Bill C-216 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management)

This enactment amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act so that the Minister of Foreign Affairs cannot make certain commitments with respect to international trade regarding certain goods.

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-282. On the Conservative side, we absolutely support supply management. We always have been.

In my riding of Dufferin—Caledon, there are many supply-managed farms, both in dairy and, of course, in eggs and poultry. I take the opportunity to visit those farms on a regular basis. The last break week, I visited dairy farms in my riding and I talked about the bill and the incredible contributions that they made not just to my riding of Dufferin—Caledon but all across Canada.

That being said, I really do have concerns with respect to the bill and a big part of it is that the bill has turned into a gigantic wedge issue with all the rest of the folks in the agriculture sector. Every agricultural sector outside of supply management has said it does not support the bill. These people are concerned about what the repercussions will be to their sector in any future trade agreement.

Why are they thinking that? When we take something off the table in a negotiation, then our negotiating partner will automatically take something off the table as well. If we are taking supply management off, and that is something our negotiating partner is interested in, it will take something off the table that Canada is interested in, and we end up with trade agreements that are less ambitious, less broad in scope and therefore have less economic prosperity for Canadians.

This is an example of who came to the committee to say they supported supply management. There are agricultural colleagues, our friends and neighbours, who are against this bill, such as the Canola Council of Canada; the Canadian Canola Growers Association; the International Cheese Council of Canada; the National Cattle Feeders' Association; the Canadian Cattle Association; CAFTA, which is the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance; Cereals Canada; just to name a few. They have all said that they think this bill will damage their opportunities to export their products around the world. They spoke very forcefully against the bill at committee.

What the bill has accomplished, to a large extent, is to pit one farmer against another, and that is truly unfortunate.

Government officials have also spoken against the legislation. When the bill was before the previous parliament it was Bill C-216, and there were several questions that were asked with respect to it. I will quote one section.

Mr. Doug Forsyth said:

If we were to end up with this bill as it is written, I think very much that we would start with a much smaller scope of negotiations with various partners. It wouldn't be unusual for them to say “That's fine. Canada has taken these issues right out of play. We will take issues that are of interest to Canada right out of play.” Then you're talking about negotiating from a smaller pie...

That is exactly the concern I have raised. Canada is a free-trading nation. We rely on free trade, as 60% to 70% of our GDP comes from trade. We are a trading and exporting nation, and agricultural products are a huge bedrock of our exports. When every other agricultural sector is saying that it is concerned about what this is going to do with respect to its ability to export its products around the world and in negotiations for other free trade agreements, we should listen.

One of the things I tried to accomplish at committee was to have extra meetings to have trade experts come to say what they thought the impact of the bill would be with respect to negotiating future trade agreements, and the committee received letters from trade experts.

This is a snippet from a letter from Robert de Valk, who said:

Remember what Canada had to pay in 1989 to keep supply management off the table when the Canada-US Trade Agreement (CUSTA) was completed – increased access. Now all our trading partners can rightfully ask for compensation. The bill, unfortunately, may have the unintended consequence of putting the supply management sector in focus early in any future negotiations.

When we talk about future negotiations, our free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico, CUSMA, is under review at six years. We are three years away from that. With this bill passing, what happens if the United States says that it wants some additional access in supply managed industries? Under this bill it would be absolutely impossible. Then what happens? Are we going to blow up our entire free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico because of this legislation? These are the unintended potential consequences of the legislation.

At committee, I also asked government officials if we would have been able to successfully renegotiate NAFTA, which became CUSMA, if supply management was off the table? This was the answer, “Madam Chair, I was not a part of the negotiating teams for either of those negotiations. However, the stated policy of the Canadian government during both of those negotiations was that“ supply management was off the table and that they would “make no concessions. Therefore, having ultimately determined that such concessions were necessary, I can only conclude that failing to do so would have put the deal at jeopardy.”

This is what we would be looking at if we pass legislation like this. We are potentially putting other trade deals at jeopardy with respect to one sector of the Canadian economy. I find this absolutely troubling.

However, if we take away the challenges with future deals and if we take away the challenges with the review of CUSMA, or USMCA, whatever we want to call it, those are big, extraordinary challenges as a result of this.

Let us look at it in a broader context. Our largest trading partner is the United States, with 70% of our trade going to the United States. We have two major trade irritants with the United States right now.

First, on softwood lumber, $8 billion worth of duties have been collected as a result of the softwood lumber dispute. This has been going on for eight years, with no progress at all on resolving it.

Second, country of origin labelling for beef is percolating in the United States again. It would have devastating impacts for Canadian cattle.

If we go to the United States and say that we want to try to resolve these things, I think it will say, especially with beef, that we have just protected an entire swath of our agricultural sector and it will want to know why the United States can not go forward with its country of origin labelling.

The bill would give the United States a hammer to hit us with in negotiations, to try to resolve the trade irritants that we have now. These are the unintended consequences of passing this legislation.

We can support supply management without the legislation. Our country has done it. In all the free trade agreements we have around the world, there is only a couple where access has been granted on supply management. When that access was granted, Canadian producers were compensated financially.

When we look at the statistics on farm gate proceeds, for example, with respect to dairy, actual production of milk has gone up despite access that has been granted. Therefore, farm gate receipts have gone up despite access being granted.

If access is granted, we could compensate those who are affected. Also, because the Canadian population is growing, the Canadian economy is growing, so they still produce more, sell more and make more money. The system as it is exists very well. It is not, as we keep hearing, the first thing on the negotiating table in a free trade agreement. It is the absolute last thing. It is the only thing that would get done, because if we did not, we could not get a deal.

Imagine, if this bill was in place when we were trying to renegotiate NAFTA with the United States and the United States demanded more access in supply management. It is very interested in it, because we have disputes under USMCA with respect to how it applies tariff-reduced quota in the dairy sector. We know it is important to the United States. We would not have a deal, and government officials very clearly said that.

The intention of the bill is good. We should protect supply management. I understand why farmers are nervous and frustrated, because the government has not negotiated good deals, like CPTPP. The original TPP granted less access in supply management. The Liberal government came along and gave up so much more in CPTPP. However, the bill would have unintended consequences that would not be good for Canada and the Canadian economy.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, because I could not always be there in committee, I read all of the exchanges that took place as it conducted its work. I was a little surprised to see the Conservative members exclaiming that the public servants' arguments in defence of Bill C-216 were very good.

I am somewhat experienced when it comes to politics, and I know that when a government is moving in one direction, it is very rare that the public servants who come to testify in committee say anything in opposition to the government.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

moved that Bill C‑282 be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, on June 13, 2022, I introduced Bill C‑282. In a month, it will be one year. On November 16, 2022, I delivered my introductory speech at first reading. On February 7, 2023, I delivered my final reply to conclude the debate at second reading and on February 8, the result of the vote was the following: 293 for, 23 against. That is what we call a resounding majority.

With that vote, parliamentarians in the House signalled to supply managed farmers that they would never again be sacrificed at the altar of free trade. The government was finally going to walk the talk. I felt confident that this bill would be passed by the end of the session. Was I being overly optimistic? Time will tell.

There was just committee work left. When a party wants to hold up a bill, it can filibuster. That is what representatives from the Conservative Party quietly did in committee.

The bill contains one clause. If we agree with the principle, the clause in question does nothing but implement its intention. Simple, accurate, concise, this bill gets straight to the point. It adds to the mandate of the Minister of Foreign Affairs the obligation to fully respect supply management by removing the minister’s ability to negotiate these principles in future international trade negotiations.

The minister will therefore be unable to sign a treaty that would have the effect of increasing the tariff rate quota applicable to products subject to supply management or reducing the applicable tariff when imports exceed the applicable tariff rate quota.

What impact will Bill C-282 have in concrete terms? The first commitment the government makes in negotiating a treaty is signing it. By signing the treaty, it indicates that it is satisfied with the text and commits, and I am using the word “commits” deliberately, to do what is necessary for it to be implemented.

By preventing the government from signing, should there be any breaches of supply management, Bill C-282 prevents it from introducing an implementation bill allowing for the treaty’s ratification and entry into force. Unless the matter returns to Parliament during the negotiations and before the treaty is signed and Parliament is requested to amend the law, supply management is completely protected.

Basically, with Bill C-282, supply management is taken off the bargaining table from the outset. It is a powerful tool to increase Canada’s bargaining power in trade negotiations. This bill does not disarm the government. On the contrary, it strengthens it.

Let us keep in mind that Bill C-282 has become necessary because the loopholes that have been created are preventing the system from working effectively by undermining the integrity of its constituent principles, namely, price, production and border controls.

For those who are unfamiliar with the concept, supply management is a key strategic tool for preserving our food self-sufficiency, regional development and land use. I will get back to this later. It is also a Canada-wide risk management tool designed to protect agricultural markets against price fluctuations.

The system is based on three major principles, three pillars. I am convinced that my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé will talk about his three-legged stool.

The first pillar is supply management through a production quota system derived from research on consumption, that is, consumer demand for dairy products. The Canadian Dairy Commission distributes quotas to each of the provinces, which, through their marketing boards or producer associations, sell these quotas to their own producers to ensure that production is aligned with domestic demand.

The second pillar is price controls. A floor price and a ceiling price are set to ensure that each link in the supply chain gets its fair share.

The third pillar is border control, and that is where fair trade agreements and the successive breaches that producers have had to deal with come in.

Supply management is a model envied around the world, especially in countries that have abolished it. Dairy producers in countries that dropped supply management are lobbying to have it reinstated. Increasingly, American dairy producers are questioning their government's decision to abolish supply management for their sector in the early 1990s. Indeed, for almost a decade, the price of milk in the U.S. has been plummeting, and small U.S. farms are no longer able to cover their production costs. This price level is usually attributed to overproduction. Each year, millions of gallons of milk are dumped in ditches. In 2016, more than 100 million gallons were thrown away. In 2018, Wisconsin lost more than 500 farms a week.

Of course, there is another argument that could be made against Bill C-282. Some people might think that since producers and processors have finally been compensated, sometimes after waiting more than four years, and are satisfied, concessions can be made from one agreement to another by compensating people afterwards.

Of course, no amount of compensation, no temporary one-off cheque, will cover the permanent structural damage and losses caused by the breaches in the free trade agreements. Supply management is not perfect, but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, especially in allowing all links in the chain to produce and to have fair and equitable incomes for everyone in the entire production chain. That is important.

The question we need to ask ourselves is this: Do we want to protect certain segments of our agricultural industry from foreign competition while abiding by the rules of the WTO agreements?

The answer is yes, especially since the supply management system follows those rules. Every country in the world protects its sensitive products. It is true for the U.S., with its sugar and cotton. It is true for Japanese rice. It is also true for Europe. It is not against the WTO’s rules, so let us do it.

Bill C-282 is not partisan, and neither is my approach in defending and promoting it. We simply needed to enshrine in law the good intentions repeated in Parliament for years.

During each trade negotiation, the House was unanimous in insisting that we keep the supply management system. It did so on November 22, 2005, in its negotiations with the WTO. It did so on September 26, 2017, in its renegotiation of NAFTA. It did so on February 7, 2018, this time for the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP. In every case, the House was unanimous, which means that government members, both Conservative and Liberal, agreed.

After that, things went awry. In the case of the CPTPP, CUSMA, or the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, and CETA, or the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, the government ended up partioning off parts of the marker. That is why we came up with Bill C-282 after Bill C-216 died on the Order Paper.

Although the Bloc Québécois is introducing this bill, it is not ours alone. It expresses the will of most parliamentarians. It expresses the will of our farmers, especially Quebec's supply-managed farmers, but also those all across Canada who have adopted this system.

In fact, I know that they are listening to us, and I would like to say hello. This bill is theirs as much as it is ours.

Along with my colleagues from Berthier—Maskinongé and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, I went to meet our producers and consumers. We found an agriculture sector that was more mobilized and optimistic than ever, convinced that we would succeed, and determined to defend and promote supply management at all costs.

We also met people who want to keep the supply management system because it has proven to be effective in terms of food autonomy and food security, especially so during the pandemic. Consumers see that they have access to sufficient, high-quality supplies at competitive prices. They want to shorten the distance between farm and table. They want farms run by people and not megafarms that run on overproduction and waste. I repeat that 100 million gallons are thrown out in the U.S. It is inconceivable.

In fact, if U.S. producers want to return to a supply management system, it is because their model based on overproduction favours only megaproducers and they are losing farms run by actual people, meaning that quality goes out the window. Do we want milk full of hormones from megafarms?

Consumers see the beneficial impact of supply management on sustainable agriculture, land use and the regional economy. Our producers deserve not to feel threatened every time a free trade agreement is negotiated. They want predictability. They want to be able to plan for the future, ensure their succession and maintain their quality standards. Is that too much to ask?

