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.

[Patrick Taillon]

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie, for the question. I'll try to answer it as clearly as possible.

There are no such rules. Parliament can give the executive a great deal of latitude, but it can also place limits on it. There is no rule that prevents Parliament from setting boundaries for negotiators from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. However, nothing is irreversible, meaning that a decision made by Parliament today to provide a number of protections can be undone by Parliament in the future. Parliament will always remain free to change a decision if required. That goes without saying.

My understanding of Bill C‑216 is that it is a way of giving negotiators more leverage. Around the table, when other parties want to reach compromises that affect supply management, the negotiators will be able to clearly state that they are currently prohibited under Canadian law from doing so and that any move in that direction would require them to return to Canada's Parliament to obtain permission or to have the act amended.

Doing so would give back to Parliament the control over such matters that the executive now has. It injects some transparency, parliamentarianism and democracy into the process. If the bill is adopted, it will amount to a prohibition in principle, and any exception will require returning the matter to Parliament.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

At one point in Mr. Darling's testimony, I believe I heard him say that Bill C-216 would be in breach of or would violate some existing trade rules. It caught me by surprise only because I'm not aware of any rules that would prohibit a country from determining in advance what's on or off the table in terms of a trade negotiation.

Could you confirm whether I heard him right in that respect, and if so, could he highlight where that rule is? Is it at the WTO? Could you give us a little more clarity about that rule?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you.

So that we can properly understand the situation, could you, Mr. Gobeil, explain how the supply management system could stop working at some point if we were to continue to allow market shares. Because quantities produced, prices and shipments are all controlled.

If Bill C‑216 is not adopted, and if there is another agreement in two or three years, and concessions are made again, what would likely happen?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Savard‑Tremblay.

Thanks to all the witnesses with us today. I'm very grateful for their presence.

My question is for Mr. Lampron and Mr. Gobeil.

I can understand the demands being made by groups opposed to the bill. I would also like to thank Mr. Darling and Mr. Lowe for their remarks. Nevertheless, by asking us not to support Bill C‑216, we are being asked to keep supply management in order to be able to use it in exchange for greater access.

Do you see this the same way I do, Mr. Lampron and Mr. Gobeil?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses here with us today.

I have just one brief question.

I find your comments interesting, Mr. Lampron. We in the Bloc Québécois represent Quebec. You, on the other hand, although the supply management system is extremely important in Quebec, represent not only Quebec dairy farmers, but also those in the rest of Canada.

You spoke to us about the usefulness of Bill C‑216. Would you yourself describe it as essential?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to my colleague for allowing me this valuable time.

Thanks to all the witnesses. We are beginning a very important discussion today and it's one that will continue over several meetings.

My first question is for Ms. Citeau and her colleague.

As you know, our government has committed itself to no longer allowing concessions for the supply management system in future trade negotiations. We recognize that this system is essential for our farmers. That's why we made our commitment. Here in Quebec, where I live, we support more than 10,000 dairy farms directly and indirectly.

I know that you and the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance have a number of concerns about Bill C‑216. I understand from your presentation and your replies that you are mainly talking about problems with respect to future trade agreements.

Are you afraid on behalf of other farmers and other agri-food sectors? Couldn't we do two things at the same time?

I'll give you time to answer.

[Pierre Lampron]

It's a good question, and thank you for asking it.

It certainly generates some good debates, but we're businesspeople and we can find proper solutions. It's true that the subject is becoming increasingly sensitive, but we have so much else in common, like protecting the environment, feeding everyone, being able to conduct and transfer operations. There are all kinds of other matters on which we agree and with respect to which we find points we can agree on.

As my colleague was saying, we have nothing against trade. It's just that we took the hit in the three most recent trade agreements. At some point, as was mentioned earlier, producers will no longer be able to cope, particularly young people who want to take the reins.

We need to remain optimistic and to provide security. We get promises from everyone. Over 250 MPs voted in favour of the principle in Bill C‑216. At some point, concrete action is necessary. That's why we are requesting support for this bill. Our colleagues are not supporting it, but I think they'll be able to cope with a bill like this one.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I'd like to thank my colleague.

