International Trade Committee on June 11th, 2021

[Doug Forsyth]

Thank you for the question, Madam Chair.

If I understood that question correctly, I think one of the keys for any good negotiator is to make sure that you're in close contact with the key stakeholders to ensure you understand exactly what their issues are and to make sure they understand where you are at in the negotiations. That two-way communication is very important so that surprises, whether at the end or in the middle, are kept to a minimum.

That is one of the key objectives we have in any trade negotiation. It is staying in close contact with affected sectors, whether they're on the defensive side—for example, supply management—or on the offensive side, for example, with some of the grain sector and the beef and pork sectors.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Forsyth.

We move to Ms. Bendayan for five minutes.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Earlier in this discussion, we raised the question of the cultural exemption.

Quite frankly, I am surprised that my colleagues, the members from Quebec, have not had more to say about this question, because the fact that we had to defend the cultural exemption and many other issues is essential to this discussion, in my opinion.

My question is for either Mr. Fowler or Mr. Forsyth.

Given that we have a number of defensive sectors—I believe that's what you called them, Mr. Forsyth—and given that we have a number of areas that we try to protect in Canada—particularly the cultural exemption, but others as well—do you feel as if putting one particular defensive sector into law in this legislation somehow diminishes the importance, in the eyes of our potential trading partners, of the other things we try to defend, such as the cultural exemption?

[Doug Forsyth]

Would it, in our partners' eyes...? That's a very good question. I think that certainly by elevating one sector over another, you are indicating to trading partners—and, frankly, to the Canadian audience as well—the importance of one sector over another.

When you put it in legislation, I can well imagine that other sectors would look to have their interests reflected in legislation as well, whether it's in this department's act or another department's act or in any other way. Government policies of the day would no longer be considered policies but would be found in legislation. If that were the case, it certainly would limit what we could do as trade negotiators, but it would also highlight for other countries with which we wish to negotiate where our defensive sectors are and the importance we place on them. Yes.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

In the course of your consultations ending just now in May or previously, have other sectors indicated that they also would like to see legislative tools in order to exempt them from any potential harm in future negotiations?

[Doug Forsyth]

During the consultations, we certainly heard interests from a number of stakeholders that are both offensive and defensive, and not just on the supply management side of things. I haven't heard of any other sectors that would like to be included in legislation, but I think this still is the farthest one down the road, as it were. If it were to be enacted, I could imagine that others would be interested in seeing themselves reflected in legislation as well.

I'll ask my colleague from AAFC if he is aware of any other sectors that have flagged that interest.

[Aaron Fowler]

No, I am not. I suspect that many are watching to see how this process unfolds, but I have not heard of any other sectors requesting this treatment.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Fowler, seeing as how just a few short days ago we did hear from other agriculture sectors, including beef and pork farmers, I wonder what reaction or commentary you may have heard on the agriculture side on behalf of our other farming industries. Do you feel there is a common thread among our agri-food sector, or is there divergence on this particular point?

[Aaron Fowler]

I would say that what I have heard reflects largely what the committee has heard from the export-oriented part of Canada's agriculture sector, which is a concern that any action taken to continue to protect the supply management sectors.... Generally speaking, I think the agricultural industry understands the reason that we have to take these steps to protect supply-managed industries. They want to ensure that it is done in a way that does not foreclose on their ability to pursue export-oriented opportunities and they want the government to negotiate meaningful market access opportunities in the context of our free trade agreement. I think that is largely consistent with the message this committee heard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lobb, you have five minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to go back to an outstanding issue that I believe the chicken farmers still have.

Mr. Forsyth or Mr. Fowler, perhaps you can touch on this. It's about one of the outstanding requests they have from the USMCA trade deal with further auditing at the border with the CBSA. Do you get involved with the CBSA to follow up on that? Is there an update on where we're at?

This would be in regard to spent hens coming across the border or anything that wouldn't be in the regular role of what you would see in the deal.

[Doug Forsyth]

Maybe I will ask my colleague from Agriculture Canada to answer.

[Aaron Fowler]

Certainly we are very well aware of the issue and the concerns that the poultry sector has expressed with respect to certain types of imports that are coming into Canada. We have been working with them for some time in different parts of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, as have our colleagues at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and our colleagues at the Canada Border Services Agency. We have been working across departments to explore different mechanisms that might be used to address that particular challenge and to ensure that the products that are entering Canada are limited to those that are allowed under the terms of our agreements.

