Thank you, Madam Chair.
Despite what my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, has said, I have a motion that I am going to move now. I am going to move that motion and then speak to that motion.
The motion is this: “That the Standing Committee on International Trade hold one additional meeting to invite back departmental officials prior to clause-by-clause, to testify on Bill C-282 regarding urgent concerns raised about the legislation during witness testimony; and that the committee hold no fewer than three additional meetings to ensure that all witnesses can testify in person.”
The parliamentary secretary has said today that there is no need for further study. I can't disagree with the parliamentary secretary more. Quite frankly, to suggest that we don't support supply management is an egregious statement.
In my riding of Dufferin—Caledon, unlike the riding of Toronto where he is from, I have many farmers. I have met with farmers. I meet with farmers all the time, including farmers in the supply-managed sector. To suggest that we don't support supply management is just disingenuous.
To start, I would like to talk about why this motion is so important and why I think departmental officials should be coming back to this committee. I am going to talk a little about what department officials said about this bill when it came before Parliament as Bill C-216 and then contrast that with what they actually said to this committee when this bill came to this Parliament under Bill C-282.
I think members will be shocked at the inconsistencies that government officials gave with respect to a bill that is, in fact, virtually the same in nature.
One would think that department officials would come and give similar testimony. In fact, they might say the exact same things, because that's what we would expect of government officials unless, of course, we are dealing with government officials who have been influenced, perhaps, to say something else.
Let's go to what was said at the previous meeting.
Mr. Forsyth came to speak to Bill C-216 and he gave a statement on that bill. In that statement, he said some of the following:
This bill amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act so that the Government of Canada cannot make any commitment in an international treaty that would have the effect of increasing tariff rate quota volumes or reducing over-quota tariff rates for dairy products, poultry or eggs.
The intent of the bill is consistent with the long-standing Government of Canada policy to defend the integrity of Canada's supply management system.
That is very similar to what we heard when Mr. Fowler came and spoke.
This is where things start to get a bit different and a bit interesting. He went on to say, “I'd like to share with you some considerations regarding this proposed amendment to the departmental act.”
This is completely different from what government officials said when they came to testify on Bill C-282.
He went on:
First, by introducing specific policy objectives, proposed amendments would fundamentally change the nature of the departmental act. The act is an organizational statute that sets out, in general terms, the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of International Development.
It does not prescribe specific policy objectives. This way, the act sets up a framework that provides flexibility to the government of the day to implement its particular foreign, international trade and development policy without having to change the underlying legislation; thus, it accommodates the policy perspectives that different governments may bring to the management of foreign affairs over time.
As an example, in terms of international trade negotiations, paragraph 10.2(c) of the act provides that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is to conduct and manage international negotiations as they relate to Canada. Section 13 of the act elaborates on the specific duties of the Minister of International Trade, which include improving the access of Canadian products and services to external markets through trade negotiations.
Second, specific foreign international trade and development policy objectives, including how to address sectoral interests or specific constituent concerns, are generally established elsewhere.
That's a very important thing. I'll say it again:
Second, specific foreign international trade and development policy objectives, including how to address sectoral interests or specific constituent concerns, are generally established elsewhere.
This is not what was said when they came to testify on this bill.
He went on:
For international trade negotiations, negotiating objectives and how to accommodate specific sectoral interests are set in the negotiating mandates that are approved by cabinet. This allows the government of the day to develop specific policy objectives in response to evolving international circumstances.
Third, Parliament has the final say over the outcome of any international trade negotiations. Parliament ultimately decides whether or not to pass the legislation necessary to implement any free trade agreement. Additionally, moving forward, trade agreements will be subject to even more parliamentary oversight. The updated policy on tabling of treaties strengthens transparency of trade negotiations and provides additional opportunities for members of Parliament to review the objectives and economic merits of new free trade agreements. The new policy includes the tabling of a notice of intent to enter into negotiations towards a new FTA, objectives for negotiations and, finally, an economic impact assessment.
Fourth, amendment of the departmental act in the way in which C-216 proposes carries risks.
To me, this is a stunning statement, because none of this was said by department officials when they came back for Bill C-282. What happened? Why was there the sudden change?
When it was first here, this bill carried risks. When they came back to talk about it this time, suddenly there are no risks. There are no risks in their statement.
He continued:
By limiting Canada's ability to engage on these issues, this amendment—
This is really important.
—would invite negotiating partners to narrow the scope of their own potential commitments, taking issues off the table from the outset of negotiations, likely in the areas of commercial interest to Canada.
Let me add emphasis to that. He said “likely in the areas of commercial interest to Canada”.
The last time officials came to this committee to talk about the bill, they were showing concerns. To me, they're showing grave concerns. It reminds me of that movie, A Few Good Men, when Jack Nicholson says, “Is there another kind?” These are grave concerns. They narrow possible outcomes, preclude certain compromises and make it harder to reach an agreement.
This paragraph in and of itself is a massive diversion from what government officials testified at committee on Bill C-282. If this were all, I'd be concerned. I'd probably very concerned, but guess what? It's not all they said, because they continued with their concerns. Their entire conversation with this committee was about their concerns, yet on Bill C-282, there was no discussion of concerns. There was absolutely none.
They may have had some concerns under questioning, but I'm going to continue. Doug Forsyth said:
Addressing the interest of any specific sector in the act would set a precedent that could lead to demands for additional amendments to reflect other foreign and trade policy objectives, including sectoral interests, further constraining the government's ability to negotiate and sign international trade agreements and, more generally, to manage Canada's international relations.