My question is for Mr. Lampron.

Mr. Lampron, how do conversations go at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture when the time comes to talk about these agreements? There are clearly differences of opinion between the various farming sectors. How does it work? How do you try to convince your colleagues that a bill like Bill C‑216 is good for the future of agriculture for the whole country?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Great. Thank you very much.

My next question is to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.

We've heard that Bill C-216 could tie the hands of Canadian trade negotiators, if not completely show our hand.

What would the risks be to all agricultural sectors during trade negotiations if that were to happen?

[Dan Darling]

I might want to mention that our executive director, Claire Citeau, is with me here today. She may want to elaborate on some of my answers.

Some of the deals we've done so far have benefited not only the non-supply management sectors, but the supply management sectors as well. We don't want to take those agreements for granted. We have to continue to move forward on trade deals that will expand the ability of our producers to expand their operations and feed the world—or feed Canada, for sure.

We feel that Bill C-216 will stop or inhibit the ability of our negotiators from doing just that.

[Daniel Gobeil, President, Les Producteurs de lait du Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Lampron.

Government compensation can't repair the long-term damage caused by trade agreements. Instead of receiving compensation, dairy farmer families would have preferred to avoid any dairy sector concessions, which would of course have allowed them to benefit from growth in the sector. Concessions with promises of compensation are not a good model for trade negotiations.

It is possible to sign trade agreements without sacrificing the dairy sector. Since 1997, Canada has negotiated 12 trade agreements with 15 countries without allowing access to our domestic market. The most recent continuity agreement with the United Kingdom proves once more that Canada can sign free-trade agreements with other countries without allowing additional access to Canada's dairy market.

That should be the norm for the future. Free-trade agreement negotiations should never sacrifice a particular sector. The desire of certain sectors to expand their export markets is legitimate and should be a priority for the government, but the interests of one sector ought not to be sacrificed to another's.

What constitutes a dynamic dairy industry during this pandemic? It should mean food and job security, enhanced access to the rural infrastructure and of course a strong economy that benefits all Canadians and all regions of Canada. Every time additional access to our domestic markets is allowed, the repercussions are felt by dairy farmer families across the country. The only viable model for the future is excluding our domestic dairy market from trade negotiations. Bill C‑216 will make a political commitment that has been promised many times during election campaigns a reality.

Voting for this bill and removing domestic market concessions for sectors under supply management from future trade negotiations would send a strong signal. We believe that the choice is clear: adopting this bill would allow our farmers to continue to develop healthy, nutritious and high quality farm products and feed the country for many generations.

Thank you. We'd be happy to answer any questions.

[Pierre Lampron, President, Dairy Farmers of Canada]

Good morning. On behalf of all dairy farmers in Canada, I'd like to thank you for this invitation to appear today.

My name is Pierre Lampron and I'm the President of the Dairy Farmers of Canada. I'm also a dairy farmer in Saint‑Boniface, Quebec. I'm accompanied today by Mr. Daniel Gobeil, who is the President of the Producteurs de lait du Québec. We represent farming families from more than 10,000 farms across Canada.

In Canada, the dairy, poultry and egg sectors are under the supply management system. Unfortunately, supply management has been weakened by recent trade agreements. Import control, which can efficiently adjust supply to demand, is one of the pillars of supply management. When access to our domestic market is granted, it erodes the system.

All parties sitting in the House of Commons acknowledge the importance of supply management and are committed to not granting any more market concessions in future trade agreements in order to protect supply management. Bill C‑216 would require Canadian negotiators to comply with this unanimous commitment. The time has come for political support to be translated into concrete actions to completely exclude dairy products from future concessions that allow access to our domestic market.

Dairy farmers acknowledge the importance of international trade for Canada's economy. We understand why Canada needs to explore and sign new trade agreements. However, concessions on dairy products have been used as leverage to allow Canada to be a part of three recent trade agreements that it signed. The concessions in these agreements represent an annual loss of $450 million in revenue. Furthermore, if we factor in the access provided in the World Trade Organization agreements, approximately 18% of our domestic production will go to dairy producers from other countries. Their products will replace those made with Canadian milk on our grocery store shelves.