In conclusion, Bloc Québécois members are team players. Protecting and promoting supply management and the result of the vote on third reading are not only the work of the member for Montcalm. I want to point out the remarkable work and dedication of my colleague and friend, the member for Berthier-Maskinongé. I would also like to point out the excellent work of my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. He did a remarkable job in committee as spokesperson for international trade. Let us say that he honed his patience at the Standing Committee on International Trade.

I must also mention the unconditional support of the entire Bloc Québécois caucus, who not only stand behind me, but also and especially beside all supply-managed agricultural producers. At the end of this debate at third reading, I see that the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and the rest of the NDP support Bill C‑282. I thank the Minister of Agriculture for her unequivocal support and, by extension, that of her government. This type of support is invaluable. There is still some doubt among the 23 Conservatives who voted against Bill C‑282 in principle on second reading. I take nothing for granted, but time is of the essence.

All we need is another election for Bill C‑282 to suffer the same fate as Bill C‑216. This bill needs to be studied by the Senate, and could be delayed by senators who want to imitate the Conservative members who delayed the clause-by-clause study of Bill C‑282 in committee. Let us remain optimistic and assume that, considering what a majority there is in the House, our wise Senate will make the right choice.

The time has come to act. Every country protects the key sectors of its economy before engaging in free trade negotiations.

After all the motions that have been unanimously adopted by the House and all the expressions of good faith, followed by all the broken promises by successive governments of all stripes, if we truly respect the farmers who feed us, we have to put our words into action and pass Bill C-282, to ensure that not one more government will take it upon itself to sacrifice, on the altar of free trade, supply management, our agricultural model and the men and women who feed us.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

As everyone knows, we've been looking at this legislation over the past couple of weeks with regard to supply management, and I believe that we can all say that we support supply management and its existence in Canada to protect our domestic sectors. In fact, as I mentioned last time, I dare say I am probably the only member of this committee who has actually worked for one of the supply-managed sectors. I was a lobbyist during my time at Hill+Knowlton, and we had as our client the Dairy Farmers of Ontario. They were a client of mine, and I worked with them closely over a five-year period. I support supply management and what it means to our sector.

During the hearings, listening to the testimony of the various stakeholder groups that came out, there was a theme that we continued to hear, and it was always one of predictability and stability. Those who came from the supply-managed sectors would talk about wanting this piece of legislation because of the predictability and stability that it would provide. However, those in non-supply-managed sectors would also talk about that predictability and stability being put at risk because of what this legislation could potentially mean if it was adopted by this government, so I have great concerns.

As I mentioned last time during my comments, as legislators we're here to try to make the best bill possible. I'm trying to see if there is a better way to do it, to take a flawed bill and make it a bit better. As we heard during the testimony, even the honourable member who sponsored the bill hadn't reached out to trade experts to seek their opinion on whether this bill would bring about some challenges and difficulties for Canada. He said that it's essentially like Bill C-216 from the previous Parliament, and those comments were on the record—in the blues, as he said—and we could simply take those comments and go with them. Well, I found some concerns.

When I did that, I had the opportunity to read those blues. In June of 2021 some of the witnesses with us today spoke out against that piece of legislation and raised some concerns about it setting a dangerous precedent. When we're here now examining this bill, those concerns are not as strong, so I just have those questions. That's why I believe it would have benefited us to actually have the opportunity to bring in some trade experts and to hear their views.

I'm not going to read into testimony the comments about the previous bill and the comments of our witnesses here today who made comments on Bill C-216. I don't want to get into that. I just want to reiterate some of the concerns.

One of the gentlemen who live in my riding is retired now. He was a government employee. He worked with the Competition Bureau. He was here when supply-management systems were established. He came to me and raised his concerns about Bill C-282. I believe everyone has received a copy of the letter he submitted today. He talked about the bill not being needed.

He said this:

The bill is not needed to show support for supply management. As some have already suggested to the Committee, Bill C-282 does not address supply management itself but rather attempts to dictate Canada's approach to future trade negotiations.

As a trading nation, Canada's success internationally has been the ability to be flexible in trade negotiations and adjust as needed to achieve an agreement good enough for all Canadians, including the supply management sector. It is undeniable that over the years and the multitude of [successful] trade agreements negotiated around the world, Canada has earned a reputation as being a fair, knowledgeable, and respected negotiator. However, Bill C-282 sends a concerning signal that Canada's trade negotiators no longer have the necessary discretion to discuss the supply management sector during future trade negotiations.

In my view, this signal is not needed, and it will likely be perceived as a negative by the international trade community. If [this] bill becomes law, most trading partners will be looking for compensation in some form in return for honouring Canada's request to keep supply management off the table.

Those are just some of the concerns. I think that adequately expresses some concerns I have too with regard to this bill.

Again, my hope here, in sitting on this international trade committee, was to listen to the feedback and try to make this bill a bit better for everyone so that it could address the concerns of all agricultural sectors.

It's almost an analogy of parents in a family. You don't love one child more than you do another. I felt that was what was happening here. We had one sector asking for special consideration, essentially, over the views of others. That is why I propose this amendment, to provide a little more flexibility to the government as it moves forward.

I table this for my colleagues' consideration.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Chair, all these comments are about why I find it troubling that we're putting a finite time limit on ending debate on this piece of legislation. Our job as legislators is to take a piece of legislation and make it the best piece of legislation we can put before the House of Commons. That's my job. That's my pledge to the people I'm here to represent. This is a flawed piece of legislation and we can make it better.

Again, we all gave support at second reading. We also support supply management. To go back, I worked for the Dairy Farmers of Ontario during the 1990s and early 2000s, and I deeply support supply management. However, this bill is flawed. This is about taking a piece of legislation and making it better. Mr. Savard-Tremblay's motion prevents me from taking the necessary time to make this a better bill.

It's my right as a parliamentarian to use the information that I'm prepared to share, which is explaining to you why government officials in 2021 were adamantly opposed to legislation similar to this bill. However, today they are not. I think we need more examination. That's why we're calling for further studies. That should be looked at.

I'm just sharing with you my thoughts on this, Madam Chair. I'm going to continue doing that.

During the committee's hearing on this legislation on June 11, 2021, trade officials were able to attend and speak to this bill and present their feelings on the proposed actions to formalize excluding supply management from future trade agreements that Canada undertakes. I think it's important to present this information.

Doug Forsyth, director general of market access at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, stated in his opening remarks on June 11, 2021, “The intent of the bill is consistent with the long-standing Government of Canada policy to defend the integrity of Canada's supply management system.” We're all here and we can all share those views.

He then goes on to indicate some concerns when he mentions the following:

...amendment of the departmental act in the way in which Bill C-216 proposes carries risks. By limiting Canada's ability to engage on these issues, this amendment would invite negotiating partners to narrow the scope of their own potential commitments, taking issues off the table from the outset of negotiations, likely in the areas of commercial interest to Canada. This narrows possible outcomes, precludes certain compromises and makes it harder to reach an agreement.

Addressing the interest of any specific sector in the act would set a precedent that could lead to demands for additional amendments to reflect other foreign and trade policy objectives, including sectoral interests, further constraining the government's ability to negotiate and sign international trade agreements and, more generally, to manage Canada's international relations.

Further on in his opening remarks, he mentions this:

The government has made public commitments not to make further concessions on supply-managed products in future trade negotiations. In fact, Canada has been able to successfully conclude 15 trade agreements that cover 51 countries while preserving Canada's supply management system, including its three pillars: production control, pricing mechanisms and import controls.

Most recently, the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement fully protects Canada's dairy, poultry and egg sectors and provides no new incremental market access for cheese or any other supply-managed product. Where new market access has been provided, specifically and exclusively in the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA; the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP; and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, CUSMA, the access was deemed necessary to include an agreement that was in Canada's interest.

While new access was provided in those agreements, the supply management system and its three pillars were maintained. These outcomes were part of the overall balance of concessions through which Canada maintained preferential market access to the United States and secured new access to the European Union, Japan, Vietnam and other key markets.

In conclusion, while the spirit of Bill C-216 is consistent with the government's policy of defending the integrity of Canada's supply management system, amending the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act as proposed by the bill would change its nature and create risks.

During that hearing, my colleague Mr. Aboultaif from Edmonton Manning asked Mr. Forsyth the following question:

With different markets and different conditions when you negotiate trade deals, you have to have flexibility and you have to have options in order to be able to achieve agreements. I know that Bill C-216 is aiming to somehow further protect supply management or preserve it, as Mr. Forsyth just said, but in the meantime, it carries risk, which Mr. Forsyth also stated in his opening remarks.

What I'm interested in is this. Although we've signed so many trade agreements without having to really jeopardize the supply management system and we have successfully done that throughout its history—and we have so many trade agreements that I don't have to mention it at the moment—the question is, are there any live examples out there that can advise us on what the consequences will be in the long run if Bill C-216 is implemented, since we know that we will lose that flexibility and we will be limiting our team of negotiators on the road when they try to achieve trade agreements with countries in the world?

Mr. Forsyth's remarks were revealing in the sense that they told us what would happen if proposed legislation such as Bill C-282 were to be implemented. Speaking to Bill C-216 Mr. Forsyth states:

I would just note off the top that our supply management system, as you've indicated, has not stopped us or hampered us from concluding any trade agreements, but I think what is certainly possible is that the wording proposed for this bill will give trade negotiating partners pause with respect to wanting to engage with Canada. From a trade negotiator's perspective, when we start a negotiation, we like to start with the full possibility of access in the back of our minds, whether or not that's where we end up. It's rarely the case that you would see 100% access in any free trade agreement, but you like to at least start with that notion in mind.

As you go through a negotiation with your various partners, you find that interests are enunciated, elaborated and narrowed down. You understand what's in the art of the possible, but you like to start as wide as possible when you do launch those negotiations. When you start—

I think this is key.

—from a very narrow band of possibilities and then that gets narrowed, the scope of the negotiations and the scope of the agreement is very much smaller than you would have seen otherwise.

If we were to end up with this bill as it is written, I think very much that we would start with a much smaller scope of negotiations with various partners. It wouldn't be unusual for them to say “That's fine. Canada has taken these issues right out of play. We will take issues that are of interest to Canada right out of play.” Then you're talking about negotiating from a smaller pie, as it were.

I think that's huge.

Then Mr. Aaron Fowler, who was chief agriculture negotiator and director general of trade agreement and negotiations at the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food at the time, provided some comments on this by indicating, “I would certainly agree with everything Doug has said so far and associate myself with his response.”

Further on in questioning, presented this time by Ms. Bendayan from Outremont, Mr. Forsyth was asked, “Mr. Forsyth, could you explain to us whether, in your view, the adoption of this bill is necessary for the government to continue to defend Canada's supply management system?” Mr. Forsyth responded with this:

As I mentioned in my opening statement, since supply management was introduced, which was well over 50 years ago, various governments of various stripes have been very clear about defending the supply management system and ensuring that everyone understands how well it works for producers and farmers all across Canada.

I think the government has done a very good job of promoting and ensuring that all of our trading partners understand what supply management is. It's certainly part and parcel of all trade negotiators' mandates that we understand it well, that our trading partners understand it well, and that throughout the world, whether bilaterally or multilaterally—for example, at the World Trade Organization—it is well known what Canada's policy is.

To answer your question as to whether it would have any effect, I think that, as I said, the policy is well known and well understood, so I am not sure that there would be any.

Imagine my surprise, then, when after reviewing just some of the testimony from 2021, some differing views began being postulated by government trade officials when they came before us to examine Bill C-282.

I want to again bring into the record some of the comments of Mr. Fowler, who is now the associate assistant deputy minister at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. He provided opening comments during his visit to our first session. In his comments, Mr. Fowler stated:

The intent of [Bill C-282] is consistent with the long-standing Government of Canada policy to defend the integrity of Canada's supply management system. In practice, this policy has allowed Canada to successfully conclude 15 ambitious free trade agreements covering 51 countries while preserving Canada's supply management system, including its three pillars of production control, pricing mechanisms and import controls.

These comments are almost verbatim to those provided in 2021; however, Mr. Fowler then goes on to indicate:

...Bill C-282 proposes to make the government's commitment to make no further market access commitments for supply-managed products into a legal requirement by amending the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. This would strengthen the policy of defending the integrity of Canada's supply management system by enshrining it into law.

These comments seem to contradict the viewpoints and position of government officials, primarily those of Mr. Forsyth, who on Friday, June 11, when speaking to Bill C-216 from the 43rd session of Parliament, stated:

By limiting Canada's ability to engage on these issues, this amendment would invite negotiating partners to narrow the scope of their own potential commitments, taking issues off the table from the outset of negotiations, likely in the areas of commercial interest.... This narrows possible outcomes, precludes certain compromises and makes it harder to reach an agreement.

Madam Chair, I think I'll wrap up my comments there and leave it to my colleague Mr. Seeback.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I apologize to this committee, Madam Chair, for that slight. It was an oversight.

I'll go back. Again, I'm speaking to Mr. Savard-Tremblay's motion, why we need further examination and why I deem his motion unacceptable. I'm going back to some of the comments I made and some of the experts we've heard from.

