Larry Miller

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in the House today to talk about the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. It is a very important agreement for Canada, especially today in these tough economic times. We need to be doing everything we can to open doors for Canadians, Canadian producers, Canadian manufacturers to create new commercial opportunities around the world and to work with our partners to help our citizens succeed.

Free trade agreements are a critical part of these efforts. We must seek out more trade and investment opportunities for our businesses. Our government is committed to this pursuit. In our global commerce strategy, we are moving forward on our aggressive trade agenda, one that includes pursuing bilateral and multilateral trade relationships that will work for Canadians.

Canada's own history is a textbook case of the benefits of reaching out to our partners for trade and investment opportunities. We are a trading nation. Our businesses can compete with the best in the world. Today, I am proud to say that we can find Canadian businesses, Canadian products and Canadian investment dollars at work all over the world. However, it is a competitive world out there. Our businesses need market access in order to compete, now, more than ever, as our business community faces the greatest economic challenge in generations. That is why the free trade agreement we signed last fall was such an important accomplishment.

Canadian businesses and investors have long called for a closer economic partnership with Colombia. They certainly see the clear progress Colombia has made in recent years to tackle such difficult challenges as terrorism, poverty, insecurity and crime, but they also recognize the immense economic potential. Colombia is a vibrant and dynamic market for Canadian exports, a market of 48 million people.

I have had the privilege of travelling to Colombia twice, once with the international trade committee, and I was very pleasantly surprised. I suppose it is one of those things that when we go to a country like Colombia, we do not know what to expect, and I was pleasantly surprised as far as their infrastructure went, but there is still room for improvements. This deal will go a long way to helping them as well.

I talked about this market of 48 million people. At the same time, it is a very appealing market for foreign investors. Colombia's government is committed to reversing years of underinvestment in the public infrastructure as I mentioned. Countries like ours, which have so much expertise in this area, can offer a lot. The potential goes far beyond infrastructure and includes other key sectors like agriculture and industrial goods, and services like engineering, mining, energy and financial services. These are all areas where Canada excels.

Moreover, these sectors are linchpins of our economy in communities large and small all across the country. Once this free trade agreement is in place, Canadian exporters and investors in a broad range of sectors will benefit from lower trade and investment barriers in the Colombian market, which will increase their export potential and help them expand their reach into this exciting market. It will also put them on a level playing field with competitors like the United States and the European Union, which are also seeking preferential access to the Colombian marketplace.

Colombia is moving forward on an ambitious economic agenda that includes free trade agreements with a wide range of partners. We cannot put our exporters at a relative disadvantage. The time for Canada to act is now.

Thankfully, we are starting from a position of strength. We have to remember that Canada and Colombia already enjoy a significant trade relationship. In 2008 our two-way trade in merchandise totalled $1.35 billion. Canadian exports that year saw a 28.9% increase over the previous year to reach $704 million. Key Canadian products like paper, wheat, barley, pulse crops and trucks were driving forces behind this success.

Once the new agreement is in place, trade in these products, along with other products like beef, pork, machinery and mining equipment, will now be easier and more profitable for Canadian companies and producers. Indeed, agriculture was a key driver for these free trade agreement negotiations. From the very start, we were guided by the principle that a successful outcome on agriculture was absolutely critical. In numeric terms, our agricultural exports to Colombia face tariffs of anywhere from 17% to as high as 80%. Once this free trade agreement is in place, 86% of all those agricultural tariffs will be eliminated.

Being a farmer myself and representing a very rural riding that is a very large producer of agriculture products of all kinds, this is great news particularly for my pork and beef producers. That translates into about $25 million in annual duty savings for our producers here in Canada. That is a lot of coin. Clearly, this is a significant benefit for our agriculture sector, one that will sharpen producers' competitive edge during this difficult economic time.

However, as we move forward on creating new commercial opportunities, we must also recognize the very positive role that increased trade and investment can play in a nation like Colombia. The free trade agreement benefits Canada, but it benefits our Colombian partners too by giving them access to the North American marketplace, a greater choice of products from Canada and a chance to promote economic development in their own country. That is very important.

As Canada's own history proves, the single best way to create opportunities for citizens is to harness the skills, ingenuity and products of the people and carry those advantages to the marketplaces of the world. That is exactly what this free trade agreement would do. Free trade is a vehicle to help us do exactly that. Colombia is a nation that is making substantial progress toward becoming a more stable and secure nation. It is not there yet, but it is heading in the right direction, and this deal and Canada will help it along that road.

This government certainly wants to support that effort and give entrepreneurship a chance to take root and flourish in communities across the country. This fits squarely into the Government of Colombia's efforts to promote a more prosperous, equitable and secure nation, and it also fits with Canada's own objectives in the Americas, namely to promote democracy, prosperity and security throughout the hemisphere.

We all want a democratic and secure hemisphere, one that is free from the shackles of terrorism, crime and instability. However, we cannot have a democratic and secure nation without creating a path for our citizens' aspirations or without creating jobs and opportunities through the power of international trade and investment. That is just what the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement would do.

