International Trade Committee on June 7th, 2021

[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.

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

Another argument we often hear is that we'll never be able to reach another free trade agreement if we have this kind of restriction in place. However, we have other well-established limits on national security and the cultural exemption, and that hasn't prevented us from signing free trade agreements.

Why do you think the Liberals and others think that this issue is different and that we can't hang onto this kind of exemption?

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

That argument doesn't hold water, as shown by the exceptions you just mentioned. There's also the fact that all countries protect “sensitive products”. In every agreement between countries, certain products are protected and left alone. Before negotiating, it's important to clearly indicate that supply management is untouchable. Then, when the negotiations begin, the matter has already been settled by the act…

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Plamondon.

I'm sorry to interrupt, but I need to move to Mr. Lobb for five minutes, please.

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

Okay. Thank you.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Plamondon. It's great to have you here.

Huron—Bruce is a rural riding in southwestern Ontario. It's on the west coast, right against Lake Huron, and has some of the most productive farmland in North America, with some very high yields. Huron County is the fastest-growing county in all of Ontario for dairy litre production. We're growing at 6% per year, in spite of some difficult circumstances with COVID and some trade deals, etc.

If you mentioned this in your opening comments, I apologize, but I want to ask you whether you have any thoughts on the United States potentially entering into the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

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

I know that there have been many comments and articles on this subject. It's a possibility, since the arrival of Mr. Biden. Would this have an impact? To be sure, if the United States wants to regain some of what was conceded in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, it could benefit, but there would be no additional concessions from Canada.

Marc‑André Roche, who is with me today, can give you further details.

[Marc-André Roche, Researcher, Bloc québécois Research Bureau, Bloc Québécois]

It's important to recall that when Canada made its initial concessions under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the United States was still part of it. The concessions that were made at the time were for an area that included the United States. When they withdrew, they demanded additional concessions just for them.

Of course, if the United States were to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, it might have to come to an agreement with Australia or New Zealand on quota-sharing , to take on some of the quotas that would have been granted under the agreement, but there is no reason for any further concessions because the volumes granted had been conceded when the United States was in the partnership.

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

Thank you.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Right. I certainly see that as a red line in my view on future negotiations on TPP with the United States in it.

One other question I wanted to ask you is about an outstanding ask that the chicken farmers have had in relation to the USMCA trade deal, and it is to have an enhanced and beefed-up presence with the border, the CBSA. That was part of their compensation out of the USMCA deal. They really weren't asking for direct support. They were asking for maybe some green and innovative ways for on-farm and maybe for some tightening up and more scrutiny at the border for the U.S. so that it may not be getting spent hens or something across the border in an unfair way.

Also, I understand as well that there have been cases where tanker trucks come across the border and say it's goat milk, only for it to be tested and found out that it's actually dairy cow milk. That's a clear violation of terms. I just wondered about your thoughts about maybe some outstanding dollars in commitments to CBSA. I'm not criticizing them, I'm just saying they need more dollars to do their job.

Do you have any thoughts about that?

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

I fully share your point of view. The examples you gave are glaring.

I met some producers under supply management, mainly chicken farmers, who gave us unbelievable examples of all the manoeuvres used by the United States to cheat just a little, sometimes even to completely circumvent conditions under the free trade agreement. That had been the case for some time for cheese sticks. There had even been an incredible debate in Parliament. That was in 2008 or 2009, I think. At the time, we actually succeeded in disciplining the United States.

In any event, the solution would certainly be to have tighter customs monitoring. The government needs to make large investments to hire staff and acquire electronic equipment so that cheaters can readily be detected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We go now to Mr. Sheehan for five minutes, please.

[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]

Many programs could be improved at the request of agricultural producers. For supply management, I would say that what people mainly want is stability. They want assurance that if they invest, there won't be another breach that will yet again cost them 3% of their revenue. This is particularly important for those who are trying to build or grow their business. Young farmers are therefore very worried.

It's true that the most recent breaches were very harmful to some farms. It affected not only Quebec, but the rest of Canada too, including Ontario, because there is supply management in every province. The situation was very difficult everywhere. For just about everyone in Quebec and Canada, a 10% decline in revenue has a considerable, and even dramatic, impact. That was certainly true for young farmers. What they want more than anything else is stability.

For the other programs, such as development programs, there were many applications from the world of agriculture that would be achievable in the short or even the very short term. The government does not appear to be listening closely enough. I hope that the coming elections will raise awareness and that these expectations can be met.

It's true that overall, the farming community did reasonably well over the past year. As you said, revenues increased by approximately 8%. Everything is going well, but support for certain types of agricultural production should continue. Producers under supply management are not receiving any grants that would enable them to take action; what they are asking for is protection.

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

Thank you very much for that very important answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm sorry, Mr. Sheehan. You have about 35 seconds.

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

Again, regarding the regional development agencies, I'm parliamentary secretary for FedNor, and we have DEC. I know we've helped different agricultural sectors, so if there are any ideas that the member has, in particular for small and medium-sized farms with smaller herds, perhaps he could delve into that now or put it in writing later, because that is a big question.

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

Yes, I'll send something in writing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sheehan.

Mr. Plamondon, thank you for coming.

Mr. Perron, thank you as well.

Thank you all for being here.

We are going to suspend the meeting now. We have many witnesses coming up in part two, who we need to hear from.

I will suspend the meeting for two or three minutes while we get our witnesses set up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We'll call the meeting back to order.

Welcome to all of our witnesses.

As an individual today, we have Patrick Taillon, professor of constitutional law, Faculty of Law, Université Laval.

From the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, we have Dan Darling, president, and Claire Citeau, executive director.

From the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, we have Bob Lowe, president, and Fawn Jackson, director, international and government relations.

From the Dairy Farmers of Canada, we have Pierre Lampron, president and from Les Producteurs de lait du Québec, we have Daniel Gobeil, president.

Mr. Taillon, I open the floor to you. Please go ahead.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Taillon.

We go now to the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Darling.

We'll go to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, please.

[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.