I'll finish up the quote from our initial meetings. Again, this is with Mr. Arya from Nepean, our colleague, when he was talking to Mr. Thériault during the initial conversations. I'm going to go back and start over. He said this to Mr. Thériault:

International trade is very important to Canada. Almost two-thirds of our GDP comes from international trade. Our prosperity and the standard of living that we enjoy today are basically due to international trade.

What your bill proposes will almost kill the ability of Canada to further our international trade, not only in terms of the new trade agreements we need to negotiate but even for the existing ones. There will always be issues there that need to be looked into.

Even with our small number of Canadian farmers, we are ranked fifth largest worldwide in terms of exports. There is a tiny number of Canadian farmers.

He went on to say:

Have you consulted with Pulse Canada, the Canola Council, the Grain Growers of Canada, the Canadian Pork Council, Cereals Canada or the Canadian Cattle Association? These are the sectors that work hard and that are the first to leverage every new international trade agreement Canada signs so we can increase exports from Canada. Have you consulted with any of them?

Unfortunately, this committee did not receive a detailed response to that specific question. It was not for lack of trying by Mr. Arya, however, who again asked:

I would like to ask the witness again: 90% of the farms and agri-food businesses that are represented by the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance say they strongly oppose Bill C-282. When I was listening to the witness's comment, Madam Chair, I heard the fluctuations and how, when it fluctuates downwards, small producers will get decimated.

The same thing applies to every single industrial and business sector, so every single sector can demand a clause like this, barring the government from negotiating anything to do with their sector when it goes in for new free trade agreement negotiations. It means that Canadian international trade has to collapse. Is that not the case?

These are very valid comments raised by my honourable colleague, which is more troubling, I would suggest, when you consider they are the same views held by many government officials who came before this committee in 2021 to study a bill very similar to Bill C-282. Bill C-216, from the 43rd Parliament, was tabled before, and it was an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act with regard to supply management.

If I could—I apologize—I just need a little water.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity to speak to the motion of my colleague Mr. Savard-Tremblay, which was submitted to committee members by way of notice of motion on Thursday, April 13, 2023.

As written, the motion reads:

That the Committee commence clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-282—An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management) on Thursday, April 20, 2023; that the Committee allocate a maximum of four consecutive hours, divided into no more than two meetings, to complete the said study; and that, if at the end of the four hours provided for, the Committee has not completed its deliberations, Bill C-282 be deemed to have been adopted, and that it be thereby referred back to the House.

At this point, let me first say that I find this motion entirely disappointing simply in that this committee has yet to conclude discussions in consideration of motions that have already been tabled at this committee. In fact, these motions were submitted by my colleague Mr. Seeback. One notice of motion was submitted on Tuesday, March 28, 2023, and stated:

That the committee extend, by at least 2 meetings, the study on Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), to ensure trade experts are able to provide testimony and for departmental officials to return before clause-by-clause to speak to questions raised about their initial testimony.

Another notice of motion was submitted by Mr. Seeback on Tuesday, March 28, 2023, which stated:

That the committee hold one additional meeting to invite back departmental officials prior to clause-by-clause, to testify on Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), regarding urgent concerns raised about the legislation during witness testimony; and that the committee hold no less than three additional meetings to ensure all witnesses can testify in person.

Second, in terms of the motion put forward by Mr. Savard-Tremblay, I find it an insult to my parliamentary privilege that somehow, if discussion and debate on this legislation are not completed in a time period designated by my colleague only, this committee will then deem the legislation to have been passed. I deem that to be an affront to my privileges and to those of the citizens who sent me here.

If you know anything about my fine riding of Niagara Falls, it's that it is home to, I would suggest—and this is not to be taken as a slight to my colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay—the best wine region in Canada. We continue to pay the price of this government's regressive escalator clause on alcohol, which was passed by this Liberal government in 2017 despite Conservative objections. What is the result? Every year without parliamentary approval, our sector suffers a continued death by a thousand cuts in having to pay more taxes when the margins within the sector are already thin.

If I may, I will remind the members of this trade committee that it was the actions of the minister in not negotiating a resolution to the creation of this new escalator clause that resulted in Canada's losing a World Trade Organization challenge to our previous excise exemption for 100% Canadian-made wines. As you will remember, when this exemption was put in place by a previous Conservative government in 2006, the industry grew from some 300 to 400 wineries to over 700 wineries employing over 9,000 workers.

Why do I raise this? It's because government actions or lack thereof matter. Every member of this committee has signalled their support for our supply-management system. I dare say I may be the only one who worked directly for one of those sectors when I worked as a consultant for the Dairy Farmers of Ontario in the late 1990s and the early 2000s. However, that work has not clouded my judgment or my desire to study, examine and perhaps make recommendations, which can take what I believe is a flawed piece of legislation and make it one that everyone can support and subsequently vote on, rather than what my colleague's motion proposes to do, which is to simply deem this legislation adopted.

As the member from Dufferin—Caledon has indicated, many questions remain, not only based on the testimony provided by our government officials but by several others who have yet to have an opportunity to appear. Would this international trade committee not benefit in any way from hearing from international trade experts? Why is there hesitancy in that? Surely, if Canada's chief NAFTA negotiator, Steve Verheul, could be invited to attend the recent state dinner held in honour of the President of the United States' visit to Canada, he could be invited to appear before this committee so we can ask him his opinion on this legislation.

In terms of the concerns I would like to raise, they simply come from the interactions of the bill's sponsor, the honourable member for Montcalm, Mr. Thériault, when he presented the legislation to this committee on Thursday, February 16, 2023. During the initial questions, my colleague Mr. Seeback asked Mr. Thériault, “Did you consult any other agricultural groups with respect to their views on this piece of legislation, and if you did not, why not?” In response, Mr. Thériault stated, “If memory serves, the other groups stated their positions during the study of Bill C-216. One only has to look at the blues to see what their views are.”

Mr. Seeback then followed up by asking Mr. Thériault, “Outside of agricultural groups, did you consult any other industries—for example, aluminum or steel—on whether they thought that taking supply management out of the minister's ability to negotiate an international trade agreement would affect their opportunities within a trade agreement?” Mr. Thériault's response was, “No, absolutely not.”

I'm not sure if others are concerned by this; however, I am. When a piece of legislation that has the potential to fundamentally change how our government and trade officials undertake negotiations in the best interests of all Canadians is fundamentally changed, one would think the input of trade experts in other agricultural sectors would be taken into account.

I think this point was made quite strongly by our colleague Mr. Arya from Nepean when he stated at the meeting, “International trade is very important to Canada. Almost two-thirds of our GDP comes from international trade. Our prosperity and the standard of living that we enjoy today are basically due to international trade.” He then posits his views:

What your bill proposes will almost kill the ability of Canada to further our international trade, not only in terms of the new trade agreements we need to negotiate but even for the existing ones. There will always be issues there that need to be looked into.

Even with our small number of Canadian farmers, we are ranked fifth largest worldwide in terms of exports. There is a tiny number of Canadian farmers.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I always find it very interesting and curious when members from the Liberal Party say, when we're trying to do due diligence, debate or look into issues, that it's obstruction and that we're against things.

Nothing can be further from the truth. I will be visiting farms in my riding over the break, in particular dairy farmers, who I know work so hard. I doubt that the parliamentary secretary will be visiting dairy farmers in his riding over the break.

To go back to where I was, this was Mr. Dhaliwal's question. He said:

My question is for Mr. Forsyth. He mentioned numerous times that there are some risks involved. One of them, he mentioned, is a narrow outcome. I would like to ask him to explain or elaborate on those risks and the potential impacts.

Mr. Forsyth replied:

I'd be happy to elaborate on some of those risks and what would happen in a trade negotiation if one were to be negotiating with not the full basket of items on the table. I highlighted it in one of my earlier answers, but I'm happy to flag it again.

I think that as a trade negotiator you like to start the negotiation with as many items on the table as possible. It does potentially allow for trade-offs and allows for a broad discussion with your trading partner in order to understand what is within the art of the possible.

It is incumbent on us as trade negotiators to make sure that our trading partners understand our key defensive interests and what our red lines are and what things we cannot do. As I've said, throughout my negotiating career, it's been clear that concessions made in the supply management sector are red lines. That is what was in my mandate for the Canada-UK TCA and that was what was respected.

If we were to start from the position that we would not be dealing with 100% of the items that we would negotiate on, it does risk having an agreement that's not necessarily completely beneficial to Canadian exporters and producers and it does risk being an agreement that does not necessarily provide the full economic benefits to Canada that one might have expected.

This is, to me, just an absolutely incredible paragraph. It sets out how deeply concerned Mr. Forsyth was with respect to Bill C-216, which is now effectively the exact same as Bill C-282, yet we did not get 10% of that concern when we were hearing from government officials when we were talking about Bill C-282.

The answer continued:

We have not faced that yet to date, but it is possible that if we were to go down the path provided in Bill C-216, that is in fact what we would do. It would be quite likely that our trading partners would take off the table something of interest to Canadian exporters and producers, and then we would be faced with the situation of negotiating an agreement that might not be as beneficial to Canada as it could be.

Here we are today, talking about what's been studied with respect to Bill C-282. What we've talked about is that we need additional meetings. Why do we need additional meetings? Well, for one thing, we did not get evidence like this during the study of Bill C-282. We got nothing like this from government officials.

What is something that we proposed? We proposed that we should have some trade experts come to the committee to talk about this. That's what we're asking for. We've been asking for this for quite some time.

Madam Chair, if you recall, I had a similar motion with respect to this. The committee meeting was adjourned, and the committee did not recognize the need to have additional meetings as a result of that adjournment.

Nothing, quite frankly, could be further from the truth, because—and this is the really critical part of that statement—we would be faced with the situation of “negotiating an agreement that might not be as beneficial to Canada as it could be”.

That's the effect, from our government officials with regard to Bill C-216, which is identical to Bill C-282, yet we're moving through here on Bill C-282 without seemingly any consideration for this or any desire to have a more in-depth conversation with, perhaps, trade experts.

We certainly have Mr. Verheul on our list of witnesses. He would be an expert and someone who could give us very clear guidance on how serious an impact this would have on our negotiating positions.

He went on to say, “Maybe I'll turn to my colleague from Agriculture Canada to see if he'd like to add anything.” Mr. Fowler then went on to say, “Thank you very much. No, I fully agree....” He fully agrees.

We can ask what he fully agrees with. Well, I would say that he fully agrees that if we were to go down the path provided in Bill C-216, if that is in fact what we would do, it is quite likely that our trading partners would take off the table something of interest to Canada, and we would be faced with a situation of negotiating an agreement that might not be as beneficial to Canada as it could be. Under Bill C-216, we have very clear agreement from government officials about the significant consequences that this bill could have. Well, actually, I think it's what they think the consequences of the bill would be if it were passed, and we got just a modicum of that concern when they came back to talk about Bill C-282. Again, this gives me grave concerns, grave concerns about what we should actually believe.

Quite frankly, the only way to get an answer to that is if we have these gentlemen come back to committee and give them pointed questions with respect to the evidence they gave under Bill C-216 and the evidence they gave under Bill C-282 and have them answer those questions. That's the only way we will get to the bottom of this inconsistency.

The rest of Mr. Fowler's answer is as follows:

No, I fully agree...trade negotiation has reached what we call a balance of commitments or a balance of concessions or a commensurate level of ambition with your trading partner.

That's an important phrase: “level of ambition with your trading partner.”

He continued:

To the extent there are issues that are of interest...that we're not in a position to discuss, the reasonable conclusion would be that the overall level of ambition of the agreement would necessarily be diminished as a result of that position.

They are very clearly stating that not only is it going to be challenging from a negotiating perspective, but the level of ambition of the agreement would be diminished, which I think is interesting, because when we had Mr. Troy Sherman come to talk about this at our committee—Mr. Sherman is from the Canola Council of Canada—this is what he had to say:

My name is Troy Sherman, and I am the director of government relations for the Canola Council of Canada. The council encompasses all links in the canola value chain. Our members include canola growers, life science companies, grain handlers, exporters, processors and others. Our shared goal is [to ensure] the industry's continued growth and success, and [to do this] by meeting global demand for canola and canola-based products, which include food, feed and fuel.

Canola's success is Canada's success. Our industry represents almost $30 billion in economic activity annually, 207,000 jobs across the country, $12 billion in wages and the largest share of farm cash receipts in the country. With over 90% of Canadian canola exported to as many as 50 different markets, the canola industry depends on ambitious and fair science- and rules-based trade.

For many years, we have worked with Canada's trade negotiators to make sure that Canada and Canadian canola are well positioned to help feed the world. Central to these trade negotiations is the foundational principle that negotiators should be empowered to reach the best agreements for Canadians and the Canadian economy. Negotiators have been able to achieve this by availing themselves of all the tools in our trade-negotiating tool box, working closely with industry, academics and civil society to ensure [that] Canada's trade agreements achieve what is in our national interest.

