International Trade Committee on June 11th, 2021

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

Mr. Fowler, to continue in the same vein, when we decide to make concessions like that one at the last minute, there are major repercussions for a sector. This was a sector that the Americans had targeted.

When we decide to protect a sector, if we keep our position like a card up our sleeve, are we not running less risk of having to give in at the end?

[Aaron Fowler]

First of all, I agree that difficult issues are often, if not always, resolved at the end of the trade negotiation. While this issue was resolved at the end of the trade negotiations, the plan management and access in particular on dairy was a feature of the negotiations throughout. The position of the United States, until well into September 2018, was that Canada should take on commitments that would have resulted in the eventual dismantlement of the supply management system in Canada. We did not accept the commitments that the United States wanted us to make. The provisions that applied to dairy that were in the CUSMA at the end were provisions that Canada's negotiators and government felt were warranted in light of the overall benefits and balance of the agreement and what it offered to the Canadian economy.

While it may have appeared to be late in the game, I assure you that the supply management sector and their representatives met with us daily in Washington as well as virtually. I would be surprised if the outcome of those negotiations, albeit late in the negotiating process, came as a huge surprise to those industries.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Berthold.

Mr. Dhaliwal, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I would like to welcome all the presenters and my dear friends and colleagues. In particular, I know I missed saying my good morning from beautiful British Columbia to Christine, our clerk.

Madam Chair, contrary to what my dear friend Mr. Blaikie said—that Mr. Forsyth is here to defend the government—it's my understanding that he's here to provide professional non-partisan advice to the committee members on this particular act, which is Bill C-216.

My question is for Mr. Forsyth. He mentioned numerous times that there are some risks involved. One of them, he mentioned, is a narrow outcome. I would like to ask him to explain or elaborate on those risks and the potential impacts.

[Doug Forsyth]

I'd be happy to elaborate on some of those risks and what would happen in a trade negotiation if one were to be negotiating with not the full basket of items on the table. I highlighted it in one of my earlier answers, but I'm happy to flag it again.

I think that as a trade negotiator you like to start the negotiation with as many items on the table as possible. It does potentially allow for trade-offs and allows for a broad discussion with your trading partner in order to understand what is within in the art of the possible.

It is incumbent on us as trade negotiators to make sure that our trading partners understand our key defensive interests and what our red lines are and what things we cannot do. As I've said, throughout my negotiating career, it's been clear that concessions made in the supply management sector are red lines. That is what was in my mandate for the Canada-UK TCA and that was what was respected.

If we were to start from the position that we would not be dealing with 100% of the items that we would negotiate on, it does risk having an agreement that's not necessarily completely beneficial to Canadian exporters and producers and it does risk being an agreement that does not necessarily provide the full economic benefits to Canada that one might have expected.

We have not faced that yet to date, but it is possible that if we were to go down the path provided in Bill C-216, that is in fact what we would do. It would be quite likely that our trading partners would take off the table something of interest to Canadian exporters and producers, and then we would be faced with the situation of negotiating an agreement that might not be as beneficial to Canada as it could be.

Maybe I'll turn to my colleague from Agriculture Canada to see if he'd like to add anything.

[Aaron Fowler]

Thank you very much.

No, I fully agree [Technical difficulty—Editor] trade negotiation has reached what we call a balance of commitments or a balance of concessions or a commensurate level of ambition with your trading partner. To the extent there are issues that are of interest [Technical difficulty—Editor] that we're not in a position to discuss, the reasonable conclusion would be that the overall level of ambition of the agreement would necessarily be diminished as a result of that position.

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

Madam Chair, it's also mentioned that in introducing specific policy objectives, the proposed amendments wouldn't fundamentally change the nature of the departmental act. I would like to hear an elaboration on that particular issue as well, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Could we have a brief answer, please?

[Doug Forsyth]

Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair.

If you look at the act itself, it really does set out.... It is an organizational statute that sets out in general terms what the powers and duties and functions are for the ministers. It does not have any specific policies related to what the Minister of International Trade, the Minister of International Development or the Minister of Foreign Affairs ought to be doing. It doesn't elaborate on any government policies of the day. It's a general act that sets out the terms and conditions, if you will, for the department and for the ministers and the deputy ministers. It's not policy—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Forsyth.

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We know that in the United States, Congress can give a mandate, because it has authority over treaties. It is in the constitution. In Europe, also, it is the parliament that gives the mandates. Here, this is the Crown's responsibility, so it is the government that gives the mandates, as was observed earlier. This is a fair bit less democratic and less transparent.

In the United States, despite the constitution and the fact that Congress gives the mandates before the negotiations, some sectors are nonetheless protected by various laws, such as the maritime sector, government procurement and sugar. There are laws that prohibit touching those sectors in the negotiations.

You have had an opportunity to negotiate with the United States in recent years. My question is very simple. Around the table, did you feel that you had in front of you negotiating partners who were weakened, who had lost their bargaining power, and were condemned to lose in advance?

[Doug Forsyth]

Madam Chair, maybe I'll start and then pass it over to my colleague from Agriculture Canada.

Canada and the United States have different systems by which we get our mandate out and they get their mandate out. I would just note off the top, in terms of Canada vis-à-vis the United States, how the review and oversight of the trade agreements takes place before they are launched. I did note them in my remarks, but I'm happy to highlight them once again.

There is the updated policy on tabling of treaties in Parliament, which includes 90 days in advance of the negotiations of a notice of intent to enter—

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

Excuse me, but I would like to clarify my question.

It we leave aside the different procedures for assigning negotiating mandates, did the fact that the American laws rule out certain sectors give you an advantage? Did you think that this was perfect, that you were going to have perfect losers in front of you, that you were going to take jump at the opportunity?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm sorry; we need a very brief answer, Mr. Forsyth.

[Doug Forsyth]

Maybe I'll turn to my colleague from Agriculture Canada for that answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Maybe we better—

[Aaron Fowler]

I apologize, Chair; I'm not sure that I have a lot to add.

I think every country has its own internal processes that allow for consultation between legislatures, governments and negotiators at the table. I'm not sure I understood the question as to whether the U.S. system is better or different from ours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We will go on to Mr. Blaikie for two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I said earlier, I think the issues in the legislation are pretty clear-cut. It seems to me that committee members have a pretty good sense of where they're at on that.

Madam Speaker, I would simply move that we consider the bill to have passed clause-by-clause consideration and report it back to the House unamended so that the debate can continue on the floor of the House of Commons and the bill can make some more progress in the life of this Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Blaikie, we have our officials here today, and that's the plan for today's meeting. On Monday we will deal with clause-by-clause study. That's the current plan. I suggest we continue with that.

There are members who still have questions and concerns that they have indicated they want answered.

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

I hear that, Madam Chair, but I'm moving the motion nevertheless. I think it would be a nice way to move on and perhaps use our time in other ways on Monday.

I'm satisfied that from the technical point of view, all the questions have been answered. I think it's really just a matter of committee members deciding whether they think the bill should proceed back to the House or not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

If you're moving it in the form of a motion, with your time, Mr. Blaikie, would you make it clear?

Let me turn the clock off. Would you make it clear as to what you're suggesting? Then, we'll have to go....

Madam Clerk, is Mr. Blaikie's motion in order?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Christine Lafrance]

Madam Chair, I think so, but I would appreciate it if he could repeat it very clearly.

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

Sure. I move “that the bill be deemed to have passed clause-by-clause and be reported back to the House without amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Blaikie.

Go ahead, Ms. Gray.