Evidence of meeting #50 for International Trade in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was producers.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you all for being here today.
In response to Mr. Virani's question earlier, the supply management system came into force in 1972.
Mr. Fowler, you said that the system's integrity had been maintained, that doing so would remain the policy and that some market access concessions had been granted.
I had my doubts, so I looked up the word “integrity” in the dictionary. Le Robert, the authoritative reference in French, defines integrity as “the condition of being unimpaired and whole”. According to my dictionary, in order for the words “unimpaired” and “whole” to be applicable, the proportion of supply management breaches would have to be 0%. However, that number is about 10% for poultry and eggs, and 18% for dairy.
According to your dictionary, at what percentage would the word “integrity” no longer apply?
4:55 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
The system continues to work as it is designed to work. The import pillar provides predictability to Canadian planners and the Canadian Dairy Commission with respect to what the requirements for Canadian production will be to meet the needs of Canadian consumers, and with respect to dairy and other supply-managed products, because the volume of imports is finite, fixed and known, and therefore predictable for planning purposes. On that basis, I consider the integrity of the system to be intact.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
I'm going to ask my question again.
At what percentage would you consider it to be too late? Where is the point of no return? When is the integrity of the system no longer maintained or protected?
4:55 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Madam Chair, as Mr. Fowler mentioned, the pillars of the system are what's important. We maintained the pillars in the negotiations. It's true that our trading partners were granted some market access, but the system can work.
There are examples of supply-managed systems that work well, where we saw a rapid rise in domestic demand. In other cases, the system can function normally even when domestic demand drops.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Since that didn't answer my question, I'm going to rephrase it.
Other trade negotiations will take place in the future. In order for you to say that the system was still intact, what percentage of market access would be tolerable, in your view?
4:55 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Madam Chair, in my eyes, the integrity of the system is what matters. It's tough, impossible even, to identify the percentage at which market access concessions would jeopardize the system's integrity. The system is still working, as was pointed out. Demand for supply-managed products rose.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
In other words, granting additional market access would jeopardize the system.
Even just the tiniest bit more market access would be a real threat.
Is that right?
4:55 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Madam Chair, the government decided that no further market access concessions would be granted, as Mr. Fowler mentioned.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
I have here a quote from October 4, 2015, something the man who would become the Prime Minister of Canada a few weeks later said. It's from a Radio-Canada article, the title of which basically translates to “Trudeau says TPP won't touch supply management”.
As we know, though, it was touched.
Without legislation, we have to take the Prime Minister's word. Why would his word carry more weight in 2023 than it did in 2015?
4:55 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Madam Chair, I was just trying to communicate the government's position that those concessions were granted in exceptional circumstances and that full compensation was provided.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
That means that the bill would still fill a gap. It would strengthen the government's position and give promises to protect supply management a legal foundation should exceptional circumstances arise in the future, which could always happen.
5 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Madam Chair, I agree that that is the purpose of the bill.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Great.
I think I've gotten some answers thus far, but not all of them.
Right now, does the compensation fully cover the losses?
5 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Madam Chair, if I understand the question correctly, the answer is yes.
The level of compensation provided to the affected sectors was balanced to account for the total estimated value of lost market access.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
There is no more compensation coming, then.
Is that correct?
5 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
The answer is no, Madam Chair.
As far as the three agreements are concerned, it's done.
5 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Thank you for being before us today. I want to get my head clear around the U.K. situation. After the U.K. left the EU, we had the CETA. You said the continuity agreement provided no more access, no greater access.
How much access does the U.K. have right now, and where did that access come from? What agreement does it come from?
5 p.m.
Director General, Market Access, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Prior to leaving the EU, the U.K. had access to the CETA quota, which was negotiated as part of the overall agreement when they were members of the EU. That was 16,000 tonnes of cheese and 1,700 tonnes of industrial cheese. Having left the EU, they were no longer entitled to that access. We suggested to them that they approach the EU about that. They did, and the EU said, “You are not entitled to this. You're not an EU member anymore.”
That leaves them with access to our WTO quota. Our WTO quota is for cheeses of all types. It's 20,412 tonnes. That WTO quota is divided into two pools. One pool is for EU members. It's about 70% of that total—approximately 14,250 tonnes. Given that the U.K. is no longer a member of that, in theory they should no longer be entitled to it. However, as part of the trade continuity agreement negotiations, we allowed them to continue to access that pool while we are in discussions over a bilateral agreement.
As of today, they have the ability to access that part of the pool—approximately 14,270 tonnes.
5 p.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
What's happened to the EU's access to that WTO pool? Has it shrunk, or have you just added?
5 p.m.
Director General, Market Access, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
No, it is fixed. All EU members are entitled to that pool.
5 p.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
By allowing the U.K. to keep accessing that pool....
5 p.m.
Director General, Market Access, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
We have access to that portion of that pool. That's right.