This is what is being said to achieve the national interests, and we go back to what Mr. Forsyth said, which was that “it does risk being an agreement that does not necessarily provide the full economic benefits to Canada that one might have expected.”

Mr. Sherman went on to say this:

Bill C-282 risks undermining Canada's reputation as a trading nation and, consequently, [undermining] our national interest [in] trade negotiations. [Bill C-282] does this in a number of ways, including putting in place legislative prohibitions on what our negotiators [are able to] discuss at the negotiation table and diminishing Canada's desirability as a market with which to pursue trade agreements.

When you talk about the level of ambition, Mr. Sherman was saying exactly the same thing: “diminishing Canada's desirability as a market with which to pursue trade agreements.”

He went on:

On the first point, Bill C-282 [is proposing to prohibit] what Canada's trade negotiators can discuss at the negotiation table. To the best of our knowledge, and as noted by officials at Global Affairs Canada, no other country legislatively prohibits negotiators from discussing certain topics during trade negotiations. Canada would be an outlier, and needlessly so.

In [March] 2021, an official from Global Affairs appeared before this very committee on Bill C-216 [a] predecessor [to Bill C-282]. At the time, they stated the following, “Canada has been able to successfully conclude 15 trade agreements that cover 51 countries while preserving Canada's supply management system”.

So Mr. Sherman was also aware of the evidence that Government of Canada officials had given under Bill C-216. He went on:

The official went on to say:

If we were to start from the position that we would not be dealing with 100% of the items that we would negotiate on, it does risk having an agreement that's not necessarily completely beneficial to Canadian exporters and producers and it does risk being an agreement that does not necessarily provide the full economic benefits to Canada that one might have expected.

He said:

What was true when [that] was said two years ago remains true today. Bill C-282 is a solution in search of a problem and...risks undermining other industries and sectors of the economy, including Canadian canola. Passing Bill C-282 will set a dangerous precedent for additional amendments to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, [in order] to either protect certain industries or mandate restrictive language in trade agreements in specific areas of interest.

Regarding the second challenge mentioned, Bill C-282 will significantly diminish Canada's desirability as a country with which to pursue trade negotiations.

Let's go back. Canola represents $30 billion in economic activity for this country annually, 207,000 jobs across the country. Think about that for a second: 207,000 jobs and $12 billion in wages. They are very deeply concerned with this bill.

I've lost my spot here. Mr. Sherman continued:

By legislating that our negotiators are not able to include supply management as part of the negotiations, Canada is significantly shrinking the trade prospect pie and potentially forcing Canadian concessions in other areas of interest. If Canada is viewed as an obstacle for new entrants to plurilateral agreements, or less attractive to engage with—given our legislated red line on supply management—our trading partners may question the value of having Canada at the negotiation table.

To conclude, Bill C-282 represents a significant departure from Canada's principled, fair and rules-based...trade posture. No industry, sector or issue should be off the table during trade negotiations. Our trade negotiators have delivered tangible results and benefits for the Canadian economy and industries, including canola.

Mr. Sherman is right on point with what Mr. Fowler said with respect to Bill C-216, that the reasonable conclusion would be that the overall level of ambition of the agreement would be diminished as a result of that position, that position being that we take a certain sector of the Canadian economy off the trade agenda.

Mr. Dhaliwal then asked—and this I think is quite interesting, because this also never came out in the discussion with government officials with respect to Bill C-282. He said:

Madam Chair, it's also mentioned that in introducing specific policy objectives, the proposed amendments wouldn't fundamentally change the nature of the departmental act. I would like to hear an elaboration on that particular issue as well, please.

Mr. Forsyth then said this:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

If you look at the act itself, it...is an organizational statute that sets out in general terms what the powers and duties and functions are for...ministers. It does not have any specific policies related to what the Minister of International Trade, the Minister of International Development or the Minister of Foreign Affairs ought to be doing. It doesn't elaborate on any government policies of the day. It's a general act that sets out the terms and conditions, if you will, for the department and for the ministers and the deputy ministers. It's not policy—

This is the danger with putting something like this within that act. You are actually putting policy into the act. What happens if others decide that we should be putting policy, not just trade, into the act, or perhaps putting foreign policy into the act or international development policy into the act? It sets a terrible, terrible precedent, something that we should absolutely have departmental officials back to talk about, especially considering the fact that their testimony seems so starkly different from one committee appearance to the other.

Mr. Lobb then had this question:

The first question I have is for Mr. Forsyth.

Again, thank you for appearing before our committee. I think you've been in the lead for most appearances since I've been on the committee—maybe you and the minister—so congratulations on being available.

When we say that we can't ever say we're not going to put certain items forward at the beginning of the trade negotiation, I understand the sentiment, but I'm curious that when we were doing the USMCA deal, softwood lumber never made its way on there and buy America really never got resolved either.

How does that happen?

Mr. Forsyth said:

I wasn't directly involved with the broader Canada-U.S.-Mexico negotiation at the time, but my understanding is that we certainly did start with the broadest possible negotiating objectives, including trying to deal with softwood lumber in some way, shape or form, as well as trying to deal with trying to negotiate a government procurement chapter in relation to the buy America provisions. It was clear, as we started to narrow down the issues, that the United States would not engage on either of those issues, so they were put aside...

Imagine if, in six years, as we heard from the committee, we looked at the CUSMA agreement and this piece of legislation was in place. What would the effect of that be with respect to that renegotiation? I think that's something that we have to get some expert advice on.

The other issue is this. It's interesting that there was an attempt to discuss softwood lumber in the renegotiation of CUSMA. Right now, the Minister of International Trade is trying to resolve the softwood lumber dispute. It would be interesting to see what effect Bill C-282 would have on her ability to negotiate softwood lumber. We know that the United States has complaints right now with respect to how the TRQs are allocated within CUSMA for dairy. Would this bill be an aggravating circumstance in trying to negotiate the resolution of the softwood lumber dispute, a dispute that now has collected over $8 billion in duties?

Based on the last softwood lumber settlement, Canada would be entitled to $6 billion of those duties being returned. I can only imagine what the Canadian softwood lumber industry could do with $6 billion in improvements, in machinery and equipment and perhaps the ability to export more to the United States.

Again, these are very serious questions with respect to the implications of this bill. Therefore, this is something that we absolutely need to have more meetings to discuss, because we quite frankly do not have the answers to any of that. We can go back to what we heard from department officials and what Mr. Arya asked Mr. Fowler:

Mr. Fowler, you indicated rightly that without this bill, Canada has been able to limit access and protect the supply management that we have today.

Why do we need this bill at all?

He said:

I am quite certain I am not the person to ask that question of, Madam Chair.

This is interesting, because under Bill C-216 they seemed to suggest that Bill C‑216 is not necessary at all, and Bill C‑216 is the exact same bill as Bill C-282.

We have to ask ourselves why, when they came to committee the first time, they suggested that the bill was not really necessary, but this time when they come back and they were asked a direct question—do you think the bill is necessary?—they decided not to answer. It's a bit of a head-scratcher, isn't it? The first time: We don't think this bill is necessary. This time: I don't think I'm the right person to answer this question.

That really gives me pause. That says to me that something has happened, and a witness who answered a question one time now won't answer a question another time. This is a very head-scratching situation.

Mr. Arya tried again:

Okay, I'll ask this one.

If this bill is passed...you are going to say that it will not affect you in any way. Is there no constraint on you at all in negotiating any new agreement?

He got this response:

I think it would be disingenuous of me to suggest that a piece of legislation that's before the Canadian Parliament would have no impact. I believe the intent of the bill is to have an impact. My conclusion is that it will have an impact.

I can't speculate on precisely what that impact will be, because I don't know who [we'll] be negotiating with in the future or what their interests would be in the context of those negotiations.

Now, that is a very interesting way to say, “I can't speculate on what the impact would be.” It's interesting, because at the last committee hearing, Mr. Forsyth said this:

If we were to end up with this bill as it is written, I think very much that we would start with a much smaller scope of negotiations with various partners. It wouldn't be unusual for them to say, “That's fine. Canada has taken these issues right out of play. We will take issues that are of interest to Canada...out of play.” Then you're talking about negotiating from a smaller pie, as it were.

Here, on Bill C-282, it's “I can't speculate on...what [the] impact would be.” It would seem to me that when Bill C-216 was being studied at committee, our department officials had a very good idea of what the impact would be, but somehow, in some strange way, they suddenly didn't think they could anticipate what the impact would be.

This is another example of why we need additional meetings. This is another example of why department and government officials need to come back to this committee and explain exactly what has changed. Why have their views changed? Why are they saying different things?

I'm going to go on with this a little more, because Mr. Arya was quite persistent in his questions. I suspect he perhaps saw some of the previous evidence that was given by department officials and was trying to get some answers. Mr. Arya said:

You are stating that your hands would have been tied, sort of, if this bill had been there.

Coming back to the CUSMA, the next president of the United States might tank this again and seek to renegotiate.

If this bill passes, what will Canada's position be in those negotiations?

I would think Mr. Fowler would have said, based on what was said by the Government of Canada under Bill C-216, that this would be difficult; this would tie our hands; this would narrow the scope of our ability to negotiate. Unfortunately, that's not what he said.

He said:

I believe, Madam Chair, that the position would, by necessity, be consistent with what is set out in the piece of legislation that is before the committee. That is to say that Canadian negotiators could advance no additional market access in these sectors, nor could the government of the day accept to make such concessions.

This is much less forthcoming an answer to a question than what we saw when Bill C-216 was here at this committee, and again, it is an identical bill.

Mr. Arya is a determined man. He wasn't prepared to let that go, so he asked another question:

My concern is that it will affect negotiating an overall trade agreement with the United States and Mexico with terms like the current one, which are favourable to Canada.

Finally Mr. Fowler admitted, “It would have an impact on these negotiations. I think it—”

Mr. Arya said, “Would it be a negative impact?”

Mr. Fowler said:

Given the United States' interest in the dairy sector in particular in Canada, I think an inability to discuss those issues would make it more difficult to reach a conclusion.

Again, this answer is very hedgy, very hedgy, not the very clear declarations that Mr. Fowler was giving in the previous study of this bill. I find it, again, enormously challenging for us, as parliamentarians, to be at this committee and to say, let's rush to clause-by-clause; let's just get it done. We have completely inconsistent statements from our government officials as to what the effect would be.

We know, for example, that just for the canola sector, Mr. Sherman talked about $30 billion in economic activity, $12 billion in wages, and the largest share of farm cash receipts in the country. They are extraordinarily concerned about this bill. They believe it is going to have an extremely detrimental impact on future trade negotiations and a detrimental impact on their ability to export products. They are a major exporter, and they provide $12 billion in wages to Canadian families from coast to coast to coast.

We know how difficult it is to make ends meet right now. I suspect that if you don't have a job, it's going to be much, much more difficult than that.

Mr. Arya then said:

There will be a negative impact.

The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, which represents 90% of Canadian farmers, producers, food manufacturers and agri-food businesses that depend on trade, says it strongly oppose[s] Bill C-282. It stated, “This legislation creates a dangerous precedent and diminishes Canada as a free trade partner.”

Do you agree with this statement?

Again, this is where it gets interesting, because the answer we get here is very different from the answer we got before. I'll start with the answer to Mr. Arya's question:

I am familiar with this statement, the views of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance and its concerns. I have discussed these issues with the [trade] alliance in the past.

I think it is the job of Canadian negotiators to ensure that we operate to the maximum advantage of Canadian industry stakeholders, irrespective of the mandate and operating environment in which we...work. We will continue to do that.

The statement is talking about how it's a dangerous precedent. Mr. Arya is asking Mr. Fowler if he agrees with this, and Mr. Fowler is once again very, very careful with his answer. I mean, he's so careful that he almost doesn't say anything.

If we go back to Bill C-216, though, Mr. Forsyth was asked this question and gave this reply:

I'd be happy to elaborate on some of those risks and what would happen in a trade negotiation if one were to be negotiating with not the full basket of items on the table. I highlighted it in one of my earlier answers, but I'm happy to flag it again.

Mr. Forsyth was very clear and forthcoming under questioning as to the impact of Bill C-216—very clear. All the department officials who came were very clear on Bill C-216. Mr. Forsyth was very clear in the answers, and Mr. Fowler was also very clear in answers.

I'll go back to Mr. Forsyth:

If we were to start from the position that we would not be dealing with 100% of the items that we would negotiate on, it does risk having an agreement that's not necessarily completely beneficial to Canadian exporters and producers and it does risk being an agreement that does not necessarily provide the full economic benefits to Canada that one might have expected.

We have not faced that yet to date, but it is possible that if we were to go down the path provided in Bill C-216, that is in fact what we would do. It would be quite likely that our trading partners would take off the table something of interest to Canadian exporters and producers, and then we would be faced with the situation of negotiating an agreement that might not be as beneficial to Canada as it could be.

