International Trade Committee on March 20th, 2023

[Cathy Jo Noble]

To set the context, what we're here to discuss today is the legislation, not supply management versus non-supply management. All these guys at the table can have a beer and debate that until the end of time. What we're talking about is whether this legislation makes good trade policy. Our viewpoint is that it does not.

It's for all the reasons that I have outlined, in that we're putting our hand forward before we've even sat at the table, but even if you go outside the trade negotiation table—and I think about how this committee is going to be studying non-tariff trade barriers—as MP Seeback said, we don't get to tell other countries what to do. If they don't like what they see we're doing through this—and we can be sure they're watching, just the way we watched COOL happening in the States—they can respond how they want. It may not be at the trade table; it may be through non-tariff barriers or other approaches to our relationship.

As I said, I think that when our trade negotiator from the Government of Canada comes to the table and says that he thinks he can continue to protect supply management with or without this legislation, he is the one at the table, and I take his word on that.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

All right. Thank you very much.

I come from Oshawa, where we build cars. There's a significant amount of money going back and forth, so this piece of legislation is really important for precedent, because I'm worried that if one sector gets something, other sectors may be demanding something, and there's the issue of compensation. I don't know if there's anything in that regard.

Perhaps I could ask Ms. MacNeil something. Given that the minister of trade must table the negotiating objectives to Parliament in advance of trade negotiations, can you comment on why Bill C-282 is necessary?

I'm also wondering if you have any idea.... The government trade officials previously condemned Bill C-216, but it seems that they've flipped and they're changing their mind on Bill C-282. It's pretty much the same piece of legislation. Does that discrepancy warrant further investigation with officials? Maybe we should call them back, because I'm seeing that this is not something that is a really unified position, especially even at the table here.

[Lisa MacNeil]

Thank you.

I would say that we don't feel that Bill C-282 is necessary. From our perspective, Canadians would lose out if this bill came into play. By that, I mean in importing British creams, specialty creams from the U.K., we're an orphan. We don't really fit into any of the categories within the dairy sector or the dairy categories.

Canadians would lose two things. They'd lose access, because we would be stuck in the supplemental loop from now until forever. We already know that we've been denied access to that, and we're not able to get specialty clotted double creams to our customers in Canada.

More importantly, I would say that Canadians would be losing out on a unique experience. If you've ever had the opportunity to read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe to your children or your grandchildren, you know there's a chapter in there that talks about having a British tea, an afternoon tea, and they talk about clotted cream. Imagine if you couldn't go to the grocery store and buy some of that cream in those little jars and take it home and actually bring that story to life.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Ms. MacNeil.

We will move on to Mr. Drouin for five minutes, please.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses who are here.

I would say that if the British can't export to Canada right now, it's because of Brexit. There was a deal that was signed with CETA, and they chose to exit that particular deal. Now they're having to renegotiate with Canada. I'm confident that we will be able to come to a longer-term agreement, but that's not really Canada's fault. It's other external pressures that were put in place.

Mr. Currie, you talked about an issue that's really important to me, and it's uniting the agriculture sector. I understand and I respect all sectors in agriculture. I come from a supply-managed riding, but I also come from a non supply-managed riding. A lot of dairy producers have cash crops and export grains. Free trade agreements are as important to them as protecting supply management.

Not that I want to give you the task publicly, but because you're newly elected, sitting in that chair, and the CFA did come out in support of Bill C-282, how do you see the vision of making sure that what's good for supply management is good for free trade and that what's good for free trade farmers is also good for supply-managed sectors? How do you show that unity?

[Keith Currie]

At times, I have to admit, it is like herding cats, because, as I mentioned earlier, we have some 250-plus different commodities in this country. At some point in time, someone's not going to be happy. At the end of the day, we do want balance. We have long stood behind our members at our table who have asked us to support the supply-managed sector, including through Bill C-282, which looks to protect further. At our AGM two weeks ago, we had all five party leaders, including the Prime Minister, stand up and say they are going to support Bill C-282 and support supply management going forward. We will take them at their word, but this legislation will ensure that supply management is protected.

In the same sense, we also want our governments, both today and going forward, to protect all of our commodities to the best of their ability going forward in trade negotiations as well as domestically, because it's just as important to be supported domestically from a food security aspect, an economic aspect and an environmental and societal well-being aspect. We do need the government to protect agriculture to the best of its ability, and that also includes in future trade deals.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I want to reassure everyone here that we are talking about the definition of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and de facto the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development. They—and I say “they” because right now there are two “shes”—have the mandate to promote free trade in the definition in terms of what they are to do, but the mandate to negotiate free trade agreements does not come from the minister herself. It comes from cabinet. It is cabinet that makes that decision. That's an important difference that we do have to make.

Mr. Pelissero, welcome to committee.

