The House of Commons trade committee, including its Conservative members, is urging the government to increase financial support for promoting cattle and beef exports.
In a motion approved Nov. 17, the committee said Ottawa’s support for beef export promotion falls far behind competitor countries.
The all-party committee said the government should “support the marketing of Canadian cattle and beef exports by increasing the government’s promotional budget for Canadian beef, which is currently underfunded, to a level that establishes an equal playing field with Canada’s main competitors including Australia and the United States.”
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
The resolution was moved by British Columbia New Democrat Peter Julian, his party’s trade critic, who established through witnesses that Canadian government aid to exporters is far less than competitor traders. Pork and beef exporters told MPs that the U.S. and Australia offer far more support for market development.
Canada spends more than $4 million annually to market pork while Australia spends $100 million for pork and beef promotion and the U.S. spends $60 million annually, Julian said.
He moved the motion to bolster the NDP argument that Canada does not need more free trade agreements but instead more government support for export and market promotion.
Agriculture sector witnesses said trade and market promotion is important, but market access through trade agreements is crucial.
It led to a Liberal amendment, supported by the Conservatives, that added a plea for more free trade agreements.
Julian argued that free trade agreements are often inequitable. Instead, the committee should urge the government to pursue more trade deals that provide increased market access.
He said the emerging model for trade negotiations is “fair trade” that incorporates social objectives, environmental protection and labour rights.
He said the motion should not identify what kind of trade agreement is preferred, citing the choices as “a more progressive fair trade agreement or a more regressive old style free trade agreement.”
Producers just want more access, he added, whatever the agreement is called.
Liberal trade critic Scott Brison, a rural Nova Scotia MP, said that is not what he hears from the industry.
“The beef farmers that I speak with through their organization are very clear they want free trade,” he said.
“They want access to markets and our support in principle, in reality, of free trade agreements.”
