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.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you very much to the member for being here today and for presenting his private member's bill on a very important subject.

I'm not a farmer directly but the Sheehan history is one that's shared by a lot of people in Canada. My ancestors came across on a boat during the famine and my great-grandfather's parents both died on the boat coming across. He was adopted by the Québécois. He was allowed to keep his name and he was raised on a farm. Eventually, he found himself out west running his own farm and got wiped out by hail and came back to northern Ontario. This subject is near and dear to my family.

Therefore, thank you very much for your private member's bill.

Just for clarity, when this came to Parliament, the Liberals supported Bill C-216, because this is very important to the Liberals. I'm sure the member will know who voted and who didn't vote for it, as all of us who have had private members' bills before certainly do. I can't speak for the other parties and who voted for what, but we believe strongly in the supply management system. It's critical to farmers across this great country and Quebec, especially during the pandemic, and we'll always defend it.

I just want to make clear that we've also said that we will not grant any further market access to supply management sectors in future trade negotiations and have committed $1.75 billion in compensation to our dairy farmers. I just want to put that on record.

Farming receipts, including in supply-managed areas, dairy and whatnot, all farming, are up 8.3% during 2020, which I found very amazing during the pandemic. Does the member have any other suggestions as to how we could strengthen the farming sector?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

That's the problem.

First, I'd like to thank you for the speech you gave during the first hour of debate on Bill C‑216. I listened to you attentively and was much impressed by the way you made your case and defended supply management.

The problem you mentioned concerning the Liberals is of course still a political problem. However, as I said earlier, they're sensing growing pressure from farmers. It seems to me it would be extremely costly for them to go back on their word because supply-managed producers have high hopes for this bill. That's what they told us when we met with them. If it passes, they'll be able to invest, for example, because they'll no longer be afraid a breach may open up and jeopardize their businesses.

Furthermore, many farmers are talking about creating new products. Something's happening in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, where farmers have joined forces to conduct research and development in order to achieve better results and design products that the public wants. Once they have assurances the supply management system is safe, they can think about designing new products and thus further expand the economy.

What we are proposing doesn't constitute a brake, far from it. Some say it would be like putting a brake on free trade, but that's far from true. I even heard someone say the supply management system was a type of federal social assistance program, whereas no subsidies are granted for supply management. People think producers subject to supply management are passive, but that's not at all the case. They're very dynamic. For example, cheese production is incredible in Quebec and everywhere else in Canada. Incidentally, I've tasted cheeses from your region that are extraordinary. We can compete in the European market. So our system is very dynamic.

Consequently, I don't see how the Liberals can say that they said yes, but that they ultimately wanted to say no and that they're prepared to open up breaches in supply management and negotiate. That would be extremely difficult. Ultimately, this bill is an additional barrier to their continuing their current behaviour.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome to all my colleagues.

I also welcome my colleague Mr. Plamondon and thank him for introducing this bill, which will definitely solve some longstanding problems. Of course, nothing is perfect, and there's no magic solution, but it's preferable to have statutory provisions on the subject than not. I think that's obvious.

Before asking you my question, Mr. Plamondon, I want to correct a few points for the record.

First, the obligations under Bill C‑216 apply before any agreement implementing act is introduced. In other words, it will become part of the minister's mandate: the minister will be barred from making any commitments on Canada's behalf. Consequently, this is in no way an agreement implementing bill.

I'd also like to clarify another point in view of our colleague's previous remarks. Supply-managed sectors receive no production subsidies. That's also important to note.

Mr. Plamondon, I'd like to ask you a question that, in a way, is a kind of rhetorical question.

Some of our opponents tell us that the bill might undermine other sectors during negotiations. My impression is that everyone is a believer when it comes to supply management, but there aren't a lot of practitioners. We often hear elected representatives say they fully support supply management and that they're committed to keeping it intact but that we shouldn't deprive ourselves of certain opportunities in future negotiations. Ultimately, they say they'll keep supply management intact but want to have the option of opening up a breach.

Doesn't that argument alone indicate how necessary this bill is?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the member, Mr. Plamondon, for his passion on this topic.

I've heard what supply management is ever since I got elected in 2015 and even before that. I have no dairy farms in my riding, but I have many very close by in Surrey. I thank him for his passion specifically for the dairy sector but also for the other supply management sectors.

We are here today to study C-216, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act.

Mr. Plamondon, can you explain the pros and cons of this bill? What would be the positive and negative impacts, actual versus perceived?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

It's possible, but, personally, I had a choice between doing something and doing nothing. So I chose to do something by introducing Bill C‑216, thus putting enormous pressure on the government simply because it wouldn't be dealing with a mere motion anymore, but with a bill. In so doing, I would ensure the government wouldn't amend those provisions once adopted. If it wished to amend them later on, there would be a debate and we would rise to defend our point of view. The pressure would also be on the agricultural people, as I said earlier.

