International Trade Committee on Feb. 16th, 2023

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

If supply management is off the table in any future deal, completely off the table, presumably then there have to be concessions made elsewhere if you're going to make a deal, so some other industry is going to be disadvantaged as a result of that, either with increased access or not getting any access. Would that be correct?

[Aaron Fowler]

It depends very much on the position taken by Canada's hypothetical future negotiating partner and the importance they attach to gaining access to the Canadian market for these products. For some future hypothetical negotiating partners, exports of dairy, poultry and egg products are not a high priority, and it might have limited impact on our ability to conclude an ambitious agreement. For others, it is a significant commercial interest, but only part of their objectives in a negotiation, and it therefore might be expected to affect the overall outcome in a way that would affect the level of ambition, but I couldn't speculate as to how. In some cases, the country may determine that they do not want to go forward with an FTA with Canada in the absence of Canada's being able to make commitments in this sector. It depends on the hypothetical partner in question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You did a very good job of all hypothetical questions, between the two of you.

Mr. Arya, go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Fowler, you indicated rightly that without this bill, Canada has been able to limit access and protect the supply management that we have today.

Why do we need this bill at all?

[Aaron Fowler]

I am quite certain I am not the person to ask that question of, Madam Chair. I can speak to the effects of the bill from a negotiating perspective.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Okay, I'll ask this one.

If this bill is passed as is, you are going to say that it will not affect you in any way. Is there no constraint on you at all in negotiating any new agreement?

[Aaron Fowler]

I think it would be disingenuous for me to suggest that a piece of legislation that's before the Canadian Parliament would have no impact. I believe that the intent of the bill is to have an impact. My conclusion is that it will have an impact.

I can't speculate on precisely what that impact will be, because I don't know who we might be negotiating with in the future or what their interests would be in the context of those negotiations.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Based on the previous experience you had in negotiating contracts with CUSMA, CETA, CPTPP, etc., what do you think the situation would have been if this bill had been passed then?

[Aaron Fowler]

Those negotiations all involved significant producers and exporters of products that are under supply management in Canada. In the CUSMA and CPTPP context, that included the United States and/or New Zealand. In CETA, of course, with the European Union, many member states are significant producers.

In the context of those negotiations, these issues were of significant interest to our negotiating partner. With other countries it would be potentially less significant.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

You are stating that your hands would have been tied, sort of, if this bill had been there.

Coming back to the CUSMA, the next president of the United States might tank this again and seek to renegotiate.

If this bill passes, what will Canada's position be in those negotiations?

[Aaron Fowler]

I believe, Madam Chair, that the position would, by necessity, be consistent with what is set out in the piece of legislation that is before the committee. That is to say that Canadian negotiators could advance no additional market access in these sectors, nor could the government of the day accept to make such concessions.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

My concern is that it will affect negotiating an overall trade agreement with the United States and Mexico with terms like the current one, which are favourable to Canada.

[Aaron Fowler]

It would have an impact on these negotiations. I think it—

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Would it be a negative impact?

[Aaron Fowler]

Given the United States' interest in the dairy sector in particular in Canada, I think an inability to discuss those issues would make it more difficult to reach a conclusion.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

There will be a negative impact.

The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, which represents 90% of Canadian farmers, producers, food manufacturers and agri-food businesses that depend on trade, says it strongly oppose Bill C-282. It stated, “This legislation creates a dangerous precedent and diminishes Canada as a free trade partner.”

Do you agree with this statement?

[Aaron Fowler]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am familiar with this statement, the views of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance and its concerns. I have discussed these issues with the alliance in the past.

I think it is the job of Canadian negotiators to ensure that we operate to the maximum advantage of Canadian industry stakeholders, irrespective of the mandate and operating environment in which we have to work. We will continue to do that.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

The Canadian agri-food sector is a small number of people who have made Canada the fifth largest in exports worldwide.

If they say that this bill is going to affect Canadian farmers and the agri-food industry, do you think they're wrong?

[Tom Rosser]

Perhaps I could just offer this. We've already discussed the position of the agri-food alliance. My understanding is that the Federation of Agriculture has expressed support for the bill. They represent both supply-managed and non-supply-managed sectors.

I think it's fairly typical, given the structure of Canadian agriculture and agri-food, that there's a diversity of views within segments of the sector on different questions of trade policy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

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

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

I'm going to give Mr. Perron my time.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being with us.

I'd like you to keep your answers brief.

The Canadian Cattle Association represents 90% of exporters, not 90% of all producers. I think it's important to make that distinction clear for the committee.

Mr. Fowler, before these breaches in supply management, 16 agreements were negotiated without granting any market access concessions for supply-managed products. Isn't that proof that agreements can be negotiated without granting concessions?

[Aaron Fowler]

Yes, it is possible.

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

Thank you.

You said earlier that the government's intention was to protect supply-managed sectors in negotiating the last three agreements.

My understanding is that, initially, the government planned to give up 0% in market access. Nevertheless, the intensity of the negotiations was such that you had to grant concessions on supply management, given the exceptional circumstances.

Do I have that right?

[Aaron Fowler]

Yes, market access commitments were made with respect to the dairy, poultry and egg sector in the CUSMA negotiations.