Bill C-282

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.

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

Thank you very much.

Do you think the passage of Bill C‑282 would strengthen Canada's position in future negotiations in order to avoid new breaches in supply management?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

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 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?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Okay. Right now, I think everybody is aware that we have a bit of a dispute with the United States. I think it was on December 20, 2021, that a dispute settlement panel determined that Canada contravened CUSMA's obligations but we could retain the supply management system.

On January 31, 2023, a week ago, the United States again requested establishment of a dispute settlement panel relating to Canada's dairy policies. I was wondering, if we enacted this bill, Bill C-282, would it affect the Canada-U.S. trade relationship concerning dairy products? If so, how? What is the probability that, following enactment, the United States would seek to renegotiate certain CUSMA provisions? What are your thoughts on that?

[Tom Rosser, Assistant Deputy Minister, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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.

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.

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 and processors 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.

Thank you again, Madam Chair. Along with my colleagues, of course, I'd be happy to answer any questions that committee members may have.

[Aaron Fowler, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Madam Chair and honourable members, thank you for the invitation to appear before the Standing Committee on International Trade on its review of Bill C-282.

The bill proposes to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, such that the Government of Canada cannot make any commitment in an international trade 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. 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.

New market access for supply-managed products has been provided only at the WTO and in three free trade agreements, which are the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA; the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP; and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA.

The decision to provide increased market access for supply-managed goods in the context of these negotiations was not taken lightly. Such commitments were accepted only where it was deemed necessary to conclude free trade agreements that were in Canada’s overall economic interests. For instance, these agreements allowed Canada to maintain its preferential access to the United States market and to secure significant new access to the EU, Japan and other important foreign markets. It is important to highlight that while new access for supply-managed products was provided through these agreements, the integrity of the supply management system itself, including its three pillars, was fully maintained.

In recent years, the government has made clear its commitment to make no further market access concessions for supply-managed products in future trade negotiations. In line with this publicly stated commitment, Canada’s most recently concluded trade agreement, the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement, did not provide new market access for cheese or any other supply-managed product, even though this was an important issue for the United Kingdom in the negotiations.

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.

Along with my colleagues here today, I welcome the committee's questions. Thank you.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Indeed, if we were to pass the bill fairly quickly, it could strengthen the position of our negotiators at the table. Given the fact that when the UK was in the EU they were given shares, I think they should be negotiating some of what was already conceded.

The quick passage of Bill C‑282 could give us an interesting lever. That's how it could be done.

Mr. Roche, would you like to add anything?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Absolutely.

I am introducing Bill C‑282 precisely because, in the past, our representatives, after mouthing allegiance to supply management with their hands on their hearts, decided to sacrifice it.

This time, we're asking you if you want to hold on to this system. We are going to do what every other country is doing, we are going to take it off the table. That's all.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

I apologize. The witness talks about people who are providing food. I am also talking about people who are providing food: Pulse Canada, the Canola Council of Canada, Grain Growers of Canada, the Canadian Pork Council and the Canadian Cattle Association. They are saying they're strongly opposed to Bill C-282. They not only provide food to Canadians; they provide food to people across the world, which is how they made Canada number five worldwide in terms of these exports. That is what I'm talking about.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Sorry, Madam Chair.

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?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, which represents 90% of Canadian farmers, producers, food manufacturers and agri-food businesses that depend on trade strongly opposes Bill C-282. What do you say to its members?

[Marc-André Roche]

Bill C‑282 does not question the concessions already made in the agreements. We are not changing anything at all.

Of course, the bill would limit Canada's ability to negotiate a new agreement under the WTO, if that agreement were to make new concessions.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

It's at the negotiating table that problems occur. That's where decisions are made to sacrifice market share. However, Bill C‑282 seeks to legislate what happens before treaties are signed. That's why it's important.

In fact, if a government, be it Liberal or Conservative, decides to support supply management, the bill would prevent that government from negotiating the three protected sectors once at the table. It would be non-negotiable under the bill, as is the case for other products in other countries. The government would then have a mandate to not put it on the table, but also the ability to say, “It's my Parliament; let's move on to another issue.”

If there were ever any intent, be it malicious or perverse, to not respect the legislative authority, this bill would force the government to go back and table new legislation in the midst of negotiations. That would be somewhat futile. It would bear the blame for that decision.

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

Good day.

