Evidence of meeting #35 for International Trade in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was sectors.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Marc-André Roche  Researcher, Bloc québécois Research Bureau, Bloc Québécois
Patrick Taillon  Professor, Constitutional Law, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual
Dan Darling  President, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance
Bob Lowe  President, Canadian Cattlemen's Association
Pierre Lampron  President, Dairy Farmers of Canada
Daniel Gobeil  President, Les Producteurs de lait du Québec
Fawn Jackson  Director, International and Government Relations, Canadian Cattlemen's Association
Claire Citeau  Executive Director, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance

12:15 p.m.

Bloc

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

Thank you, Mr. Lampron.

Madam Chair, I will give the rest of my speaking time to my colleague Yves Perron.

June 7th, 2021 / 12:15 p.m.

Bloc

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?

12:15 p.m.

President, Dairy Farmers of Canada

Pierre Lampron

That's pretty much what we hear all the time. That's why the bill is important.

Our MPs tell us not to worry, but we're always negotiating something. Every country defends its specific sectors; there's nothing new about it and it doesn't really prevent negotiations from continuing.

Given that we conceded parts of the market under supply management in the last agreements, it's very important to take concrete action to maintain supply management.

I'll ask Mr. Gobeil to expand upon my answer.

12:15 p.m.

President, Les Producteurs de lait du Québec

Daniel Gobeil

Thank you, Mr. Lampron.

Thank you, Mr. Perron, for your question.

Clearly, we are not against trade. The objective of our supply management model is to respond to Canadian market needs.

We noticed this when large quotas of cheese were allowed under CETA. It amounted to 17,500 tonnes of European cheese, or 17.7 million kilograms, that would enter Canada with top revenue for dairy farms.

Other agri-food sectors were promised access to European Union markets and consumers. However, many farms are still waiting for the impact of these trade agreements to kick in, because additional tariff barriers were imposed to impede trade somewhat.

That's why we have some reservations about allowing concessions without assurances for other sectors.

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

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?

12:20 p.m.

President, Les Producteurs de lait du Québec

Daniel Gobeil

We heard a lot of entrepreneurs talk about that this morning.

In our case, because our sector is under supply management, our businesses grow in accordance with Canadian requirements. However, for two, three or four years now, all opportunities for growth have gone to foreign countries under trade agreements that meet consumer needs.

Consequently, investment in farms is becoming increasingly difficult. Why invest in farms when uncertainty reigns in the countryside? The situation is worrisome because all the growth that might have been possible now and for another several years has been ceded to foreign countries.

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

To conclude, could you tell me briefly what you think about politicians who promise to protect supply management, but who hesitate to support a bill that would make this obligation legally binding?

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Please give a brief answer, sir.

12:20 p.m.

President, Les Producteurs de lait du Québec

Daniel Gobeil

Right.

We found that there was solid support from several political parties. Of course, we continue to hear lots of promises during election campaigns. This bill would certainly strengthen the parties' commitments to Canada's dairy farmers.

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Thank you very much.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Thank you very much. We'll go to Mr. Blaikie for five minutes.

12:20 p.m.

NDP

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?

12:20 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance

Claire Citeau

Perhaps I can jump in here.

12:20 p.m.

President, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance

Dan Darling

Yes, Claire.

12:20 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance

Claire Citeau

I'm sorry, Dan, but perhaps you will allow me to jump in here very quickly.

I just want to add the comment here that it would contradict trade negotiating principles.

Dan, please go ahead.

12:20 p.m.

President, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance

Dan Darling

That was going to be my answer to the question anyway. That's where it would contradict trade rules.

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Is it a rule or a principle, and where would we find an enunciation of the principles that you're talking about?

12:20 p.m.

President, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance

Dan Darling

I guess it would be a principle. I can't answer that question fully right now...unless Claire can.

12:20 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance

Claire Citeau

Perhaps the best people to answer those types of questions are the negotiators themselves, who are wheeling and dealing at the negotiating table, but essentially it's a matter of reciprocity and setting a precedent.

If you look at perhaps the TPP negotiations, I think there were some comments earlier today about this, when Japan entered the deal, right from the onset it wanted to exclude five agriculture products that are in Canada's offensive interests: beef, pork, grains, rice and sugar. There's no way Canada would have achieved a comprehensive agreement had Japan not agreed to put those products back on the table.

This is a matter of allowing negotiators and the government to have the ability to seek the best agreement for Canada.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

I think it's important to note that the current government has said that under no circumstances would they cede any further market share in dairy. Therefore, in this case, the law wouldn't be doing anything that the government hasn't said it's already going to do at the negotiating table.

Mr. Taillon, in the meantime, do you know of any rules that the bill might violate. Is there any rule according to which the government or Parliament cannot deem in advance that a specified industry or management system cannot be subject to negotiation in a free-trade agreement?

12:25 p.m.

Professor, Constitutional Law, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual

Patrick Taillon

Is that question for me?

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Yes, that's right.

12:25 p.m.

Professor, Constitutional Law, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual

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.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

So, would it be fair to say—

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Thank you very much, Mr. Taillon.

Mr. Blaikie, I'm sorry, but your time is up.

To our witnesses, thank you for the very valuable information you've provided today. I'm sure you're going to monitor as the proceedings continue over the next few days as well.

Thank you to the witnesses and to my colleagues.

We need to sign off and join the in camera session for the next half hour of our meeting.

[Proceedings continue in camera]