If we allow the party in power do what it wants, it'll be entirely free to look into the free trade treaties. On the other hand, it will have to be a little more cautious once a bill has been adopted on third reading.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, I am very excited to be here today. What is happening is historic: this is the first time this kind of bill has been introduced. We are here in committee to debate it, and I hope our debate will show how important it is to vote for it.

Bill C‑216 is ultimately very simple. It would add to the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs the obligation to defend the supply management system fully by removing the minister's authority to negotiate those principles in future international trade negotiations. The minister would thus have no authority to sign a treaty under which tariff rate quotas would be increased for supply-managed goods or to reduce the tariff applicable where imports exceed the set tariff rate.

It is strange that Bill C‑216 should be so controversial since it has received unanimous consent on several occasions since my former colleague André Bellavance first introduced it in the House of Commons on November 22, 2005.

Since then, following every free trade agreement, the Bloc Québécois has sought to confirm Parliament's support for supply management by introducing motions for unanimous consent. On every occasion, members have supported those motions, and, every time, the government flip-flopped and did the opposite. Hence the importance of including these provisions in an act rather than a motion.

On September 26, 2017, during the NAFTA negotiations, the Bloc Québécois introduced a motion urging the government to protect markets subject to supply management. However, little more than a year later, on November 30, 2018, the government reneged on its promise and signed CUSMA, which would replace NAFTA.

On February 7, 2018, during negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, we introduced a motion seeking protection for the supply management system under that agreement. One month later, on March 8, 2018, the government once again went back on its word and signed the new treaty.

Then, on the last day of debate on third reading of Bill C‑79, An Act to implement the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Bloc requested and obtained parliamentarians' unanimous consent for the government to pay full compensation to supply-managed producers for the breaches contained in the three agreements. That was on October 5, 2018, and compensation was subsequently provided in part.

Lastly, on March 10 of this year, a majority of members from all parties voted in favour of the principle of Bill C‑216, which is even more significant than a motion.

I would simply like to remind members of the committee of what a vote on second reading means from a procedural standpoint. When members rise in the House to support the adoption of a bill on second reading, they are supporting the principle of the bill, by which I mean its idea and general scope. As members of the committee, you are therefore bound by that vote. According to the 2000 edition of Marleau and Montpetit's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, chapter 16, "If the bill has already received second reading, the committee is bound by the decision of the House and may not amend the bill contrary to its principle."

Consequently, we are not here to debate the pros and cons of supply management; the principle has already been adopted in the House. We are here to consider whether Canada should protect certain segments of its agriculture industry from foreign competition based on the rules of the World Trade Organization's agreements because, I would remind you, the supply management system complies with those rules.

Nor are we here to consider whether we have a right to do so. We already know. Provisions were set forth in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the GATT, before the WTO was even established.

Furthermore, many countries have invoked those provisions. We are not the only ones protecting certain goods. Everyone does it, even the United States, which criticizes us, because, since it has always been protected, it wants to invade what remains of our milk, egg and poultry markets.

From what do we ultimately want to protect our products? First of all, we want to protect them from unfair competition. Our main partner, the United States, violates many international trade rules while demanding more access from us. They subsidize their farmers illegally to the tune of several billions of dollars a year, which lowers producers' production costs and enables them to sell their goods locally and elsewhere at lower prices, which is strictly prohibited by the WTO. It constantly challenges aspects of our agricultural and forestry policies, as we recently saw in the softwood lumber and milk quotas cases, despite previous decisions by the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body. It is one of the most protectionist countries in the G20, but one of those most demanding of market access.

Other agreements are currently under negotiation, notably the agreement with Mercosur, which consists of Latin American countries, and other agreements will inevitably be discussed.

Incidentally, the first 16 free trade agreements Canada signed never addressed supply management in any way. So it's possible to discuss trade without involving supply management.

The supply management system has been vastly weakened by the latest concessions made by supply-managed sectors, which will now have to reorganize. We can't allow the United States or any other countries to force us to abandon our agricultural policies and practices.

I don't know what you think, but I think it's utterly ridiculous for one state to tell another what it's entitled import or export and at what price. And yet that's what's happening under the new NAFTA.

Quebec and Canada are exporter nations. That's undeniable; this has absolutely nothing to do with increasing protectionism. What we want is to be able to maintain a system that has proven itself for nearly 50 years and that still delivers reasonable revenues throughout the production chain, supports families in our regions and enables us to use our land.

Canada, as it should, has diversified policies and strategies to enable producers to live off the land and feed our people in accordance with the agricultural model they choose. Supply-managed producers, and even the entire agricultural sector, whether it be the Canadian Federation of Agriculture or the Union des producteurs agricoles, are simply asking us to preserve their agricultural model.