Committee members, there are limits to what a sector of our economy can endure. We're tired of having our sectors sacrificed in trade agreements. Our government must refrain in all future trade negotiations to sacrifice sectors that are under supply management.

I will now give the floor to my colleague, Mr. Gobeil.

[Bob Lowe, President, Canadian Cattlemen's Association]

Good morning, everybody.

My name is Bob Lowe, and I'm the president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. With me today is Fawn Jackson, our director of policy and international affairs.

The CCA is pleased for the opportunity to provide input on Bill C-216.

The CCA represents almost 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 gross domestic product at market prices and supporting just under 348,000 full-time-equivalent jobs.

Key to the beef industry's success in Canada is free and open trade, with 50% of Canadian beef being exported around the globe. A thriving beef industry generates considerable economic, environmental and social opportunities and benefits for Canada. Export Development Canada reported that Canada's agricultural exports are growing three times faster than the overall Canadian average, confirming that agricultural products are a net cash generator for Canada's economy and an area for continued growth.

Despite the significant hardships brought to the beef industry from COVID-19, the value of trade was up 1.4% in 2020 over 2019, setting a new record in export value. Having a record year during the difficulties of COVID-19 demonstrates the resilience and the important role that agriculture trade plays in Canada's green recovery.

CCA is a member of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance and is in support of their position regarding Bill C-216. As they have outlined in their brief as well as in their presentation today, Bill C-216 will have significant negative consequences from trade policy, trade negotiating, and political and economic perspectives. Along with CAFTA, CCA is deeply concerned about this bill and the political legislation to exclude products and sectors from trade negotiations, a move that would damage relationships with key trading partners and jeopardize the foundation of our economic engine as a trading nation.

Bill C-216 is counterproductive to Canada's economic interests and effectively ties the hands of our trade negotiators before negotiations even begin. This would severely constrain the Government of Canada's ability to negotiate the best deals for all of Canada, including Canadian beef producers. Bill C-216 would be detrimental to our ability to generate growth and support hundreds of thousands of jobs across Canada.

I'll repeat almost verbatim what Dan said. This bill also sets a dangerous precedent inviting other sectors and trading partners to seek exclusions from trade negotiations, which would lead to less ambitious and less commercially meaningful outcomes across all economic sectors.

We strongly encourage members of Parliament to oppose Bill C-216 to allow Canada to preserve its robust ability to negotiate comprehensive trade agreements that help secure Canada's long-term economic success with broad national interests in mind.

CCA appreciates the opportunity to provide input on Bill C-216 and would be pleased to provide any further information the committee may seek.

Thank you very much.

[Dan Darling, President, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance]

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today.

My name is Dan Darling, and I am the president of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance or CAFTA. As you know, we are the voice of the Canadian agri-food exporters advocating for a more open and fair international trading environment for agriculture and agri-food. Today I am here to impress upon the committee that Bill C-216 should not be supported by parliamentarians.

Let me start by stating that our comments stem from decades of expertise in international trade policy and trade agreements, whether multilateral, regional or bilateral. We represent 90% of farmers who depend on trade as well as food processors and agri-food exporters who want to grow the economy through better access to foreign markets. Our members work in the beef, pork, grain, cereals, oilseeds, pulses, soybeans, canola as well as malt, sugar and processed food industries. Collectively, we account for over 90% of Canada's agri-food exports and support about a million jobs in our urban and rural communities across Canada. A significant portion of these sales and jobs would not exist without the competitive access to world markets. That is why we are urging committee members to carefully review Bill C-216 with Canada's wider strategic interests in mind and an export-dependent sector such as agri-food. It has far-reaching implications that could very much have unintended consequences on an export-dependent country like Canada.

We are deeply concerned about legislating the exclusion of products or sectors from trading negotiations, a move that would damage relationships with key trading partners and jeopardize the foundation of our economic engine as a trading nation. At the very least, Bill C-216 not only contradicts trade rules but is also counterproductive to our interests, and effectively ties the hands of our negotiators before negotiations even begin. As such, it would seriously constrain the government's ability to negotiate the best deals for Canada and, in turn, for Canadian agri-food exporters and workers. The bill is, therefore, detrimental to our ability to generate growth and protect jobs in every region of the country.