Thank you for being here today.

My questions are for Mr. Thériault, but Mr. Roche is always welcome to respond if he wants to comment too.

I feel like I'm watching the same movie I saw two years ago, where a part of the House of Commons, under pressure, will vote in favour, but is doing everything it can to tell us that Bill C‑282 is ultimately a bad bill.

In fact, I also heard that the breaches were a good thing. Ever since, the dairy sector has apparently never worked better. I suppose I should feel reassured now.

Mr. Thériault, could you explain the intention of your bill to the committee?

Is it true that the two governments we've had over the past 15 years openly support supply management?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

We went to agricultural fairs. We haven't travelled across Canada, if that's what you mean.

With respect to supply-managed farmers, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA, support Bill C‑282. So there are many groups that support the bill. There is a fairly broad consensus. I should have brought a list of all their names, which I had at the press conference the other day. I don't know if you saw the press conference in the foyer of the House of Commons. A lot of people and producers came to support the bill.

I would argue that the bill has a very broad consensus among supply-managed producers across the country.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is with great pride that I rise today to introduce Bill C‑282.

This bill is really pretty straightforward. It adds to the Minister of Foreign Affairs' mandate the obligation to fully respect supply management by taking away the minister's ability to negotiate these principles in future international trade negotiations.

The minister, therefore, won't be able to sign a treaty that would increase tariff rate quotas, which we commonly refer to as quotas, for supply-managed products, or reduce the tariff applicable to those goods when they're imported in excess of the expected quota.

Bill C‑282 is not a partisan bill.

In principle, in the House, we always agree on the need to protect supply management and not weaken it. In every trade negotiation, the House unanimously called on the government not to weaken supply management.

It did so in 2005 in the context of negotiations at the World Trade Organization, the WTO. It did so in 2017, in the context of renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. It did so in 2018, this time for the trans-Pacific partnership. Each time, MPs were unanimous, including members of the government, no matter the party in power.

Things inevitably go sideways, however. Whether in the context of the TPP, CUSMA or the agreement with Europe, the government eventually gave up market share.

What we're proposing to you today is to move from consensus on the principle to action. That's why we decided to introduce legislation. There was the one introduced by my colleague Louis Plamondon, Bill C‑216. Today, we're debating Bill C‑282.

Even though the Bloc Québécois introduced the bill, it isn't just ours. Supply-managed producers in Quebec and across Canada have adopted it as their own. I know they're listening and I want to salute them. This bill is theirs as much as ours.

I'm pleased by the House's overwhelming support for Bill C‑282, especially that of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who has committed to supporting it at all stages.

In practical terms, what effect will Bill C‑282 have?

Signing a treaty is the government's first commitment in negotiations. By signing a treaty, it indicates that it approves of the text and commits to ensuring its implementation. I want to emphasize the word “commitment” within the meaning of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

By preventing the government from signing, Bill C‑282 prevents it from introducing an implementation bill that would pave the way for the ratification and implementation of the treaty.

Bill C‑282 proposes that supply management be removed from the bargaining table. Unless the government comes back to Parliament mid-negotiations and asks it to change the law, supply management is fully protected. This legislation is a powerful tool to increase Canada's balance of power in trade negotiations.

The overwhelming support of the House gives me hope that Bill C‑282 will quickly become a bill, unlike the previous one, which died on the Order Paper in 2021.

Bill C‑282 doesn't disarm the government. On the contrary, it strengthens it. Let's not forget that every country in the world protects its sensitive commodities. Just look at cotton and sugar in the United States. Supply management is at the heart of our agricultural model. It is very important for producers.

Human-scale family farms dot the landscape and structure our regions' land use and economic and social development. Producers feed the people, earn a living from their labour and contribute to our food security. These people deserve stability and predictability. They need to be able to plan for the future instead of facing uncertainty every time an agreement is renegotiated at their expense.

The big American dairy producers could fully supply the Canadian market with their surplus alone. The largest American egg producer alone could feed the Canadian market. That goes to show just what a precarious situation our supply-managed farmers are in. That's why they count on you so much.

Supply management is a system whose balance rests on three pillars. We have to control production, price and what crosses the border. As my colleague Yves Perron would say, it's like a three-legged stool. If the third leg gets shorter with every breach, then the whole thing is liable to collapse.

I'm prepared to answer your questions.