Mr. Speaker, my question tonight follows on a question I posed on November 19 of this year regarding an agricultural trade issue.
Protectionism in the international trade of agriculture is on the rise. U.S. border state politicians are increasing their rhetoric and are once again starting to rattle their trade sabres, threatening the livelihood of Canadian agricultural producers.
The most recent example of this protectionism is the anti-dumping and countervail petition to the U.S. department of commerce by the Montana producers' group, R-CALF. R-CALF claimed that Canadian cattle were government subsidized and were dumped on the U.S. market. Before the United States International Trade Commission finally ruled in Canada's favour, Canadian cattlemen were forced to pay a 5.63% provisional tariff on their export cattle, open their books to a foreign government agency and spend millions of dollars in legal fees to defend their industry against these groundless claims.
Canadian cattlemen are fair traders but are being left exposed to the threat of multimillion dollar legal battles because of the indifference of the government and its failure to treat agricultural trade as a priority.
The government has had six years to reduce the bilateral trade irritants with our biggest trading partner. The current definition of dumping, which does not consider the cyclical nature of the agriculture industry, trapped Canadian cattlemen when they were forced to sell their cattle below the price of production several years ago. This poorly worded definition does more to hurt Canadian industry than to protect it. A responsible definition should reflect market cycles and take action in cases of predatory pricing and selling below home market prices.
Another aggravation for cattlemen in this case was the failure of the agriculture minister to take decisive action to implement changes recommended by the Canadian cattle industry, changes that would address trade tensions between Canada and the U.S.
Frustrated by the inaction of the federal government in the wake of the R-CALF petition, a group of cattlemen in my riding came together and formed a producer group called the North West Beef Producers. This group raised over $200,000 to finance meetings with U.S. producers to seek a solution to these repeated trade disputes. It requested an expansion of the north west pilot project, specifically asking for a national exemption on Blue Tongue and recommending a treatment protocol for anaplasmosis, allowing year-round entry to Canada of feeder cattle from the U.S.
However, despite the fact that considerable research has proven that lifting the restrictions will not adversely affect the health of the Canadian herd, and that these proposals do not depend on federal financial assistance for their success, the federal minister of agriculture left cattlemen high and dry, promising only to further explore the issue.
Although the U.S. ITC ruled in Canada's favour, this government is making a mistake if it thinks that the Americans are willing to give up the fight. The government need only look at the $75,000 donation that the Government of South Dakota made to the R-CALF campaign to see how seriously the northern tier U.S. states view this issue.
How long will the minister of agriculture leave Canadian cattlemen exposed to the kind of trade harassment that we have seen over the last year before he implements the regulatory changes to the north west pilot project requested by industry groups and when will the changes to the definition of dumping that the industry is asking for be implemented?