It is significant that as we signed the free trade agreement, we also signed parallel agreements on labour cooperation and the environment. These agreements commit both nations to work together to ensure high levels of protection for workers and the environment. Canada believes that trade and investment liberalization can and must go hand in hand with labour rights and the environment. These agreements with our Colombian partners prove it.

During these uncertain economic times, our government's commitment to partnerships and to opening doors for Canadian businesses and investors around the world remains strong. We are committed to moving forward on more free trade negotiations with other partners around the world, from Asia to the Americas, to ensure that Canadians have the opportunities they need not only to weather today's economic storm but also to emerge on the other side of it, stronger and more competitive than ever before.

For this reason and for the many benefits to our Colombian partners that this agreement brings, I ask all hon. members in the House to support this Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague across the way for some very sensible words on this free trade agreement. This is something that this government obviously supports. I would also like, at this time, to wish her an early happy birthday, as I understand that is coming up.

I have had the privilege in the last couple of days of sitting in on the Inter-parliamentary Forum of the Americas conference hosted here by Canada. The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement came up in the discussions by a number of countries. It was even suggested that this agreement with Colombia could be expanded to include all of South America. That is probably a stretch in reality, but it gives us an idea of the kind of feeling there is in support of these kinds of agreements.

My question for the member would be whether she thinks this kind of agreement with Colombia and other countries could actually open up a gateway there and expand into other countries down the road, and would that be beneficial?

[Committees of the House, June 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food entitled “Beyond the Listeriosis Crisis: Strengthening the Food Safety System”.

[Rogers TV, June 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Rogers TV Simcoe and Grey Counties, which took top honours at the 2009 Impression Awards.

The station was named TV Station of the Year and was honoured for its programming and community commitment to Simcoe and Grey Counties. The local channel produces substantial, quality and daily local programming that is so important to our communities.

The local Rogers channel also picked up the Impact Award for its documentary series, In Focus: Beating the Bully, one of two awards earned by Rogers TV producer Steve McEown.

The community channel earned three awards and two finalist nominations for its local news show and its coverage of the federal election in 2008.

I am very proud to have a group of television producers and journalists so dedicated to local television production in my community. The people of Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound are well served by this station and the committed people who make this station work day after day.

Congratulations to Rogers TV.

[Taxation, May 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have become a single-issue party. The issue is taxes. They want them higher and they want more of them. Their leader is the father of the carbon tax. He has also made only one policy commitment: taxes will rise under the Liberals.

In these tough economic times, that is not what Canadians need. We need the stable and focused leadership that only this government can provide. While this government is standing up for hard-working Canadian families, the Liberals want to make it tougher for Canadians to take care of their families. The Liberals are clear. They want more taxes and higher taxes.

That is just plain wrong. I know it is wrong. The people of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound know it is wrong. This government knows it is wrong, and all Canadians certainly know it is wrong. It is only the Liberal leader who has not figured that part out yet.

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in relation to Bill C-29, Canadian Agricultural Loans Act.

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, another thing I know the minister has been working on is opening markets. I mentioned some of that in my remarks. I know that fight is ongoing.

Could the minister tell us what other markets he has in his scope? Maybe he cannot share everything with us for various reasons, but maybe he could talk a bit about that and some of the advantages to not only the livestock industry but to the grains, durum wheat and that kind of thing.

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, that just cannot be relevant when he is all over the country and never in his own riding.

The minister has done a lot of work in trying to create some things that will help out young farmers. My youngest brother is farming and I know the obstacles he is up against. We did some things to help get some interest-free loans out to young farmers and also made some changes to the capital gains to help the generational transfers across.

Could the minister speak to the advantages of this?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, if the members from across the way had spent this much time raising their voices and their concerns for agriculture in their 13 years in government, we would not be sitting where we are today.

The member for Malpeque—

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to be here tonight and to speak about agriculture and the main estimates. Being a farmer myself, it gives me I think maybe a different meaning than for some. Not all of us can be in agriculture but I am very proud of my background.

I will concentrate my comments tonight mainly on the subject of country of origin labelling.

Farming is the backbone of the Canadian economy and it is by far the most important industry in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. Knowing this, I am very pleased that the government, our Minister of Agriculture and all us have worked hard to try to put farmers first when developing agriculture policy.

Agriculture is a very progressive, innovative and, in most recent years, a very competitive industry. This industry has billions of dollars in sales.

As hon. members know, country of origin labelling, or COOL as it is commonly known, is impacting a number of sectors across the agriculture industry. We have already seen that it caused a plummet in weanling prices for our hog producers last year due to the uncertainty and fear among U.S. buyers. The impact is particularly hard on the livestock industry as it adds new costs into the system in segregation, handling and other requirements.

I know from talking to the cattle, hog and lamb producers in my riding, and some from across the country as well, that they have gone through a great deal of hardship in the past seven years. Producers are still feeling the effects of BSE, global red meat prices have slumped continually and they have experienced droughts and flooding in many regions of the country.

On top of what producers have called the perfect storm for the beef industry, the advent of COOL has been like the U.S. throwing salt in the already open wounds in our red meat sector.

In a number of sectors, including red meat, we are witnessing what has been called a thickening of the Canada-U.S. border. We have been working very hard with the industry to try to reduce the impact of this and we have had some good progress on a number of fronts.