Then he turned it over to his colleague from Agriculture Canada, Mr. Fowler, who said this:

Thank you very much.

No, I fully agree....

Let's go back to Mr. Arya's question:

The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, which represents 90% of Canadian farmers, producers, food manufacturers and agri-food businesses that depend on trade, says it strongly oppose[s] Bill C-282. It stated, “This legislation creates a dangerous precedent and diminishes Canada as a free trade partner.”

Do you agree with this statement?

A very similar question was asked under Bill C-216. I just gave you part of that answer, where Mr. Fowler was saying he agreed that this would have a serious...that it would diminish Canada as a free trade partner, but somehow, under Bill C-282, this is the answer we get:

I'm familiar with this statement.

Okay. That's great.

I have discussed these issues with the alliance....

I think it is the job of Canadian negotiators to ensure that we operate to the maximum advantage of...industry stakeholders, irrespective of the mandate and operating environment in which we...work. We will continue to do that.

It's a completely different answer. It's almost a complete evasion of the question, and we, as a committee, are just supposed to say, “Well, there's nothing to see here, because what they said under Bill C-282 is all that we should be concerned about.” They said something almost diametrically opposed last time. As parliamentarians, we should just move on. We're busy. Let's not have an extra meeting or two to try to get to the bottom of it. It's only $12 billion of salaries for Canadian workers that are at risk, so let's move on. There's nothing to see here.

To me, these are incredibly concerning issues. The government officials say that they understand the concerns, and, sort of, that's it, but they're not going to acknowledge them. That's where we are under Bill C-282. Under Bill C-216 is it very, very different, and I find that, Madam Chair, to be deeply and extraordinarily challenging, something that I am very unhappy with, and something, quite frankly, it really wouldn't be too hard for this committee to get to the bottom of. We need a few extra meetings.

My motion talks about one additional meeting to invite departmental officials back prior to clause-by-clause, not only because we heard such fearful testimony on other aspects of the Canadian economy but also, I think, because perhaps departmental officials would like to clear up how their statements seem to be wildly inconsistent. That's my perspective.

I was a litigation lawyer for over a decade. When you see statements that are wildly inconsistent, you think you have to get to the bottom of them. If you don't, you don't actually know where the truth lies.

I think that's reason number one that we should be looking at this. We need the department officials to come back. We need to ask them questions similar to the questions I've asked today. Everyone on this committee should want that and should want to demand the answers.

That's what I have to say with respect to that, but the other issue is this.

Madam Chair, you had a question on where I was.

That was the first point I wanted to make with respect to this motion. I have four points in total, and I'm going to move to my second point now, which is the fact that we need additional stakeholders to come to speak to this.

We have had so many people come to talk about this and raise concerns. One of the ones I thought were quite powerful and we really didn't get much information on, because of, again, the limited amount of time we had at committee to study this, was Mr. Joe Dal Ferro, the chair of the International Cheese Council of Canada.

He was talking about his association:

The ICCC was founded in 1976. We are an association of small and medium-sized cheese importers and their suppliers. Our members are Canadian-based importers of cheese. Our associate members include cheese producers and processors from various countries that have international trade agreements with Canada.

It was actually Mr. Cannings who had some very interesting questions for them to try to understand what they were talking about. It is a complex issue, and I don't think in a five-minute intervention we're able to get to the bottom of it.

He stated:

The ICCC has coexisted with Canada's supply-managed dairy sector for over four decades and accepts the rationale underlying Canada's supply management system.

They are also supporters of supply management. They are not advocating for its dismantling.

He continued:

Rather, we are continuing to work with the government to ensure that its TRQ allocation and administration system respects our trade commitments in the dairy sector. Moreover, many of our members, including my company, are proud to be distributors of domestic cheeses [all] across...Canada.

I am here today to offer the committee several compelling reasons why Bill C-282 should not be supported by parliamentarians.

First, parliamentarians must...consider the significant negative financial impacts...this bill will have on the many Canadian small to [mid]-sized businesses that import cheese. The future for Canadian importers of cheese is already uncertain. This bill is only adding to the unpredictability. The unknown outcome of Global Affairs' TRQ phase II review—which initially started in 2019—is creating ambiguity and inhibiting business planning. Moreover, it may require importers to significantly change their business methods and model if the new quota policy is unfavourable to our industry.

If Bill C-282 becomes law, it risks obstructing even the possibility of addressing the market access requested by the U.K. as part of the ongoing bilateral negotiations. If the U.K. is forced to settle for a portion of the WTO non-EU quota, Canadian importers will be limited to exclusively using this method...to import British cheeses.

Now, this is the important part. He went on to say, “This pool is already fully utilized....”

What is effectively being said by this gentleman is that if Bill C-282 becomes law.... The U.K. left its quota in the EU when Brexit happened. Its quota was left with the EU. It has some quota now through the transitional provisions as we're negotiating the FTA, but if Bill C-282 passes, then there can be no additional dairy access granted to the U.K.

This bill is happening right in the middle of trade negotiations. Our negotiators are there, trying to negotiate a deal, and hanging over their head is the fact that this bill could pass and completely upheave the negotiations, because maybe there's going to be some dairy access for the U.K. We know they want it, but if this bill passes, there's none.

Imagine you're the trade negotiator there, and you think you have a deal—you're very close. Boom, Bill C-282 comes in, and all of a sudden that part of the deal you've made is no longer valid, because you're in contravention of a piece of legislation. That is the risk of doing this.

I was a lawyer, but I am not an international trade lawyer. We do have someone or some people who could come to this committee and give us some guidance on this. Mr. Verheul would be fantastic for that. Mr. Verheul could be asked, “If you're in the middle of a negotiation and someone passes a piece of legislation that takes a segment of that negotiation off the table, how would that affect your negotiation or your ability to negotiate?”

As a lawyer, I know. I had to negotiate things all the time, and as part of the negotiating process, you're building good faith with your counterpart. You're building good faith and trust as you move forward in trying to negotiate something. If you have come to a decision whereby you're saying that maybe you're going to have to find a way to give the U.K. 0.05% or something like that—I'm just making up a number—and you know that then you're going to have agreement on all these other things, but a piece of legislation comes in and says, no, that's off the table, how are you going to continue to work forward in good faith? It's going to absolutely affect the good faith of the negotiation.

The other thing is this, Madam Chair: Is the threat of Bill C-282 hanging over our negotiators' heads right now as they try to negotiate the FTA with the U.K., because they feel they have to rush the FTA to get it done before this bill passes?

Let's think about the consequence of that. If you're rushing to conclude an FTA because of fear of this piece of legislation, you might actually give away more than you'd planned to because you had to get it done quickly, which is a really interesting thing as we're talking about Canada-U.K. and what's going on.

In a March 9 article in a U.K. newspaper, there was bragging: “I am hearing that the volumes on beef are low, and that in return they have also got some dairy access which makes it a more reciprocal and balanced agreement.” That is someone who is involved or who has knowledge of the Canada-U.K. FTA negotiation.

So there's a possibility that this bill in and of itself is causing our negotiators to rush to get a deal, and in so doing may in fact do more harm to the supply management sector in this country than would have happened, because our negotiators are under pressure to get this done before they can.

The international cheese association said:

This pool is already fully utilized with cheeses from the U.S.—

That's the WTO quota.

—New Zealand, Switzerland and Norway, among others. Otherwise, they will find themselves faced with three options, all of which will result in financial harm to Canadian businesses.

These are the three unappealing options. The first is ceasing to import U.K. cheese products altogether in Canada, meaning that many Canadians’ beloved British cheeses could be gone forever. The second is substituting some of their imports from other non-EU countries with imports from the U.K., ensuring a shortage of available cheeses.... Third...importing U.K. cheese with the prohibitive 245% tariff.

Imagine that—a 245% tariff. This is a government that talks about how it's there for small business. It talks about it all the time, about how important small business is. Here we have the International Cheese Council of Canada saying that this could have a devastating impact on small businesses because of their inability to import cheese. They came; they gave their evidence, and they gave their significant concerns.

Madam Chair, they were so concerned that they actually submitted a brief after they appeared. That is not always how it goes. They often submit briefs before they appear. They were so concerned that they decided to actually put a submission in. This is something, again, that I think we should be studying, and studying closely. It talks about this:

C-282: Potential Impacts on Canada-UK Trade

If C-282 passes, the many small to mid-sized businesses that import cheese from the UK will be at a distinct disadvantage.

As a result of Brexit, the UK has ceased to be entitled to the market access achieved by the European Union (EU) as part of CETA.

That's what I was saying. The U.K. left its market access in the EU through Brexit. It was an unintended consequence, I'm sure.

In December 2020, the UK and Canada agreed to a 3-year transition period during which the UK will continue to have access to the WTO cheese TRQ EU pool, despite the UK having become a non-EU country.

I think that's what they were trying to explain when Mr. Cannings was asking questions. The UK is getting some WTO access through the EU pool, but this is a transitional provision, and the ICCC goes on to say this:

Unfortunately, the post-2023 future for Canada's importers of UK cheese has never been more uncertain—and the prospect of Bill C-282 passing would make the resolution of this problem even more challenging.

The reason for this is that, at it stands, after 2023, UK cheese products will need to be brought into the Canadian market through the WTO TRQ non-EU pool—

The U.K. had some access under the WTO TRQ pool. Afterwards, they will not—after 2023—because the agreement extends only until 2023, so then they go to the WTO TRQ non-EU pool, and this is where the problem is. It's:

—a pool which already has a utilisation rate of above 97%.

That pool is full. British cheese will not really get into Canada unless it's under those scenarios that I was talking about, which would include a 245% tariff. That would drive that cheese out of the marketplace.

Moreover, if Bill C-282 becomes law, it will obstruct even the possibility of addressing the access requested by the UK. The UK would be forced to settle for a portion of the WTO TRQ non-EU pool...with no modification in overall quota amount despite the addition of the UK, a significant cheese-producing member. The result is that our Members—i.e., Canadian importers—will also be limited to exclusively using the WTO TRQ non-EU pool to import UK cheese products. Otherwise, they will find themselves faced with the following three unappealing options.

Those are the options they mentioned in their statement to this committee, all of which are very unappealing, and all of which, they say, will result in financial harm to Canadian businesses.

These are small businesses, Madam Chair. They are small businesses. They are, most often, mom-and-pop shops. They're the ones we should be trying to find a way to help, to protect. The government should be very concerned about this. The government should be listening to witnesses to hear what the impact of this is going to be.

Instead, this government, this committee, seems to want to just say, “We've heard enough. We don't care. We're sorry, you cheese importers, but we just don't care because we're passing this bill regardless of your concerns,” without actually even fleshing out their concerns, because when someone comes and gives a five-minute opening statement and gets one five-minute Q and A, it's incredibly difficult to actually explain the severity of the problem and how serious the problem is.

I've had a bit of time today to go into some of the problems, and I'm not even going into depth on many of these things. I'm just scratching the surface to try to raise these issues, to try to convince my colleagues that more meetings will help this committee make a good decision and help this committee find a way for this bill to be a winner for everyone. That's really what we want. All of us want that. Despite what the parliamentary secretary will say about not supporting supply management, I am a strong supporter of supply management.

A gentleman who owns a dairy farm came up, when the dairy farmers were here on their lobby day on the Hill, and thanked me for all the hard work I do. He thanked me for coming to visit his farm to talk to him, to talk to his family and understand the challenges they have. I understand those challenges. I support supply management. I also support the Canadian economy. I support other industries and sectors across the country, and those sectors have voiced their concerns with this bill.

When we asked the sponsor of the bill if he had taken the time to consult other industries and other sectors of the Canadian economy, he basically said that he had not, because he didn't think it was necessary.

I think what we're finding at committee is that consultation would have perhaps served this committee well, because we're hearing more and more from other industries in this country about how concerned they are.

I had an opportunity to talk about this bill with some members of the automotive sector when President Biden was here to visit. They were unaware of the bill. As many of us know, auto is a huge part of the Canadian economy. When I talked to them about how this bill would mean supply management is off the table when negotiating trade deals, they were quite concerned. They were surprised they had not been consulted. They were surprised at the potential impact to them, and this is part of the problem. This is why I am saying we need more meetings.

I want to get back to the concerns of the International Cheese Council of Canada, because they are small businesses. They are not able to hire expensive lobbyists to come and try to convince the government of the damage this bill would do to them, so they're relying on us. They're relying on members of Parliament to take the time to listen to their concerns, hear their concerns and deliberate on those concerns.

Again, we have not deliberated on those concerns. The meetings were fast. We crammed in a lot of witnesses on every single panel, so we weren't able to get deep, in-depth answers. We still have not had anyone who is an expert in trade come and testify, other than department officials, and I outlined some of the concerns I have with the evidence they gave this time, as opposed to before.

Again, I'll go back to the International Cheese Council of Canada. They say:

As a result of this unfortunate situation—

I agree. They're just a small player in this, but they're going to be deeply affected.