This is no small sector to disrupt. In addition to wider agricultural industry, which is already a key economic driver in every region of the country, food manufacturing supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in cities and towns across Canada. In fact, the food manufacturing sector is bigger than the automotive and aerospace sectors combined. Therefore, such legislation would set a dangerous precedent inviting other sectors and trading partners to seek exclusions from trading negotiations.

It is not unreasonable to recognize how encouraging countries to avoid making significant concessions on their end would only lead to less ambitious and less commercially meaningful outcomes across all economic sectors. Ultimately, by making it impossible for partners to even contemplate a win, big or small, in these sectors, Bill C-216 would reduce opportunities to be invited to have a seat at the table of various bilateral and multilateral negotiations and would put Canada on a collision course with the United States and many other trading partners, especially when it's time to review, extend or modernize existing trade agreements.

Increasing the leverage of other trading nations threatening to rip up trade deals threatens Canada's relationships, erodes badly needed stability and predictability, and jeopardizes the very foundation of our trade-reliant economy. One lesson we should learn from the renegotiation of NAFTA is that we should not take existing FTAs for granted. We should also fully expect that in the post-pandemic global economy, competition is going to be fiercer than ever before. Now is not the time to be erecting new barriers to trade or putting our country at a strategic disadvantage.

In conclusion, we ask that you oppose Bill C-216. Doing so will allow Canada to preserve its robust ability to negotiate comprehensive trade agreements and help secure Canada's long-term economic success with broad national interest in mind.

Thank you for our time, and I look forward to your questions.

[Patrick Taillon, Professor, Constitutional Law, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to begin by thanking the members of the committee for this invitation.

What I'd like to do is make a clear distinction between the two sides of my evidence. I'll make some comments as an individual and citizen who supports Bill C‑216, but I would also in particular like to talk about things that fall more into my field of expertise, which is constitutional law.

As an individual and a citizen, it seems clear to me that some interests need protection, because they are strategic for Quebec and Canada. The health crisis has shown us that autonomy, particularly food autonomy and local production, are more important than ever.

However, I'm here mainly as an expert in constitutional law. My message is simple and I would summarize it as follows: it is legally possible to increase the role of Parliament in these debates. That's why it's important in this debate to make a clear distinction between the fundamental question of Parliament's capacity to decide and the political expediency of doing so. The law should not be used here as a pretext.

The relationships between the executive and legislative branches are complex. Sometimes it is useful to allow the greatest possible latitude to the executive. For example, when it has to make a rapid decision, it needs some flexibility. Sometimes, it's the other way around, the executive needs less latitude, and Parliament has to set limits. In both cases, however, it is up to Parliament to determine this balance. It's up to parliamentarians to rule on certain issues with respect to which their ultimate power, or their parliamentary sovereignty, must take precedence over executive leeway.

Do the interests protected by supply management deserve added protection, more parliamentary debate, or an executive blank cheque? It's a question of political expediency. As a citizen, I would say yes, but more importantly, as a constitutional law expert, I believe that there is no doubt that procedurally, legally and constitutionally, it is possible for Parliament to frame executive action on these foreign affairs issues. It has already done so in section 10 of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. What Bill C‑216 is proposing is to go one step further, by adding details to the list of powers, and imposing certain limits on executive action.

Of course, it's important to remain aware of the fact that simply because Parliament would play a greater role in these decisions everything would automatically be carved in stone. Parliament remains sovereign. What I find interesting in Bill C‑216 is the democratization of debate on these matters as a result of requiring parliamentary debate if the interests associated with supply management need to be challenged. The act would require that parliamentarians have the final word on these questions. In other words, parliamentarians will always be free to review these matters, but will have at least established appropriate, useful and politically expedient limits on the work of the executive.

To conclude, Parliament can set limits on the statutory powers of the minister as provided in section 10 of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. A move in this direction is a political decision vested in the elected members of the House.

As an expert, I am telling you that the procedural option exists. As a citizen, I believe that it's the right option.

Thank you.