International Trade Committee on June 7th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lowe.

We'll go to the Dairy Farmers of Canada, please.

[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.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mrs. Gray for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

My time is limited, so I apologize in advance if I have to cut off your answers. I have two questions and then I'll be ceding my time to Mr. Berthold.

We heard testimony today that Canada negotiated 16 agreements without this bill and we support supply management.

My first question is to CAFTA. You shared...to not take existing FTAs for granted, which would include protecting supply management.

Can you briefly expand on this?

[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.

[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?

[Fawn Jackson, Director, International and Government Relations, Canadian Cattlemen's Association]

Thank you. I'm going to take the question.

We have to be able to sit down with our trading nations at times to negotiate new trade deals as well as to update older ones. To be able to do that, we need to be able to effectively engage in those conversations.

As you can imagine, if we take a number of everybody's sensitive products right off the table, right off the hob, this is certainly going to limit the ambition of trade agreements. This is particularly detrimental when we have to focus on economic recovery following COVID-19.

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

Thank you, Ms. Jackson.

I'll send it over to my colleague, Mr. Berthold.

[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?

[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]

Is my time up, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have 35 seconds for a brief question, Mr. Berthold.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Lampron and Mr. Gobeil, I just wanted to reiterate the Conservative Party's support for supply management. At the moment, I think that supply management has never before had so much backing from all the party leaders.

I just wanted to hear from you briefly on whether you had any news from the government about compensation for the Canada‑United States‑Mexico Agreement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Give a brief comment, please.

[Pierre Lampron]

We are still in talks. We don't have much that is concrete, but the door is still open. Discussions are continuing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

We move on to Mr. Dhaliwal, please, for five minutes.

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

Madam Chair, I'll pass it on to the parliamentary secretary, Ms. Bendayan, please. If there is time left, I'll pose a question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

[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.

[Claire Citeau, Executive Director, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance]

Thank you for the question.

I'll begin by answering in French and then switch to English.

I'd like to reiterate that we are only speaking on behalf of our members and the sector that we represent.

My first point is more or less a reminder. I don't think anyone needs to be reminded just how easy it is to reopen free trade agreements. We saw that happen with the new NAFTA. When you have political clout, it's relatively easy to ask for free trade agreements to be reopened. That's something to take into consideration.

The rest of my answer will be in English.

Perhaps I can add to Dan Darling's comments earlier on. I think it's important to remember that trade policy is very much about technical discussions and political discussions. Both need to happen very much in parallel, and at some point, come together to conclude deals. We very much see this happening right now in the whole vaccine situation, as well as in the CETA context. Even though the deal has been decided, ratified and implemented, our members—it's not a surprise to any of you—continue to endure technical issues that hinder our exports, therefore, there's a need to continue the technical discussions and very much the political efforts as well to remove the barriers for our exporters. If you limit the ability of the negotiators and the government to manoeuvre pre-conclusion but also post-implementation, this could be problematic. We could be in a situation where non-tariff barriers could see no resolution, and that would be really problematic.

Dan, perhaps you want to add to this.

[Dan Darling]

Thanks, Claire.

I think that Claire, for the most part, answered that question really well. Obviously, to handcuff our negotiators right off the hop when they go into negotiations would be extremely detrimental. I can foresee, for an example, if we were working out a deal with the country of Ukraine.... Beef, for an example, was one of the things that they took right off the table right off the bat. What would be the reason for a lot of these negotiations to continue? Our negotiators have to be mindful of all of the deals that they make and do things in the best interests of all of our producers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much. I'm sorry the time is up, Ms. Bendayan.

We go on to Mr. Savard-Tremblay for five minutes.

[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?

[Pierre Lampron]

I'd like to thank the member for the question.

Yes, this bill is essential and very important.

It's true that I'm not speaking only on behalf of Quebec dairy farmers, but rather all dairy farmers in Canada. To be sure, dairy farming is of less significance in some provinces. As my colleague Mr. Gobeil said, dairy farming is very important in Quebec, but it is even more so for other provinces, where it is practised on a smaller scale.

As we mentioned, this bill is very important if we want a prosperous and sustainable dairy industry for future generations. There is a lot of investment at the moment, and we would like that to continue. That's why this bill is so important.