—Canadian businesses will be unfairly penalized. Not only will they be prevented from generating market growth, but their ability to import cheese products from the UK at an affordable price will be severely constrained: they will lose business. Ultimately, Canadian customers [will] also suffer, as they will face either reduced availability for British cheeses, or the UK cheeses on the grocery [store] shelves will be priced significantly higher.

When they say “significantly higher”—I want to go back to that—they will end up with a 245.5% tariff. I was saying 245%, but it's actually 245.5%.

None of these scenarios deliver an improved outcome for Canadians.

Meanwhile, it should be noted that European exporters will be provided “a Brexit windfall” after 2023 when they will presumably be able to access higher quantities since there will be one less European Union state drawing from quota accessible by EU states (i.e., the WTO TRQ EU pool and the CETA [non-pool]).

It is worth keeping in mind that senior members of the U.K. government have expressed strong interest in including cheese in the future Canada-UK FTA. The passage of C-282, which would prevent addressing such issues in the Canada-UK agreement, would certainly irritate our valued trading partner and most likely constrain Canada's ability to reach a broad deal that leaves both parties satisfied.

This exactly dovetails with the concern I just raised. We are actually in the middle of negotiating a Canada-U.K. FTA, and we know they want some cheese access. We also know that, sometimes, very difficult decisions have to be made for the benefit of the country. Canada has absolutely successfully defended supply management through many FTAs.

When I was asking my questions of department officials, I wanted to talk about this. I asked about how everyone says they are prepared to defend supply management. I asked Mr. Fowler this:

I think one of the things you said in your testimony, and I don't have it all, is that the concessions made in supply management allowed Canada to conclude deals that are in the overall economic best interest of Canada.

I know this is hard, but if we went back in time and we didn't have access—if supply management was off the table and this bill existed and we were renegotiating CUSMA—how difficult would that renegotiation have been?

Mr. Fowler said:

It's a difficult question to answer and it requires me to speculate, which I don't like to do when I'm sitting in this chair—

So I said, “In your experience”, and he continued:

—but as the lead agriculture negotiator at the conclusion of those negotiations, it is my opinion that there was no deal that did not include market access commitments for dairy.

Okay, so we get back to the Canada-U.K. FTA. They're our third-largest trading partner, and we're right now operating under transitional provisions from the Canada-EU.... They very clearly want access with British cheese. This bill would prevent that. We just heard that “there was no deal that did not include market access commitments for dairy” in CUSMA. Are we sitting here today with the knowledge and wisdom amongst us that we can still get a deal done with the U.K. if there's no access for British cheese?

There are two problems here.

Number one, there's the problem with what we heard from the International Cheese Council of Canada and how damaging this would be to the economic interests of all those small businesses—small businesses that we, as parliamentarians, should be looking out for and looking to support.

The second problem, of course, is that this may prevent an FTA from actually happening, and that would be enormously challenging. Sometimes negotiators.... They all say they defend supply management. Conservative governments have done that at the negotiating table. Liberal governments have done that at the negotiating table, and I suspect a hypothetical NDP government would do the same thing. However, if you're going to get a deal, you sometimes have to make really difficult choices, and I know this as a lawyer from when I was in mediations and negotiations. Settlements are tough. I used to always say to my clients, “If you walk out of a mediation or a settlement discussion a little bit unhappy, you know you've probably gotten the right deal; everyone should be a little unhappy in a mediation.”

I think the same thing happens when you're negotiating a free trade agreement. There are things that I'm sure we're unhappy about in CUSMA. I'm sure there are things the Americans are unhappy about in CUSMA. However, when you balance it all out, both sides got what they think is a deal that is in their country's best economic interests, and that is sometimes where the tough things happen.

That certainly.... I'm not trying to minimize the impact to supply-managed sectors in this economy when these things happen. There's absolutely an economic impact; we've heard that. We heard very passionate speeches from people in poultry, dairy and eggs about how challenging they have found some of the access that was negotiated away as a result of an FTA. They get compensation for that. That's absolutely true. That is to compensate them for their lost market access. Whether or not that compensation is sufficient is something that parliamentarians, in their infinite wisdom, can ponder.

The other question you have to ask is this: If we weren't able to make those concessions in a trade agreement on supply management, would we have any of these deals? Would we have a CUSMA? Would we have a CPTPP? Would we have a free trade deal with the EU? I think the answer we heard from our department officials, some of whom were the negotiators.... The answer to that, I think, was pretty much no.

I know there were some questions that were asked. Mr. Cannings asked about canola and asked Mr....I'm going to forget his name. I apologize. He asked how he would feel if he was always the first on the chopping block.

I don't think that's accurate in what happens. I think negotiations on supply management are at the very end. They are of the absolute last resort. Our negotiators go into every single free trade agreement negotiation saying, “We will not grant access to our supply-managed sectors.” If they do it, it's not the first thing. It is the absolute last thing, because they know how important protecting supply management is. Whether it's a Conservative or a Liberal government, that is the most important thing in those negotiations. You have to look at the country as a whole. You have to look at the economic interest of the entire country when you're negotiating a free trade agreement.

The International Cheese Council of Canada talks about the cheese letters. This is something I don't understand and it's also something we didn't really find the time to get into. They go on to say:

As mentioned above, as part of the Canada-UK Trade Continuity Agreement...negotiations, both Canada and the UK agreed to a 3-year transition period during which the UK continues to have access to the WTO cheese TRQ EU pool, despite having become a non-EU country. These “cheese letters” are only valid until the end...of this year.

That's 2023.

Both parties have stated that they will endeavour to seek an outcome for the cheese sector by June 30th, 2023—which is barely three months away. This scenario, if left unchanged, will create significant business disruptions to our industry given the planning horizons for the cheese sector. Indeed, while 2023 may have only just begun, the cheese planning has already been concluded for [this] year. Indeed, planning for 2024 has begun—with the assumption of at least a similar level of access after the cheese letters will have expired.

As such, the ICCC urges Canada to come to an agreement with the UK before the conclusion of the sixth round of negotiations (in June 2023) to extend the validity of the cheese letters until the end of 2024. Ideally, the agreement would be aligned with the announcement of the outcome of the TRQ Review, therefore reducing the number...of transitions faced by the industry in the next 12-24 months.

Note that such an outcome would not provide more access to importers, but would provide an increased amount of certainty at a time [when] our industry is facing significant headwinds.

Increasing access to Canada's protected supply-managed goods is not the only option available to Canada's trade negotiators provided they have the ability to best advocate on behalf of Canada. Options available include the reallocation of existing quota between pools (which Canada has done in the past), or changing the allocation method of existing TRQs, such as [in] the CPTPP.

The ICCC strongly encourages Members to consider the impact of this Bill on our trade relationships. Our trade allies are increasingly dissatisfied with Canada's administration of...dairy TRQs—so much so that the United States has launched a trade dispute, alleging that Canada is failing to respect its existing trade treaty commitments.

Now you have to think that we now have these dairy challenges within USMCA or CUSMA—however you want to describe it. Will this further irritate or agitate that trading relationship with the United States, our absolute number one trading partner? Seventy-plus per cent of our exports go to the United States.

The International Cheese Council of Canada—

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Despite what my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, has said, I have a motion that I am going to move now. I am going to move that motion and then speak to that motion.

The motion is this: “That the Standing Committee on International Trade hold one additional meeting to invite back departmental officials prior to clause-by-clause, to testify on Bill C-282 regarding urgent concerns raised about the legislation during witness testimony; and that the committee hold no fewer than three additional meetings to ensure that all witnesses can testify in person.”

The parliamentary secretary has said today that there is no need for further study. I can't disagree with the parliamentary secretary more. Quite frankly, to suggest that we don't support supply management is an egregious statement.

In my riding of Dufferin—Caledon, unlike the riding of Toronto where he is from, I have many farmers. I have met with farmers. I meet with farmers all the time, including farmers in the supply-managed sector. To suggest that we don't support supply management is just disingenuous.

To start, I would like to talk about why this motion is so important and why I think departmental officials should be coming back to this committee. I am going to talk a little about what department officials said about this bill when it came before Parliament as Bill C-216 and then contrast that with what they actually said to this committee when this bill came to this Parliament under Bill C-282.

I think members will be shocked at the inconsistencies that government officials gave with respect to a bill that is, in fact, virtually the same in nature.

One would think that department officials would come and give similar testimony. In fact, they might say the exact same things, because that's what we would expect of government officials unless, of course, we are dealing with government officials who have been influenced, perhaps, to say something else.

Let's go to what was said at the previous meeting.

Mr. Forsyth came to speak to Bill C-216 and he gave a statement on that bill. In that statement, he said some of the following:

This bill amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act so that the Government of Canada cannot make any commitment in an international treaty that would have the effect of increasing tariff rate quota volumes or reducing over-quota tariff rates for dairy products, poultry or eggs.

The intent of the bill is consistent with the long-standing Government of Canada policy to defend the integrity of Canada's supply management system.

That is very similar to what we heard when Mr. Fowler came and spoke.

This is where things start to get a bit different and a bit interesting. He went on to say, “I'd like to share with you some considerations regarding this proposed amendment to the departmental act.”

This is completely different from what government officials said when they came to testify on Bill C-282.

He went on:

First, by introducing specific policy objectives, proposed amendments would fundamentally change the nature of the departmental act. The act is an organizational statute that sets out, in general terms, the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of International Development.

It does not prescribe specific policy objectives. This way, the act sets up a framework that provides flexibility to the government of the day to implement its particular foreign, international trade and development policy without having to change the underlying legislation; thus, it accommodates the policy perspectives that different governments may bring to the management of foreign affairs over time.

As an example, in terms of international trade negotiations, paragraph 10.2(c) of the act provides that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is to conduct and manage international negotiations as they relate to Canada. Section 13 of the act elaborates on the specific duties of the Minister of International Trade, which include improving the access of Canadian products and services to external markets through trade negotiations.

Second, specific foreign international trade and development policy objectives, including how to address sectoral interests or specific constituent concerns, are generally established elsewhere.

That's a very important thing. I'll say it again:

Second, specific foreign international trade and development policy objectives, including how to address sectoral interests or specific constituent concerns, are generally established elsewhere.

This is not what was said when they came to testify on this bill.

He went on:

For international trade negotiations, negotiating objectives and how to accommodate specific sectoral interests are set in the negotiating mandates that are approved by cabinet. This allows the government of the day to develop specific policy objectives in response to evolving international circumstances.

Third, Parliament has the final say over the outcome of any international trade negotiations. Parliament ultimately decides whether or not to pass the legislation necessary to implement any free trade agreement. Additionally, moving forward, trade agreements will be subject to even more parliamentary oversight. The updated policy on tabling of treaties strengthens transparency of trade negotiations and provides additional opportunities for members of Parliament to review the objectives and economic merits of new free trade agreements. The new policy includes the tabling of a notice of intent to enter into negotiations towards a new FTA, objectives for negotiations and, finally, an economic impact assessment.

Fourth, amendment of the departmental act in the way in which C-216 proposes carries risks.

To me, this is a stunning statement, because none of this was said by department officials when they came back for Bill C-282. What happened? Why was there the sudden change?

When it was first here, this bill carried risks. When they came back to talk about it this time, suddenly there are no risks. There are no risks in their statement.

He continued:

By limiting Canada's ability to engage on these issues, this amendment—

This is really important.

—would invite negotiating partners to narrow the scope of their own potential commitments, taking issues off the table from the outset of negotiations, likely in the areas of commercial interest to Canada.

Let me add emphasis to that. He said “likely in the areas of commercial interest to Canada”.

The last time officials came to this committee to talk about the bill, they were showing concerns. To me, they're showing grave concerns. It reminds me of that movie, A Few Good Men, when Jack Nicholson says, “Is there another kind?” These are grave concerns. They narrow possible outcomes, preclude certain compromises and make it harder to reach an agreement.

This paragraph in and of itself is a massive diversion from what government officials testified at committee on Bill C-282. If this were all, I'd be concerned. I'd probably very concerned, but guess what? It's not all they said, because they continued with their concerns. Their entire conversation with this committee was about their concerns, yet on Bill C-282, there was no discussion of concerns. There was absolutely none.

They may have had some concerns under questioning, but I'm going to continue. Doug Forsyth said:

Addressing the interest of any specific sector in the act would set a precedent that could lead to demands for additional amendments to reflect other foreign and trade policy objectives, including sectoral interests, further constraining the government's ability to negotiate and sign international trade agreements and, more generally, to manage Canada's international relations.

This is a clarion call of concern by government officials. What they're actually saying to the committee is, “If we do this for one sector of the Canadian economy, how can we then say to another sector that they don't get to have similar protection?”

For example, I know the steel industry is facing incredible competition from steel in China. This is a huge problem for the steel industry. They also have extensive competition from the United States. What if the steel industry said we no longer want any country to be able to have steel come into Canada as part of our free trade agreement, because it's far too damaging to our sector? You did it for supply management, so why won't you do it for steel? You can imagine where that goes.