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

Along the same line, I'm sure you have heard from the dairy farmers through the years, as I have, on the claims that a tanker truck would come across the border and say that it was goat milk. It would later be found out to be dairy cow milk, not goat milk.

Is this something that you have heard through the years? Is this something that the CFIA or CBSA is regularly checking on?

[Aaron Fowler]

Perhaps I will try to answer it and then see whether Mr. Forsyth wants to add anything.

That particular example, I have to say, is not one that I have heard before. I know that there's generally concern that the products entering are eligible to enter under the TRQ in question and that there's not a misrepresentation of the goods. That's a fairly consistent concern, and one that we work on regularly with our stakeholders.

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

Okay. Good.

I want to go back to the idea around the trans-Pacific partnership and the U.S. I know I brought this up in the first round, but to me, the spirit of the deal that goes back to 2014 or 2015 was that the U.S.A. would have access to TPP. That would be it. That would be rolled into it. That was the deal. Now it looks like the U.S. is going to get their access through USMCA and they are going to get access to the TPP. By geography, they should have the lion's share of that TPP access.

Is that your understanding of it, or do you think there's some other way that the U.S. wouldn't get almost double the access?

[Doug Forsyth]

I think the U.S. has not applied to join the CPTPP. You are correct that if they were to join, they might have access to both of those opportunities to import, if you will. However, that would be part and parcel of the market access package that they would need to negotiate when they joined CPTPP. Again, they haven't applied yet, so it's difficult to answer a hypothetical question.

I'll turn to my colleague from AAFC to see if he wants to add anything.

[Aaron Fowler]

Thank you. I will maybe add to that, if that's okay.

As was mentioned in response to an earlier question, Canada's commitments under the CPTPP are known. They're made on a plurilateral basis, so they're available to all CPTPP members.

Canada has been clear that with respect to countries that have expressed an interest in having access to the CPTPP, our willingness to leave those market access commitments available for that country depends on that country's ability to bring a commensurate level of ambition to the table, including with respect to the market access commitments it would be prepared to make to Canadian exporters.

This is a very hypothetical situation, but if the U.S. were to seek to accede to the CPTPP and access the incremental market access through that agreement that is not available to them through the CUSMA, I think the first question I would have is, “What does Canada get in exchange for that? What is the incremental access that we would get into the U.S. market?”

At this point, it's not a question that I can answer, but I think it shouldn't be taken as a given that any country that accedes to the CPTPP will, by definition, be accessing Canada's market access commitments as they're currently written.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

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

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

Madam Chair, if I can just say one thing, I didn't catch Mr. Arya's last comments about New Zealand butter.

He doesn't prefer New Zealand butter over Canadian butter; he was just wondering where he can buy New Zealand butter. Was that what he was saying?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I see a thumbs-up, so I guess that's what he was saying.

Go ahead, Mr. Dhaliwal, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I again want to appreciate the valuable input from Mr. Forsyth and Mr. Fowler on this topic.

Carrying on, Parliamentary Secretary Bendayan was asking a question. If we set up this new Bill C-216, it will set a precedent that will probably affect other industries as well. Other people will come to us. I mean, every industry brings in a bill.

I would like to get an explanation in detail on the trade policy objectives are that are going to come from particular sectors.

[Doug Forsyth]

I will maybe start, and then I'll turn to my colleague from Agriculture Canada to further elaborate.

If I understood the question, you want to know other sectors that might come forward and what those sectors might be. Is that what I understood?

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

That's right.

[Doug Forsyth]

Okay. Thank you for the clarification.

As we said, I'm sure most sectors are keeping a close eye. You will have seen on Monday, when a number of industry players came and presented to the committee, that others were watching very closely to see what was going on.

Again, we haven't heard for sure who might have an interest. However, you could certainly see that there might be an interest from sectors that we consider defensive in the trade negotiations, whether those are cultural industries or telecommunication service providers.

Again, I think it's fairly wide open with regard to who might have an interest in seeing themselves in legislation once the legislation is in place. Once it's given to one group, I think it's clear that others might also have an interest. I haven't heard of anything specifically, but I could well imagine that there might be some other sectors at play.

I'll turn to my colleague to see if he has anything to add.