I want to address another thing that we often hear, which is that supply-managed products are often more expensive than any other products in Canada. I was recently in Florida, and a dozen eggs cost eight dollars U.S.

I just want you to comment. You know the sector. I know you exchange with your U.S. colleagues, so could you explain the rationale for that and how supply management has helped keep egg prices down in Canada?

[Roger Pelissero]

Thank you, Mr. Drouin. It's nice to see you, as always.

We're able to keep the costs down because of our smaller farms and less risk of bird flu. In the U.S., when they get impacted, it's larger farms that are being hit. Facilities with three and a half million birds are being hit. They've lost 18% of their production in the U.S.

We have to get 7% of our domestic supply from the U.S., so when their market is that short, it hurts us here also, but we have been able to maintain a low price. Producers get paid. We don't set the price in the grocery store, so whatever the retailers do—and I know there have been some hearings with retailers on food pricing—is out of our control. We are able to make sure that farmers get a fair return for what they're doing in maintaining a very affordable rate for nutrition for consumers in this country.

In terms of trade implications and deals that happen, we're not opposed to free trade deals. We want Canada to be a trading nation. Our U.S. counterparts, United Egg Producers, did not ask for any more access to our market, yet our government gave more access. That's why this bill is needed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Savard-Tremblay for two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you.

My question is for representatives of the National Cattle Feeders' Association.

You mentioned earlier that during round after round of negotiations, the system was maintained. In your assessment, at what percentage will the system no longer hold? In exchange, did you receive any substantial gains in the quotas that were relinquished?

[Cathy Jo Noble]

I didn't say that. I simply stated what Mr. Carroll had said. I can't speak for the supply management sector on what percentage they believe....

What I do know is that our trade negotiators need flexibility, and if there's anything we've learned after the past three years, it's that there are a lot of unexpected things that can happen around the globe geopolitically and otherwise. When you legislate something, you take away flexibility, and we may greatly regret this down the road.

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

In your humble opinion, is the United States, because it has had a sugar law since 1934, a weak negotiator?

[Cathy Jo Noble]

The trade experts I spoke to indicated that there was not another trading partner that has legislated. Every country protects. Everybody protects something, but my understanding from my conversations with trade experts is that it's not legislated. Maybe it's in the interests of the committee, if you haven't already, to have some of those individuals who can confirm that from their experience.

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

I assure you that I did not invent the existence of a sugar law in the United States; I even give you the most solemn assurance. We have also had experts confirm that there is no problem with passing such laws.

Mr. Currie, what are your thoughts on this idea? To your knowledge, is one law going to represent all of the productions? Does it really burden the protection of any particular sectors?

[Keith Currie]

I don't think it has to. As I mentioned earlier, this can't be a zero-sum game. We look at commitments by governments in the past to protect supply management, for example, in trade negotiations, and that hasn't happened even though they committed to protecting them.

If you look at CUSMA and the loss of 10% to 11% of market access, this legislation would further entrench into government that they need to protect a very vital sector in this country. Supply management, by and large, does not export, so we don't affect other countries from that aspect. I don't think you have to have one without the other.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Cannings, you have two and a half minutes, please.

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

I'd like to continue with Mr. Currie along those lines.

It seems that one of the big issues here is the promise from all parties not to allow any more access to our supply-managed sectors versus legislation that says that. Legislation can be changed as quickly as a political promise, in my experience.

I'm wondering if you could expand on that and compare what, say, the United States does with cotton, sugar and things like that, versus what we're trying to do here to protect our supply-managed sectors.

[Keith Currie]

There's been a lot of focus on.... Obviously, the intent of the bill is to protect supply management. A part of this has to be improving the conversation, as I mentioned earlier, around non-trade barriers. Going forward, hopefully the enactment of Bill C-282 will impel our negotiators and trade officials to make sure that those non-trade barriers aren't in the way of successful trading between countries. We really need to make sure that this happens as well, along with the protection of the supply-managed commodities.

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

I'll put that same question to Mr. Carroll about how this might affect our negotiators going into any future trade agreements.

Is Mr. Carroll still with us?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I don't see him on the screen at the moment.

He's back. Okay.

Did Mr. Carroll hear the question?

[Tim Carroll]

No. Could you repeat the question, please? I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Can you be concise and reduce it very quickly, Mr. Cannings?

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

Basically, it is about how this will impact negotiators going into a new free trade agreement when, on the one hand, we have a promise from all parties not to take any more access out of our supply-managed sector, versus legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We need a brief answer, Mr. Carroll, please.

[Tim Carroll]

Yes.

I reject the horse-trading portrayal of negotiations that says it's “this for that”. Most often in negotiations.... If people think it's about the issues only, then they're missing the whole point. There are other factors involved.

I see no evidence or past experience that would suggest that because supply management is off the table, our negotiators would be severely compromised. There's a lot more going on in the room than just one item.