He went on to say:

Lastly, maintaining the nature of the departmental act unchanged does not affect the government's policy to defend the integrity of Canada's supply management system, nor the ability of negotiators to defend this position at the negotiating table.

He's saying that supply management can be defended, as it always has been, at the negotiating table by the Government of Canada. He seems to be saying that this bill's not necessary. Again, this is very much in contrast with the information that was provided by government officials to the committee on Bill C-282.

He continued:

The government has made public commitments not to make further concessions on supply-managed products in future trade negotiations. In fact, Canada has been able to successfully conclude 15 trade agreements that cover 51 countries while preserving Canada's supply management system, including its three pillars: production control, pricing mechanisms and import controls.

Most recently, the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement fully protects Canada's dairy, poultry and egg sectors and provides no new incremental market access for cheese or any other supply-managed product.

I'm going to get back to the Canada-United Kingdom free trade agreement. That is also something that I think is going to be affected by this and by Bill C-282. It's something that we really haven't discussed in any great detail.

He then said:

Where new market access has been provided, specifically and exclusively in the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA; the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP; and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, CUSMA, the access was deemed necessary to include an agreement that was in Canada's interest.

That's similar to a response to a question I asked, which was that the only reason, effectively, that we were able to make those agreements was that there was some access to supply management.

He went on to say:

While new access was provided in those agreements, the supply management system and its three pillars were maintained. These outcomes were part of the overall balance of concessions through which Canada maintained preferential market access to the United States and secured new access to the European Union, Japan, Vietnam and other key markets.

In conclusion, while the spirit of Bill C-216 is consistent with the government's policy of defending the integrity of Canada's supply management system, amending the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act as proposed by the bill would change its nature and create risks.

That's really quite fascinating.

In conclusion, Mr. Fowler said in our study....

This is really shocking to me. It's shocking that a government official would come and make one statement on the exact same bill and then come and make another statement on this bill. I think that they should be back at this committee to answer for this contradiction. We should get to the bottom of why there is this contradiction.

The contradiction is this. In his remarks to this committee studying Bill C-282, he said the following:

In conclusion, Bill C-282 proposes to make the government’s commitment to make no further market access commitments for supply-managed products into a legal requirement by amending the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. This would strengthen the policy of defending the integrity of Canada’s supply management system by enshrining it into law.

It is the exact opposite of what Mr. Fowler said in his statement on Bill C-216. Think about the implications of that for a moment. We have a senior government official who comes to the committee with a bill and outlines serious concerns. I'm going to talk more about that, because under questioning, he has even more concerns than in his statement. He then comes back to the committee, gives a statement and says the exact opposite. Nothing has changed. The bill is the same. Supply management is the same. Nothing has changed.

Was this gentleman put under political pressure to change the statement that was made so that it would be less controversial? This is deeply troubling.

To me, Madam Chair, I don't think it matters which party you're from or where you stand on this issue. Every parliamentarian around this table should be asking themselves why a government official would come to committee, give one version of concern about a bill and come back another time on effectively the exact same bill and say there's nothing to see here; the bill is great, and it will strengthen our defence of supply management.

You might say to yourself, well, you know, maybe he misspoke on Bill C-216. Maybe he got a little excited in his opening statement and misspoke. Unfortunately, that is not what happened, because under questioning, more and more and more concerns were raised that were not raised under Bill C-282.

Mr. Aboultaif asked him a question:

What I'm interested in is this. Although we've signed so many trade agreements without having to really jeopardize the supply management system and we have successfully done that throughout its history—and we have so many trade agreements that I don't have to mention it at the moment—the question is, are there any live examples out there that can advise us on what the consequences will be in the long run if Bill C-216 is implemented, since we know that we will lose that flexibility and we will be limiting our team of negotiators on the road when they try to achieve trade agreements with countries in the world?

I think it's very interesting to see what the response was to that question, so let's go to that:

Thank you for the question.

Madam Chair, I will start, and perhaps my colleagues will join in afterwards.

From a trade negotiation perspective, Canada has a long history in negotiating free trade agreements and has been at the forefront of negotiating free trade agreements for the last 25 or 30 years.

I would just note off the top that our supply management system, as you've indicated, has not stopped us or hampered us from concluding any trade agreements, but I think what is certainly possible is that the wording proposed for this bill will give trade negotiating partners pause with respect to wanting to engage with Canada.

The emphasis is added.

That's as contrasted with:

In conclusion, Bill C-282 proposes to make the government’s commitment to make no further market access commitments for supply-managed products into a legal requirement by amending the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. This would strengthen the policy of defending the integrity of Canada’s supply management system by enshrining it into law.

Here, this bill will give trade negotiators pause with respect to wanting to engage with Canada. From a trade negotiator's perspective, when we start a negotiation, we like to start with the full possibility of access in the back of our minds, whether or not that's where we end up. It's rarely the case that you would see 100% access in any free trade agreement, but you'd like to at least start with that notion in mind.

As you go through a negotiation with your various partners, you find that interests are enunciated, elaborated and narrowed down. You understand what's in the art of the possible, but you like to start as wide as possible when you do launch those negotiations. When you start from a very narrow band of possibilities and then that gets narrowed, the scope of the negotiations and the scope of the agreement is very much smaller than what you would have seen otherwise.

If we were to end up with this bill as it is written—and I'm going to emphasize this—if we were to end up with this bill as it is written, I think very much we would start with a much smaller scope of negotiations with various partners. It wouldn't be unusual for them to say, “That's fine, Canada has taken these issues right out of play. We will take issues that are of interest to Canada out of play,” and then you're talking about negotiating from a smaller pie, as it were.

Madam Chair, these are significant concerns. These are not small concerns that are being raised. This is not someone saying that this bill would strengthen the policy of defending the integrity of Canada's supply management system by enshrining it into law. In fact to me, this is saying almost the exact opposite. This is saying that this bill is highly problematic.

We can look at what else was said about this bill, the current versus what was said before.

On Bill C-282, we had a statement from Mr. Rosser, assistant deputy minister, market industry services branch, Department of Agriculture.

Honourable members, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on International Trade on its review of Bill C‑282.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC for short, works closely with and supports Global Affairs Canada in advancing Canada’s free trade agenda, playing an important role in trade negotiations, particularly in areas related to market access for agricultural goods.

As said by my counterpart Mr. Fowler, the Government of Canada has had a long-standing policy to defend the integrity of Canada’s supply management system for dairy products, poultry and eggs. This includes clear commitments made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to not provide any new market access for supply-managed products in future trade agreements. The bill is consistent with this policy.

That is something I don't think anyone has disputed. We're all singing from the same hymn book in that sense.

Canada’s supply-managed dairy, poultry and egg farmers are part of the backbone of rural communities across the country, generating almost $13 billion in farm-gate sales in 2021, and creating over 100,000 direct jobs in production and processing activities across Canada.

I absolutely agree with that statement. In my riding of Dufferin—Caledon, we have poultry, egg and dairy farms. I've had the pleasure to visit examples of all of those. I am particularly impressed with how our dairy farmers take care of their cows and with the quality product they are able to produce. I am 100% in support of supply management.

He continued:

With respect to the market access provided to Canada’s trade partners, it has only been provided in exceptional cases in regard to landmark trade agreements, such as the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, or WTO, CETA, the CPTPP and CUSMA. While not taken lightly, these trade agreements are overwhelmingly in the interest of Canada and to the overall benefit of Canada’s agricultural sector.

Furthermore, in the case of CUSMA it's important to remember that the original negotiating position in the United States was the full elimination of the supply management system. The outcome in CUSMA, while difficult and challenging, allows the supply management system to continue functioning with respect to its three pillars.

The Government of Canada is also fully and fairly compensating producers...with supply-managed commodities who have lost market share under the three agreements. As announced this past November, dairy, poultry and egg producers and processors are expected to share more than $1.7 billion in direct payments and investment programs in response to the impacts related to CUSMA. This is in addition to the over $3 billion in direct payments in investment programs for CETA and CPTPP. These programs will help drive innovation and growth in the supply-managed sectors.

In conclusion, the integrity of the supply management system has been successfully defended during multiple trade negotiations. The Government of Canada is working hard to ensure that the supply management system remains strong and that producers and processors operating in the system remain productive and sustainable.

Bill C-282 would protect these sectors from additional market access concessions in the context of future trade negotiations, and as such is fully consistent with existing policy.

Under Bill C-282, then, it would appear they are on the same page. There's nothing to see here. It's great. It's fully consistent with existing policy.

Let's go back to Bill C-216. Mr. Aaron Fowler, chief agricultural negotiator and director general, trade agreements and negotiations, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, responds to Mr. Aboultaif's question. Just so that we can all keep up with where we are, this was Mr. Aboultaif's question:

What I'm interested in is this. Although we've signed so many trade agreements without having to really jeopardize the supply management system and we have successfully done that throughout its history—and we have so many trade agreements that I don't have to mention it at the moment—the question is, are there any live examples out there that can advise us on what the consequences will be in the long run if Bill C-216 is implemented, since we know that we will lose that flexibility and we will be limiting our team of negotiators on the road when they try to achieve trade agreements with countries in the world?

The response was as follows:

Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

I would certainly agree with everything Doug has said so far and associate myself with his response.

That response, as we all know, is that there are grave concerns about this bill and the implications it will have with respect to negotiating trade agreements.

His response continued:

I believe the question was whether there are examples of similar measures being imposed by some of our trading partners around the world and what the consequences of those might be. I have to say I am not aware of any legislative prohibition on our trading partners' ability to discuss an issue.

This is interesting, because some members of this committee, when they were asking questions, were saying that other countries have things they won't negotiate. To me, that would appear to be an incorrect position. I don't think any other country in the world has a legislative prohibition on what you can negotiate in an international trade agreement.

The statement continued:

Were such a prohibition in place, I feel that depending on the level of commercial interest that Canada had in the matter that was covered by such a prohibition, we would use the exploratory stage of our trade negotiations to indicate that we see this as an important issue that needs to be discussed in the context of the negotiation.

Free trade agreements are really about changing the legislative and regulatory regime that our trading partners have in place in order to create commercial opportunities for Canadian exporters, so I suspect that were our interests sufficiently significant for us to want to discuss that issue in the negotiations, we would make that [very] clear at the exploratory stage and base our decision on whether to move forward in the negotiations on our partners' indication of their capacity to have discussions in that area.

On the specific question of whether there are examples I could point to, I have to say offhand that I can't think of any similar prohibitions that are in place.

Mr. Aboultaif then asked another question: “What would you see as the reaction of other sectors if something like Bill C-216 went forward? What would you see as the reaction as far as opportunities on the world stage...go?”

Mr. Forsyth said, “Do you mean reaction from Canadian stakeholders, or from—” and Mr. Aboultaif replied, “Yes, I mean Canadian stakeholders.”

Mr. Forsyth said, “Honestly, I think if this did go forward, the reaction we would see would be other groups seeking to have their concerns, their issues, inserted into the departmental act as well.”

What we're hearing very clearly here under Bill C-216, and perhaps not as clearly under Bill C-282, is that this bill is, in many ways, a Trojan Horse. There are grave concerns about what would happen with other sectors of the economy that felt they were vulnerable in a trade agreement. They might be saying that they think a member of Parliament should come forward with a bill that should say that in no future trade agreement.... There should be no access to pork into the Canadian market, because they feel they're losing too much market share.

That was a concern raised by department officials when we heard this in Bill C-216. It's not a concern that has been significantly raised this time.

There was another question for Mr. Forsyth. This was from Ms. Rachel Bendayan.

Sir, if I may follow up, I believe you mentioned in your introduction, and I have certainly heard from legal experts within government, that policy objectives are not normally found within the departmental act. This is not the usual instrument to include policy objectives like the one regarding supply management. Can you perhaps give us examples or let us know where these types of important policy objectives should be found, if not in this particular act?

Mr. Forsyth replied, as follows:

I think that assessment is correct. It would be unusual to find policy-prescriptive issues like this in a departmental act. I'm not aware of any departmental acts that include them.

I think that where we see policy prescriptions like this is in the words enunciated from the government. It's [very] clear that this is a Government of Canada position, a policy position. You find it in speeches. You find it in departmental legislation, for example, at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and you find it in various places like that. I think it would be unusual to put something like this within the context of the departmental act.

What we're seeing here from government officials, again, is this. We are seeing that, in conclusion, Bill C-282 would protect these sectors from additional market access concessions in the context of future trade negotiations. As such, it is fully consistent with existing policy.

I read through the entire statement that was made by Mr. Rosser. None of that raises even a scintilla of the concern that was being raised by government officials under Bill C-216. I'm yet again left with some significant consternation as to why there would be such a different view from government departments towards a bill—Bill C-216—that was, as far as I can tell, identical to the bill that is being put forward now.

It raises enormous questions. It raises questions that I believe this committee should dig into. It raises questions that we should absolutely as a committee be very interested in getting to the bottom of.