In November 2007 the U.S. border opened to our older cattle and beef from older animals, with the introduction of the BSE second rule. This has given our producers a bigger share of the market. Since then, we have taken action to ensure that the border remains open by participating in U.S. litigation to support the rule.

We have also worked with the Mexican secretary of agriculture to get the Mexican border reopened to Canadian cattle, plus access for breeding animals and dairy replacement heifers.

We worked with the CFIA and industry to head off the enhanced testing that was put in place south of the border following the U.S. E. coli recalls.

On COOL more specifically, the United States implementation of country of origin labelling has been a huge concern to this government and our producers since it was first proposed. That is why we did not hesitate to let our southern neighbours know that we would vigorously oppose these measures. We will continue to assess the impact of COOL as it moves along. We hold it in abeyance.

The Prime Minister raised the issue with President George Bush and Canadian ministers have raised it with their U.S. counterparts. We have now raised it with the current President Obama and Secretary Vilsack. We have advanced the pace of the WTO challenge. We have been very clear with the Americans that we will have to undertake this if they proceed down this road.

We have let the Americans know that we will use all the trade dispute mechanisms at our disposal to ensure Canada is treated fairly and retains access without unreasonable regulatory barriers for our producers.

Our Minister of International Trade also made it clear when he said in a statement that “We believe that the country of origin legislation is creating undue trade restrictions to the detriment of Canadian exporters”.

As I said earlier, the livestock sector is a highly integrated industry in North America. Last year almost $4 billion in livestock, beef and pork crossed our borders.

Producers and processors on both sides depend on the free flow of goods. That is why last December this government initiated formal consultations with the U.S., under the WTO dispute settlement process, regarding mandatory COOL.

Canada expects the U.S. to live up to its international trade obligations. COOL threatens to disrupt that flow by adding needless costs and red tape into the system on both sides of the border. COOL will hurt the competitiveness of the integrated North American packing industries. It will drive down prices for Canadian livestock producers, which will eventually hurt the prices American ranchers receive as well.

There really is not a Canadian, or American or Mexican market. It is a completely integrated North American market. In this integrated cattle herd, individual animals sometimes cross borders numerous times for feeding before going to slaughter.

Breeding bulls and heifers have been sold between the two countries for over a century. There is no legitimate rationale for COOL to be applied to live cattle slaughtered in the United States. Whether the cattle are born and raised in the U.S. or Canada, they have been subjected to similar regulatory regimes, farming practices and they share the same lineage.

It is clear that COOL is only about discriminatory trade protection for a select few producers in the U.S. COOL is damaging to U.S. feedlots, backgrounders and packing plants.

Free and fair trade is essential to the economic health of livestock industries on both sides of the borders. We have been standing up for Canadian producers since the spectre of COOL first surfaced.

The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has been very engaged in this issue, both before and after the new U.S. administration took office. The Minister of International Trade, as I mentioned earlier, has constantly raised this issue in his conversations with his American counterparts.

Throughout this situation, we have maintained a respectful relationship with our American neighbours, but make no mistake, we mean what we say.

We have consistently made it clear that current COOL regulations unfairly disadvantage Canadian producers. Until we receive the result that is fair for Canada, we will continue, and we must continue, to stand up for Canadian producers against COOL.

The current COOL regulations add huge costs and red tape for Canadian cattle and hog exports heading south. We must continue to restate that point strongly and respectfully, as we work with our American counterparts dealing with the COOL issue.

I want to talk a little about R-CALF. As I said, we have been trying to stand up for producers, we are standing up producers and defending our sector against the court challenges from R-CALF. In July 2005 my good friend and my colleague, the member for Selkirk—Interlake, as opposition members at the time, and we were opposition members, were the only elected members of this Canadian Parliament to attend the U.S. 9th circuit court of appeals in Seattle, Washington to show our support for the fight against R-CALF, something of which the member for Selkirk—Interlake and myself are very proud.

The government must continue its work to restore access to markets and opening new ones. Over the past few months, we have re-opened beef access in Hong Kong, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. We are keeping up the pressure with trade missions to Morocco and other countries. These are all good signs of progress, but there is still a lot of work to be done.

The government plans to pursue commercially significant access to beef markets as a first step in achieving full access, mandating by the World Organization for Animal Health. We are also working hard to diversify our global business through an ambitious agenda for the negotiation of bilateral free trade agreements, and I will use Peru and Colombia as examples there. EFTA is one that has recently come through the House.

We are working hard to resume trade access in cattle and beef with China. Competitiveness is about trade and it is about innovation at home as well. That is why we support the efforts of the beef and pork value chain round tables. That is why we are working with industry to help it build a strong, positive Canada brand. Let buyers know that no matter what product they choose, if it is Canadian, it comes backed by a commitment to quality and a world-class regulatory system.

That is why we are investing in research into beef and pork quality at a research station in Lacombe. That is why we invested $130 million in federal-provincial dollars to help the sector adjust to the enhanced feed ban.

There are still challenges and we are trying to work through them. There is a great opportunity for this sector. The global demand for protein is growing.