International Trade Committee on Feb. 16th, 2023

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 50 of the Standing Committee on International Trade. Today's meeting will take place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room, and remotely using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. With regard to interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either floor, English or French audio. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. A reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding. Please also note that during the meeting, it is not permitted to take pictures in the room, or screenshots on Zoom.

Should any technical challenges arise, please advise me, and we will suspend for a few minutes in order that all members can fully participate.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 8, 2023, the committee is beginning its study of Bill C-282, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act.

In our first panel, I'd like to welcome the sponsor of Bill C-282, Mr. Luc Thériault. Mr. Thériault is accompanied by Mr. Marc-André Roche, researcher for the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Thériault, the floor is yours, please, and you have five minutes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is with great pride that I rise today to introduce Bill C‑282.

This bill is really pretty straightforward. It adds to the Minister of Foreign Affairs' mandate the obligation to fully respect supply management by taking away the minister's ability to negotiate these principles in future international trade negotiations.

The minister, therefore, won't be able to sign a treaty that would increase tariff rate quotas, which we commonly refer to as quotas, for supply-managed products, or reduce the tariff applicable to those goods when they're imported in excess of the expected quota.

Bill C‑282 is not a partisan bill.

In principle, in the House, we always agree on the need to protect supply management and not weaken it. In every trade negotiation, the House unanimously called on the government not to weaken supply management.

It did so in 2005 in the context of negotiations at the World Trade Organization, the WTO. It did so in 2017, in the context of renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. It did so in 2018, this time for the trans-Pacific partnership. Each time, MPs were unanimous, including members of the government, no matter the party in power.

Things inevitably go sideways, however. Whether in the context of the TPP, CUSMA or the agreement with Europe, the government eventually gave up market share.

What we're proposing to you today is to move from consensus on the principle to action. That's why we decided to introduce legislation. There was the one introduced by my colleague Louis Plamondon, Bill C‑216. Today, we're debating Bill C‑282.

Even though the Bloc Québécois introduced the bill, it isn't just ours. Supply-managed producers in Quebec and across Canada have adopted it as their own. I know they're listening and I want to salute them. This bill is theirs as much as ours.

I'm pleased by the House's overwhelming support for Bill C‑282, especially that of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who has committed to supporting it at all stages.

In practical terms, what effect will Bill C‑282 have?

Signing a treaty is the government's first commitment in negotiations. By signing a treaty, it indicates that it approves of the text and commits to ensuring its implementation. I want to emphasize the word “commitment” within the meaning of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

By preventing the government from signing, Bill C‑282 prevents it from introducing an implementation bill that would pave the way for the ratification and implementation of the treaty.

Bill C‑282 proposes that supply management be removed from the bargaining table. Unless the government comes back to Parliament mid-negotiations and asks it to change the law, supply management is fully protected. This legislation is a powerful tool to increase Canada's balance of power in trade negotiations.

The overwhelming support of the House gives me hope that Bill C‑282 will quickly become a bill, unlike the previous one, which died on the Order Paper in 2021.

Bill C‑282 doesn't disarm the government. On the contrary, it strengthens it. Let's not forget that every country in the world protects its sensitive commodities. Just look at cotton and sugar in the United States. Supply management is at the heart of our agricultural model. It is very important for producers.

Human-scale family farms dot the landscape and structure our regions' land use and economic and social development. Producers feed the people, earn a living from their labour and contribute to our food security. These people deserve stability and predictability. They need to be able to plan for the future instead of facing uncertainty every time an agreement is renegotiated at their expense.

The big American dairy producers could fully supply the Canadian market with their surplus alone. The largest American egg producer alone could feed the Canadian market. That goes to show just what a precarious situation our supply-managed farmers are in. That's why they count on you so much.

Supply management is a system whose balance rests on three pillars. We have to control production, price and what crosses the border. As my colleague Yves Perron would say, it's like a three-legged stool. If the third leg gets shorter with every breach, then the whole thing is liable to collapse.

I'm prepared to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

That was right on the five-minute mark, sir. Thank you very much.

We'll have Mr. Seeback, for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Thériault, thank you for the private member's bill.

I'm the proud representative of many dairy farmers in my riding of Dufferin—Caledon. I know how hard they work. I know how innovative they are in bringing fantastic quality products to Canadian tables.

I do have some questions with respect to this bill.

My first question is this. Did you consult any other agricultural groups with respect to their views on this piece of legislation, and if you did not, why not?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

If memory serves, the other groups stated their positions during the study of Bill C‑216. One only has to look at the blues to see what their views are.

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

I have read the blues. My question was whether you got in touch with any of them to discuss the bill.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

What groups are you talking about? We did a tour—

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

I'm talking about any agricultural groups.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

We went to agricultural fairs. We haven't travelled across Canada, if that's what you mean.

With respect to supply-managed farmers, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA, support Bill C‑282. So there are many groups that support the bill. There is a fairly broad consensus. I should have brought a list of all their names, which I had at the press conference the other day. I don't know if you saw the press conference in the foyer of the House of Commons. A lot of people and producers came to support the bill.

I would argue that the bill has a very broad consensus among supply-managed producers across the country.

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

Outside of agricultural groups, did you consult any other industries—for example, aluminum or steel—on whether they thought that taking supply management out of the minister's ability to negotiate an international trade agreement would affect their opportunities within a trade agreement?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

No, absolutely not. I didn't want to insult supply-managed producers by telling them that we were going to consult other people, that we were going to put ourselves in the government's shoes and be at the negotiating table to get the agreement of all the other sectors so that we wouldn't sacrifice our producers yet again.