For my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, to suggest that everything has been heard that needs to be heard and that we should just move on to clause-by-clause in the face of this very contradictory evidence from department officials, really does not make a lot of sense. It gives me enormous concern about why there would be such a change in position and view about the bill, and not just that it has changed. It gives me concern as to which statements are the ones the committee should look at to say that this is what the department officials think. Do department officials believe what they said on Bill C-216, or do they believe what they said when they came and spoke on C-282?

I'm left confused. I'm left extraordinarily confused. I think other members of the committee should be confused as well. I think Liberal members of this committee should be confused. I think NDP members of this committee should be confused. I understand that Bloc Québécois members may be confused but aren't interested because it's a Bloc Québécois private member's bill, and they want it to be passed. I would feel the same way about one of my colleagues' bills—I would want to help that colleague get the bill passed—but I think the rest of us should be very concerned.

Mr. Dhaliwal had a question about Bill C-216:

My question is for Mr. Forsyth. He mentioned numerous times that there are some risks involved.

That's talking about his statement numerous times that there were risks involved. There was no mention of risks in the opening statement under Bill C-282.

One of them, he mentioned, is a narrow outcome. I would like to ask him to explain or elaborate on those risks and the potential impacts.

It's interesting that he asked a question about narrow outcomes, because when we had witnesses come last Thursday, the canola growers or the Canadian canola—I'm going to find it here—

[Paulin Bouchard]

We have had a lot of consultation during the study on the former Bill C‑216 and the current Bill C‑282. I firmly believe that our elected officials should send a clear signal on what we can put or not put on the negotiating table. As I said earlier, negotiators will do their job and will create wealth through these agreements.

[Paulin Bouchard, President, Fédération des producteurs d’œufs du Québec]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for the invitation.

I am Paulin Bouchard, president of the Fédération des producteurs d'œufs du Québec. I am here with our vice-president, Mr. Sylvain Lapierre. We are both egg producers from Quebec.

Our federation represents 199 producers whose 5.7 million laying hens produce 1.8 billion eggs per year. We also represent the interests of 108 replacement chicken producers and six egg producers who work for the vaccine sector, that is to say a pharmaceutical company that is involved in protecting Canadians' health.

Right now, all the federal parties and witnesses are saying that they support supply management, but for different reasons. On the one side, we have MPs that support Bill C‑282 to protect supply management production from any more concessions of our market shares to foreign producers. These MPs know that the advantages for Canadian consumers and citizens are better than what we could hope to gain during the negotiation of any future trade deals.

On the other side, when we look at the testimony provided by witnesses at previous meetings, we see that for others, the supply management system is just a trade currency that is used by Canadian negotiators. Indeed, we get the message that those MPs believe in supply management, because the protected markets are useful aces in the hole that Canadian negotiators can use to deal with foreign negotiators over domestic market shares.

You have heard previous witnesses state that without this ace up their sleeves, Canadian negotiators would be sitting ducks at negotiations. That is basically saying that Canadian negotiators have nothing to bargain with, contrary to their foreign counterparts, and would not be able to gain any concessions without this ace. It makes us wonder what negotiators from other countries do when they don't have supply managed markets.

I would remind you that it is possible to hammer out trade deals without sacrificing supply‑managed production. Canada has signed 12 trade agreements since 1997 and has negotiated with 15 countries, without giving any access to its domestic markets. Why do Canadian negotiators feel such a need to trade our protected markets whereas American and Japanese negotiators are able to make gains without putting their rice, sugar and cotton markets on the negotiating table?

During your committee meetings, witnesses and MPs have been unable to provide statistics on Canada's revenue and exports volumes after conceding market shares to foreign exporters. Supply management producers can provide figures for their losses, and Canadian taxpayers can say how much they have had to pay to compensate for the concessions made.

If Bill C‑282 had been passed at the beginning of this century, we would have never conceded our market shares. Bill C‑282 is a necessary tool to protect Canadian citizens and consumers and a system that everyone benefits from. Voting against Bill C‑282 is voting for individual interests as opposed to collective ones and sacrificing our production during the next round of negotiations.

Madam Chair, everything has been said during the meetings held on Bills C-216and C‑282. Quebec's egg producers are asking parliamentarians—

[Troy Sherman, Director, Government Relations, Canola Council of Canada]

Thank you, Chair Sgro and members of the committee.

My name is Troy Sherman, and I am the director of government relations for the Canola Council of Canada. The council encompasses all links in the canola value chain. Our members include canola growers, life science companies, grain handlers, exporters, processors and others. Our shared goal is ensuring the industry's continued growth and success, and doing so by meeting global demand for canola and canola-based products, which include food, feed and fuel.

Canola's success is Canada's success. Our industry represents almost $30 billion in economic activity, annually, 207,000 jobs across the country, $12 billion in wages and the largest share of farm cash receipts in the country. With over 90% of Canadian canola exported to as many as 50 different markets, the canola industry depends on ambitious and fair science- and rules-based trade.

For many years, we have worked with Canada's trade negotiators to make sure Canada and Canadian canola are well positioned to help feed the world. Central to these trade negotiations is the foundational principle that negotiators should be empowered to reach the best agreements for Canadians and the Canadian economy. Negotiators have been able to achieve this by availing themselves of all the tools in our trade-negotiating tool box, working closely with industry, academics and civil society to ensure Canada's trade agreements achieve what is in our national interest.

Bill C-282 risks undermining Canada's reputation as a trading nation and, consequently, our national interest during trade negotiations. It does this in a number of ways, including putting in place legislative prohibitions on what our negotiators can discuss at the negotiation table and diminishing Canada's desirability as a market with which to pursue trade agreements.

On the first point, Bill C-282 proposes prohibiting what Canada's trade negotiators can discuss at the negotiation table. To the best of our knowledge, and as noted by officials at Global Affairs Canada, no other country legislatively prohibits negotiators from discussing certain topics during trade negotiations. Canada would be an outlier, and needlessly so.

In June 2021, an official from Global Affairs appeared before this very committee on Bill C-216, Bill C-282's predecessor. At the time, they stated the following: “Canada has been able to successfully conclude 15 trade agreements that cover 51 countries while preserving Canada's supply management system”. The official went on to say:

If we were to start from the position that we would not be dealing with 100% of the items that we would negotiate on, it does risk having an agreement that's not necessarily completely beneficial to Canadian exporters and producers and it does risk being an agreement that does not necessarily provide the full economic benefits to Canada that one might have expected.

What was true when it was said two years ago remains true today. Bill C-282 is a solution in search of a problem, and it risks undermining other industries and sectors of the economy, including Canadian canola. Passing Bill C-282 will set a dangerous precedent for additional amendments to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, to either protect certain industries or mandate restrictive language in trade agreements in specific areas of interest.

Regarding the second challenge mentioned, Bill C-282 will significantly diminish Canada's desirability as a country with which to pursue trade negotiations. By legislating that our negotiators are not able to include supply management as part of the negotiations, Canada is significantly shrinking the trade prospect pie and potentially forcing Canadian concessions in other areas of interest. If Canada is viewed as an obstacle for new entrants to plurilateral agreements, or less attractive to engage with—given our legislated red line on supply management—our trading partners may question the value of having Canada at the negotiation table.

To conclude, Bill C-282 represents a significant departure from Canada's principled, fair and rules-based free trade posture. No industry, sector or issue should be off the table during trade negotiations. Our trade negotiators have delivered tangible results and benefits for the Canadian economy and industries, including canola.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

All right. Thank you very much.

I come from Oshawa, where we build cars. There's a significant amount of money going back and forth, so this piece of legislation is really important for precedent, because I'm worried that if one sector gets something, other sectors may be demanding something, and there's the issue of compensation. I don't know if there's anything in that regard.

Perhaps I could ask Ms. MacNeil something. Given that the minister of trade must table the negotiating objectives to Parliament in advance of trade negotiations, can you comment on why Bill C-282 is necessary?

I'm also wondering if you have any idea.... The government trade officials previously condemned Bill C-216, but it seems that they've flipped and they're changing their mind on Bill C-282. It's pretty much the same piece of legislation. Does that discrepancy warrant further investigation with officials? Maybe we should call them back, because I'm seeing that this is not something that is a really unified position, especially even at the table here.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Darling and Mr. Phinney, I come from Oshawa. We do cars. Our supply chain is important. It's very sensitive and very accurate. We just want to make sure we get trade deals that are the best we can get for all Canadian interests.

The government committed to not giving up any more concessions to supply management. That's something that all parties agreed on. In the last iteration of this bill, which was Bill C‑216, trade negotiators pointed to the risk of losing future trade opportunities for Canada in the sectors that depend on trade.

Based on that type of consideration, would you say Bill C-282 poses more risks or benefits to the Canadian economy? Could our trade partners retaliate by adopting similar legislation? What would you say the risk is?

Mr. Darling, could you start?

[Nathan Phinney, President, Canadian Cattle Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. My name is Nathan Phinney. I'm a beef farmer from New Brunswick and president of the Canadian Cattle Association. With me today is Dennis Laycraft, executive vice-president of CCA.

We appreciate the opportunity from the committee to provide input on Bill C-282 from the perspective of the Canadian beef industry. Specifically, we will address our concerns regarding the detrimental and unprecedented nature the bill presents for future trade negotiations.

CCA represents nearly 60,000 beef producers from coast to coast. The beef industry is a significant driver of our economy, as Canada's second-largest single source of farm income, contributing $21.8 billion to our country's gross domestic product and supporting nearly 350,000 full-time equivalent jobs.

We, Canadian beef producers, pride ourselves on creating a high-quality, nutritious and sustainable protein that is less than half of the world's greenhouse gas emissions intensity per pound of beef. Simply put, we are producing food, benefiting the economy and at the same time protecting and conserving environments across Canada.

Free and open trade is key to the beef industry's success in Canada, with 50% of Canadian beef being exported around the globe. In being in an export industry, CCA has always emphasized the need for strong trade rules and principles in facilitating global trade.

Today we will outline some important considerations both specific to Canada's beef producers and the broad interests of the Canadian economy. We encourage the committee and all parliamentarians to consider these comments before moving forward with this bill unamended.

Increased market access has been essential to our sustainability as an industry. Beef producers earn approximately an additional $1,500 per animal because of our ability to sell on international markets. For our industry to continue to grow and diversify our exports, we will need the improved market access that comes through trade negotiations.

Closing future market opportunities is closing our economic growth as an industry. Allow us to demonstrate how impactful trade negotiations have become for economic success in an export-driven sector.

First, since the start of the CPTPP in 2017 and the removal of tariffs that followed, Canada's beef exports increased 192% to Japan. In 2022 we exported $500 million to Japan in beef and beef products. Additionally, when NAFTA was adopted, the Canadian beef industry saw an increase in value of exports of 650% from 1994-2022. Without these high-value agreements, we would not be exporting $6 billion a year.

If Bill C-282 moves forward, Canada will be at a disadvantage before negotiations even begin. Bill C-282 will tie the hands of our trade negotiators and severely constrain the Government of Canada's ability to negotiate and renegotiate the best deals for all of Canada. We understand, from previous trade officials' testimony under the bill's previous iteration as Bill C-216, that their ability to negotiate would be limited and that our trading partners would also limit their offers to Canada.

Canada's most beneficial and progressive trade deals, like CPTPP and CUSMA, have been achieved through flexibility and compromise. Our negotiators have balanced the need for ambitious outcomes while protecting Canada's interests. Bill C-282 takes away this needed flexibility to secure ambitious trade deals. In an already tense trading environment with protectionism on the rise, it is counterintuitive for Canada to add more barriers to trade. Bill C-282 sets a dangerous precedent that certain industries and sectors would have their trade interests protected through legislation. Further, this bill could see a domino effect around the globe for further protectionist actions from our trading partners. This risk is not worth the economic impact to Canada's economic sector, which relies on trade, and the broader interests of Canadians.

Market access losses will be counterproductive to Canada's wider economic interests. While many other countries have trade-sensitive sectors, we understand that no other country has chosen to legislate the work of trade negotiators. Bill C-282 is unprecedented in terms of global trade principles. Trade is essential for Canada and the world's food security. Closing ourselves to future trade is closing access to food for Canadians and the countries that depend on food exports.

Open and free trade allows access to food at lower costs. Canadian cattle producers provide some of the most sustainable beef to the world at a time when we're globally discussing climate change, sustainability and food security. The world needs more beef from Canada, not less.

To conclude, I want to emphasize that the growth of the Canadian beef industry will depend on international trade. Hindering trade is hindering our ability, as an industry, to grow. We strongly encourage members of Parliament to oppose Bill C-282 as currently written in order to allow Canada to preserve its robust ability to negotiate comprehensive trade agreements that help secure Canada's long-term economic success with the national interests of Canadian consumers in mind.

CCA appreciates the opportunity to provide input on Bill C-282 and would be pleased to provide any further information that the committee may seek.

Thank you.