if this trade appeal that is going before the CITT fails, the government will stand up and apply article XXVIII. That is the question, and we are hearing a very different message from the international trade minister, who cannot seem to think under what circumstances Canada would stand up and apply article XXVIII.

We are not saying tonight that we want the minister to stand up and immediately invoke article XXVIII. We recognize there have to be negotiations. However, we want a message to our producers and to the international markets that if we do not have action soon and if we do not have our way, then we will invoke it. It is not a question of just having it in the toolbox.

Will the minister commit tonight to ensure that the government will apply article XXVIII if we do not have a reasonable response within a reasonable length of time?