International Trade Committee on Feb. 16th, 2023

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Does helping these sectors prevent you from adopting measures that are more suitable for other types of production, such as those under supply management?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Absolutely not, this is not incompatible.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Put yourself in the shoes of supply-managed producers who listen to what is said in the committee when it comes to consulting with representatives from other industries.

I'll take a completely zany example, but it's still a reality check. You are negotiating with a roofer to have your roof repaired, and I ask you if you consulted your third neighbour before agreeing on the price. How do you feel?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I feel ridiculous.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I have the same impression, generally speaking. Thank you for confirming my fears.

We know that WTO rules allow countries to protect certain sectors, so the U.S. protects its cotton and sugar, and Japan, for example, protects its rice. I would like this to be confirmed by Mr. Roche, who is an expert on the subject, or by Mr. Thériault, who surely knows the file inside out.

By the same logic, is Canada not fully entitled, in the world of international trade, to protect its supply-managed systems, which have already been partially sacrificed? It would be a partial protection of what remains, while the system still works.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Absolutely.

I am introducing Bill C‑282 precisely because, in the past, our representatives, after mouthing allegiance to supply management with their hands on their hearts, decided to sacrifice it.

This time, we're asking you if you want to hold on to this system. We are going to do what every other country is doing, we are going to take it off the table. That's all.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Given the past, do you think that...

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm sorry, Mr. Perron. You have seven seconds remaining.

Thank you.

Mr. Cannings, go ahead, please.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thanks again.

I wanted to get some clarity around the future negotiations you talked about. There was a question about whether this bill would apply to them.

Obviously, if we have negotiations ongoing with the U.K. right now, I assume.... Is that one of the next agreements that we're facing and one of the main ones that would be affected by this bill?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Indeed, if we were to pass the bill fairly quickly, it could strengthen the position of our negotiators at the table. Given the fact that when the UK was in the EU they were given shares, I think they should be negotiating some of what was already conceded.

The quick passage of Bill C‑282 could give us an interesting lever. That's how it could be done.

Mr. Roche, would you like to add anything?

[Marc-André Roche]

In 1994, the Canadian government had conceded just over 5% of its market, and that quota was distributed to some countries. When we entered into the Canada-European Free Trade Association Free Trade Agreement in the mid-2000s, the agreement was that those countries were entitled to a share of the openings that had already been granted, and they were happy with that. It didn't open up our market further. So everybody was happy with the deal.

It is likely that this sort of arrangement could be made with the UK, so that they could continue to export their cheddar here, if they wanted to, without one extra kilogram coming in.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

On the agreements we have in place—CUSMA, for instance, or the Pacific partnership—we've given up 3% or so in each of those. When those come up for renegotiation, would this bill set those back to zero and would they be out, or would they just say that it's no more than whatever has been agreed to?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

No, it is not retroactive.

Unfortunately, what has been done cannot be undone. However, going forward, there would be no more talk of supply management at the negotiating table, and no more concessions. This is not retroactive, and we are not going back to zero. We're staying at the currently agreed limit, full stop.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We have Mr. Martel for five minutes, please.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Thériault and Mr. Roche. This is an interesting discussion.

I would like to know how supply management helps small farms and promotes vitality in rural areas.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

It's a matter of getting a handle on the three pillars I was talking about earlier. As for production, we can actually monitor prices, and each link in the chain will go and get what is due to them fairly.

The ability to control borders properly creates a balance. So producers can produce what they have to produce and predict their income. This has led to the emergence of villages all over Quebec, which are often surrounded by farms. After three or four farms were established, schools would emerge.

If the supply-managed sectors are undermined and this balance is disrupted, we will see farms slowly disappear. It is villages and schools that will disappear. It is the dynamic occupation of the territory that will disappear, because our rural economy is based on this balance. We have decided to feed ourselves according to an agricultural model. These are basic products. Moreover, even if farm products are also affected by inflation, I think they are the most successful. They can feed families.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

In your opinion, what is the relevance of supply management, not only in the Quebec economy, but in the Canadian economy?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

It's the same thing. It depends on the sectors. We know that the dairy sector is very strong in Ontario too. You have to remember that there are egg and poultry producers from coast to coast in Canada.

Of course, to answer your questions, I'm talking more about what I know and what I observe when I walk around the Quebec countryside. That's why I was locating the model in this province, but there's no question that this agricultural model provides food security for people from coast to coast. That's fundamental.

It's unfortunate that people thought that because there were markets for certain products, something exportable had to be sacrificed. We can feed people, thanks to this balanced system.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Have you used any external consultants, for example lawyers—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

If you're talking about the McKinsey firm, the answer is no.

[Voices]

Ha, ha!

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Have you retained consultants such as lawyers or legal advisers, especially in constitutional law?

Have they spoken to you about the potentially negative effects on trade agreements that are due to be renegotiated in the coming years?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

We have obtained a legal opinion on one of the objections that was raised last time about Crown privilege. We will send it to you.

The Supreme Court has also looked at this. So we're well enough informed to know that what we're doing is perfect.

As for the other part, Mr. Roche—

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

If you tell me you're going to send us some documents, that's good enough for me.

Would this bill still be necessary if the government compensated farmers more effectively and quickly?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Yes, of course.

If you ask producers if the compensation is enough, they will tell you that it never replaces what they have lost in the long run. Remember, compensation often comes three or four years later, or even later in the Maritimes.