I don't understand the meaning of your question. I think that supply-managed producers have given enough. What they lost in three successive agreements will never be recovered. Compensation won't help them recover that.

As I said earlier, these people need predictability. Quite often, they have a lot of debt. There are tools they need to purchase. When they see the threat of losing market share at every negotiation, it's hard for them to bear that pressure, and that's understandable.

In fact, in Quebec and Ontario, for example, they've had to set up farm outreach programs. There's a reason for that.

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

I understand the concern.

If I look at—from Statistics Canada—the cash receipts for dairy products from 2010 to 2021, they were $5.5 billion in 2010, and they're $7.39 billion in 2021. This was after the trade agreements had been negotiated that you suggest are problematic. That's an increase in revenue of over 40%.

If we look at actual milk production from the farm—again, this is from Statistics Canada, the Government of Canada—from 2014 to 2021, there were 78 million hectolitres produced in 2014, and in 2021, 95 million hectolitres were produced.

Where's the damage that you're talking about as a result of these agreements?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Because of overproduction, 500 small farms per week were lost in Wisconsin.

Nevertheless, from what you're telling me, it's clear that the system is working well. Despite all the breaches in supply management, we've been able to turn the situation to our advantage.

However, if the government keeps opening new breaches, the system won't hold. You know the risks as well as I do. Indeed, major operations threaten to take over what we know as human-scale agriculture. We don't want to see farms disappear because they can't compete.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Seeback.

We go now to Mr. Virani for six minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Good morning, Mr. Thériault.

I'm pleased to see you here and to discuss this bill, which was also introduced by your colleague, Mr. Plamondon, in the previous Parliament.

I'd like to begin by saying that it was our party that created supply management. It goes without saying that it will always defend it.

I found your exchange with Mr. Seeback interesting.

Based on what you've seen in Quebec and, if possible, in Canada's other provinces, could you tell us whether the threat to supply management affects small and medium-sized farms more negatively than big farms?

You mentioned family farms a number of times. Are small businesses more at risk and, if so, can we do more to protect them?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

That's what I was trying to explain.

In Quebec, to stick with what I know, we mainly have small and medium-sized operations. There aren't any big farms like there are in the United States, for example. I'd say that producers have 80, 100 or 200 cows. Their herds are modest. Therefore, if the attacks and breaches continue to pile up, it will be much more difficult for them to overcome.

Even if, by some miracle, they manage to evolve within the system, I think that the issue today isn't simply how they're being affected, but rather whether we can leave them alone and ensure that they can eventually enjoy some predictability and grow. Otherwise, the breaches and successive concessions will lead to these farms shutting down. When a farm disappears, more often than not, a village disappears shortly afterward. In Quebec, the entire organization and use of the land depend on agriculture, which also drives up economic development.

I didn't provide any numbers today because I wanted to talk about the principle of the bill, but it's clear that these people won't be able to continue to face current pressures, stress and anxiety. There's a lot of folks who suffer from this instability in Quebec's farming communities. The system is working. As far as we're concerned, we think it's a concept that should be promoted, possibly exported abroad.

We've seen the effectiveness of supply management when it comes to food security, particularly during the pandemic. There are benefits to this system. We could decide to adopt the American model, but I would point out that the American producers themselves, who dropped the system in the 1990s, would like to go back to supply management.

That's my answer. I think that because of the way Quebec agriculture is organized, we would suffer even more from negotiations that have the effect of sacrificing our sectors.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

It's interesting that you highlighted the situation with the United States, because now I'd like to ask you whether, in the current context or in the context of Mr. Plamondon's bill, you became aware of other jurisdictions in North America or elsewhere that use a supply management system like ours and are now having to protect their agriculture. If so, I'd like to know whether they adopted best practices that we might consider emulating.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

You know that the Americans are heavily subsidized. They chose to grant subsidies, whereas in Canada, we chose supply management. It's a balanced system that allows us to ensure quality as well. The American system leads to overproduction and waste. It's that very overproduction that they'd like to send us.

Our producers back home are very proud of the quality of their products because there's production control. It allows everyone in the chain to get their fair share in an equitable manner.

Obviously, if we decide to intervene on market access and let other countries' products come in—the Americans would be first in line—the three supply-managed sectors would be destabilized.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Our supply management system is much more efficient, because it eliminates the possibility of overproduction.

I agree on that.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Indeed, there is no overproduction.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Yes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

It's extremely rare. It happened early in the pandemic, and producers adapted very quickly, as usual. Let's not forget that producers in the U.S. dump milk on a regular basis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, go ahead for six minutes, please.

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

Good day.

Thank you for being here today.

My questions are for Mr. Thériault, but Mr. Roche is always welcome to respond if he wants to comment too.

I feel like I'm watching the same movie I saw two years ago, where a part of the House of Commons, under pressure, will vote in favour, but is doing everything it can to tell us that Bill C‑282 is ultimately a bad bill.

In fact, I also heard that the breaches were a good thing. Ever since, the dairy sector has apparently never worked better. I suppose I should feel reassured now.

Mr. Thériault, could you explain the intention of your bill to the committee?

Is it true that the two governments we've had over the past 15 years openly support supply management?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Indeed, hand on heart, they express their faith in supply management.