Thank you.

I will now be pleased to answer questions from members of the committee.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the 35th meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade. This meeting is being held pursuant to the order of reference of January 25, 2021, and the order of reference sent to the committee on March 10, 2021.

The committee is beginning its study of Bill C-216, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act.

We have the pleasure of welcoming MP Louis Plamondon, who is with us today.

Welcome, Mr. Plamondon. I'm glad to have you here, and of course, Mr. Perron as well.

Mr. Plamondon, the floor is yours, please.

World Milk Day

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

Mr. Speaker, today, Tuesday, June 1, is World Milk Day.

It is an opportunity to recognize the contribution of dairy farmers, who work hard to bring to our tables safe, high-quality milk, as well as other much-needed milk products, such as butter, yogourt and cheese. Dairy farmers represent a driving economic force in rural municipalities and contribute to the dynamic use of our land.

Let us show dairy farmers that they are important and let us do everything we can to quickly pass Bill C‑216. Farmers should not have to worry about their market shares being undermined again. All of the parties have paid lip service to the idea of protecting supply management. We are now asking them to put their words into action.

Let us hurry up and pass Bill C‑216 and protect supply management. Let us raise our glass of milk to the health of our local dairy farmers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We have already adopted June 7, 11 and 14 for Bill C-216.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Chair, I have two things to say.

Number one is that I would like to ask, through you to Madam Bendayan, if she had the amendment to study Bill C-216 before the softwood lumber. Otherwise, I'm going to propose an amendment that instead of the 4th, we say the minister comes on the 14th on softwood lumber. It is to change the date from the 4th to the 14th and make the other dates earlier for Bill C-216.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

My suggestion was that we study supply management first and then go straight to softwood lumber. You implied that softwood lumber was not a priority for the Liberal Party of Canada, which is completely and utterly false. I wanted to correct the record there and propose that the easiest way to move forward is to vote on Mrs. Gray's motion but to allow some flexibility in the dates. I personally am very confused as to where the schedule lies at the moment. Perhaps the chair can circulate an agenda proposing certain dates for everything, bearing in mind the urgency of the situation.

At this moment, I don't have a clear understanding of the next few meetings. I believe others would agree with me on that.

I am happy to support this motion to ensure that we have one meeting, as Mrs. Gray proposes. All of the rest of the motion is quite clear. However, on the date, I'm having trouble understanding where we go from here and whether or not we are doing Bill C-216 before the softwood lumber.

Perhaps, Madam Chair, you can take that back once we vote on the motion without the date. You can then circulate a schedule or a timeline between now and the end of the session, so that everybody has a clear picture of where this committee is going.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I first want to respond to a comment made earlier by Mr. Hoback.

I find it interesting that he mentions both the urgency of the softwood lumber issue and the importance of looking at matters that pertain to our dairy farmers in the same breath. We agree on both of those fronts and that is exactly what this committee is discussing. I hope my colleague wasn't indicating that the supply management private member's bill, Bill C-216, is not critical for our dairy farmers, because it is. I—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, now that we've done the amendment, we've actually fixed the dates for Bill C-216. If we don't pass the main motion, the amendment doesn't pass either, so then the dates are not fixed for Bill C-216 and that leaves it up in the air.

In regard to the minister's availability, you've made it very clear that the clerk has talked to the minister and she has made very clear the only days that she can be there, so it does dictate the schedule in regard—

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Chair, I've been through these committee meetings for many years, but not as many as you.

When we have a draft report going on, on the WTO, and then we have Bill C-216, we are saying we will be able to go through clause-by-clause on the 7th, 11th and 14th. I have seen that there is always some reason for it to take more than one meeting.

If we do that, I think we are jeopardizing everything. We might be jeopardizing the draft report on the WTO. We might be jeopardizing Bill C-216. If the intention is to make sure that we finish Bill C-216, then I would agree with the parliamentary secretary that we should have Bill C-216 scheduled right after May 31, after the draft WTO report. Even though I am from British Columbia and softwood lumber has always been near and dear to us, as my colleague, dear friend and brother Randeep said earlier, we have studied this in previous years and I have raised this time and time again.

I just want to make sure we don't jeopardize these two studies: Bill C-216 and the draft on the WTO. That's why I was thinking, why don't we just finish off the draft report on the WTO? When it's done, we start on Bill C-216, and when that's done, we go to Madam Gray's motion on softwood lumber?

Also, we'd jeopardize Terry Sheehan, of course. We'd just throw his issue out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

At the moment, based on the direction I see us going in, on May 31 we have the draft reports on WTO and ISDS. On June 4, according to the motion, we are with Minister Ng and her officials on softwood trade. Then we would start Bill C-216 on June 7, June 11 and June 14.

That's what the committee has adopted so far, so that's where we are right now.