International Trade Committee on Nov. 20th, 2020

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

My time is tight.

You mentioned priorities, and it's ironic that this was the second question I had written down.

This is not a reflection on you folks here, but I wonder how it can be that the priority was to do a deal with Chile, with a microscopic GDP compared with ours, yet we're saying it was done on a priority basis for the U.K.

How can that be? It's not a critique of you folks, but how can it be that Chile had a higher priority than we had—or are we just missing something?

[Doug Forsyth]

Thank you for the question.

I can't speak to how the United Kingdom prioritized its negotiating agenda. It could be the case that they wanted to close some deals which from their perspective were easier than others.

The CETA is a complex and very comprehensive agreement; it takes time to negotiate. I think they were taking some time to develop expertise along the way and then to get the resources in place to do it.

Again, from their perspective they were looking, I think, at.... Their number one market is with the EU, and I think that's where they devoted most of their resources.

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

Okay. Because I am running out of time, I'll ask something I asked the Canadian Chamber and the Business Council of Canada about at our last meeting. I asked them about consultation. Basically, their response to me was, “We send them emails and they respond by email.”

I understand those are business associations or organizations, but if that's how their consultations are, I'm wondering.... Because I'm from a rural riding, I'm interested in how the agricultural consultations went. Did they ask you, or was it truly back and forth? What were the asks? What is dairy asking for? What is beef asking? What is pork asking? What are the beans asking? What is corn asking?

Can you give us some insight on what they're looking at, if we're having true consultation with the ag sector?

[Doug Forsyth]

Madam Chair, we speak regularly with all of the sectors that have an interest, and agriculture is obviously an important sector for us, both exporters, on the offensive side and on the defensive side.

We have regular channels of communication with all groups. We meet regularly with them. We certainly exchange emails. We brief them regularly, whether it's to their board of directors or as a group, and we give them updates on....

We have a regular meeting with CAFTA, the ag exporting group. We speak regularly with the dairy farmers and processors, the grains folks—all of them. Honestly, I have an open phone line to speak with them, and they call me to let me know their—

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

I have one last question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm sorry, Mr. Lobb.

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

Am I out of time again?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes. I'm sorry, Mr. Lobb.

We'll move to Ms. Bendayan, please.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to all of our panellists.

Mr. Forsyth, I'll pick up on a couple of points that have been raised over the course of the meeting so far.

One of them relates to this being the eleventh hour. Mr. Forsyth, I'm sure that in your experience, most trade negotiations conclude at the eleventh hour. Often parties leave the meat of their negotiations to the end, and that is not unusual, I am sure. Perhaps you could comment on that.

As well, it is my understanding—and perhaps you can clarify it—that the objective of our negotiators and of your team is to conclude the best possible agreement for Canada, in Canada's national interest, and not an agreement as quickly as possible. Is that correct?

[Doug Forsyth]

Madam Chair, I think that is absolutely the case. All of our negotiators, whether we're negotiating with the United Kingdom or any other country, are absolutely trying to get the best deal for Canadian producers, exporters and businesses. Frankly, you're absolutely right. Many negotiations do come down to the deadline, the last minute. There are always difficult issues that are left to the end because they're difficult issues. The easy ones are easy to get through and don't take quite as much time. Usually it ends up being key sectors of interest to either party that are left to the very end. In this case, it's no different. Some of the negotiations that we have had are very much around key sectors of export interest for the U.K. and key sectors of export interest for us.

It's no secret that our exporters, in reference to the previous question, of beef, pork and grains see the European marketplace, but specifically the United Kingdom, as key export opportunities for them. The United Kingdom has been very clear about wanting to export more cheese to Canada, so I think those are, when we get down to it, how those products enter our market and how our exports enter their market. They are very much top of mind for us as a negotiating team.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, and thank you for defending the interests of our agricultural sector and our dairy sector.

With respect to the transitional nature of the agreement, previously a colleague and you exchanged a little bit on the possibility of a sunset clause. Personally, from my point of view, I believe a sunset clause would put us in a difficult situation, given that we don't know how long it will take to negotiate a fulsome, comprehensive trade agreement with the United Kingdom.

Do you believe that you will be negotiating a clause specifying in the transitional agreement when negotiations on a comprehensive trade agreement will begin, which might alleviate some of the concerns of my colleague?

[Doug Forsyth]

I think so. This is a unique negotiation, I must say. We have not had one like this ever, and we have been at this more than a few years, where we're looking at trying to replicate something that is already in place, but it's not the greatest. We're trying to replicate something that's applicable for 28 countries and make it bilateral. It's not a simple process at all, but that's kind of the only option we have available to us in order to make sure that we can mitigate the potential damages to businesses.

We really wanted to take that and have it in place, then look to the future. I think we'd want it in place for too long, no sunset clause, but certainly there is, as I said earlier, a keen interest from both parties to make sure that we have a bilateral agreement in a timely manner. That's why we and ministers have said that we would launch within a year and then look to conclude as soon as possible. I don't think we want to drag this out beyond a couple of years.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, and perhaps—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have one minute remaining.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I'll ask a quick question, then.

You indicated earlier, Mr. Forsyth, that a Gazette notice was issued. I believe that was at the beginning of negotiations. Just for the record, can you indicate when the Gazette notice was issued?

[Doug Forsyth]

It was issued in July 2018.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We go to Mr. Savard-Tremblay for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am going to read from an FAQ document we received last week. Here is one of the questions:

Will Canada make concessions for supply management in future trade talks?

The answer reads as follows:

Officials will continue to defend the supply management system, in accordance with the commitment made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture not to concede any additional market access for the sector in future trade agreements.

As you know, that is a promise we have heard ad nauseam, but it has still been broken time and time again. We ended up finding out that, in the course of negotiating other trade deals, the government had allowed the supply management system to be undermined and given up additional market access. Dairy and poultry farmers, just to name a few, suffered the consequences.

Do we now have an ironclad commitment, one that spells out—in no uncertain terms—that cracks in the supply management system will not be tolerated as far as this agreement is concerned?

[Doug Forsyth]

Thank you for the question, Madam Chair.

My mandate—my marching orders—from the minister and from the Prime Minister have been very clear: that there would be no increase in market access for supply-managed products coming into Canada. We have been very clear at the negotiating table that this was the case.

I think that, yes, in the recent past, there have been some increases in cheese and poultry exports to Canada as a result of the larger-scale negotiations, but just as a reminder, in the CETA negotiations, poultry was not involved. There was an increase of cheese exports into Canada, but again, we have been very clear with the United Kingdom throughout the negotiating process and again at my level, at Steve Verheul's level, at the minister's level and at the prime ministerial level that there would be no increase in market access for supply-managed products into Canada in this agreement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We will move to Mr. Blaikie.

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

Thank you very much.

When you say there will be no increase in market access for foreign dairy, does that also include not reducing the tariff rate in the event that a country exceeds its TRQ? In other words, does that include ensuring that the tariff protections that currently exist wouldn't be reduced or eliminated for countries that exceed what's allowed under the current rules?

[Doug Forsyth]

That's correct. If I understand your question correctly, then you do have the correct understanding of it, to put it that way.

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

Thank you very much.

Could you confirm something for the committee? We're talking about a deal that is meant to replace what's in place by December 31. The House is set to rise on December 11. That doesn't leave much in way of a timeline for Parliament to be able to pass enacting legislation. Is it contemplated that we wouldn't need enacting legislation for this transitional agreement?

[Doug Forsyth]

Thank you for the question.

You are correct. We would need legislation for the agreement, and there is not a whole lot of time.