This is a clarion call of concern by government officials. What they're actually saying to the committee is, “If we do this for one sector of the Canadian economy, how can we then say to another sector that they don't get to have similar protection?”
For example, I know the steel industry is facing incredible competition from steel in China. This is a huge problem for the steel industry. They also have extensive competition from the United States. What if the steel industry said we no longer want any country to be able to have steel come into Canada as part of our free trade agreement, because it's far too damaging to our sector? You did it for supply management, so why won't you do it for steel? You can imagine where that goes.
He went on to say:
Lastly, maintaining the nature of the departmental act unchanged does not affect the government's policy to defend the integrity of Canada's supply management system, nor the ability of negotiators to defend this position at the negotiating table.
He's saying that supply management can be defended, as it always has been, at the negotiating table by the Government of Canada. He seems to be saying that this bill's not necessary. Again, this is very much in contrast with the information that was provided by government officials to the committee on Bill C-282.
He continued:
The government has made public commitments not to make further concessions on supply-managed products in future trade negotiations. In fact, Canada has been able to successfully conclude 15 trade agreements that cover 51 countries while preserving Canada's supply management system, including its three pillars: production control, pricing mechanisms and import controls.
Most recently, the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement fully protects Canada's dairy, poultry and egg sectors and provides no new incremental market access for cheese or any other supply-managed product.
I'm going to get back to the Canada-United Kingdom free trade agreement. That is also something that I think is going to be affected by this and by Bill C-282. It's something that we really haven't discussed in any great detail.
He then said:
Where new market access has been provided, specifically and exclusively in the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA; the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP; and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, CUSMA, the access was deemed necessary to include an agreement that was in Canada's interest.
That's similar to a response to a question I asked, which was that the only reason, effectively, that we were able to make those agreements was that there was some access to supply management.
He went on to say:
While new access was provided in those agreements, the supply management system and its three pillars were maintained. These outcomes were part of the overall balance of concessions through which Canada maintained preferential market access to the United States and secured new access to the European Union, Japan, Vietnam and other key markets.
In conclusion, while the spirit of Bill C-216 is consistent with the government's policy of defending the integrity of Canada's supply management system, amending the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act as proposed by the bill would change its nature and create risks.
That's really quite fascinating.
In conclusion, Mr. Fowler said in our study....
This is really shocking to me. It's shocking that a government official would come and make one statement on the exact same bill and then come and make another statement on this bill. I think that they should be back at this committee to answer for this contradiction. We should get to the bottom of why there is this contradiction.
The contradiction is this. In his remarks to this committee studying Bill C-282, he said the following:
In conclusion, Bill C-282 proposes to make the government’s commitment to make no further market access commitments for supply-managed products into a legal requirement by amending the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. This would strengthen the policy of defending the integrity of Canada’s supply management system by enshrining it into law.
It is the exact opposite of what Mr. Fowler said in his statement on Bill C-216. Think about the implications of that for a moment. We have a senior government official who comes to the committee with a bill and outlines serious concerns. I'm going to talk more about that, because under questioning, he has even more concerns than in his statement. He then comes back to the committee, gives a statement and says the exact opposite. Nothing has changed. The bill is the same. Supply management is the same. Nothing has changed.
Was this gentleman put under political pressure to change the statement that was made so that it would be less controversial? This is deeply troubling.
To me, Madam Chair, I don't think it matters which party you're from or where you stand on this issue. Every parliamentarian around this table should be asking themselves why a government official would come to committee, give one version of concern about a bill and come back another time on effectively the exact same bill and say there's nothing to see here; the bill is great, and it will strengthen our defence of supply management.
You might say to yourself, well, you know, maybe he misspoke on Bill C-216. Maybe he got a little excited in his opening statement and misspoke. Unfortunately, that is not what happened, because under questioning, more and more and more concerns were raised that were not raised under Bill C-282.
Mr. Aboultaif asked him a question:
What I'm interested in is this. Although we've signed so many trade agreements without having to really jeopardize the supply management system and we have successfully done that throughout its history—and we have so many trade agreements that I don't have to mention it at the moment—the question is, are there any live examples out there that can advise us on what the consequences will be in the long run if Bill C-216 is implemented, since we know that we will lose that flexibility and we will be limiting our team of negotiators on the road when they try to achieve trade agreements with countries in the world?
I think it's very interesting to see what the response was to that question, so let's go to that:
Thank you for the question.
Madam Chair, I will start, and perhaps my colleagues will join in afterwards.
From a trade negotiation perspective, Canada has a long history in negotiating free trade agreements and has been at the forefront of negotiating free trade agreements for the last 25 or 30 years.
I would just note off the top that our supply management system, as you've indicated, has not stopped us or hampered us from concluding any trade agreements, but I think what is certainly possible is that the wording proposed for this bill will give trade negotiating partners pause with respect to wanting to engage with Canada.
The emphasis is added.
That's as contrasted with:
In conclusion, Bill C-282 proposes to make the government’s commitment to make no further market access commitments for supply-managed products into a legal requirement by amending the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. This would strengthen the policy of defending the integrity of Canada’s supply management system by enshrining it into law.
Here, this bill will give trade negotiators pause with respect to wanting to engage with Canada. From a trade negotiator's perspective, when we start a negotiation, we like to start with the full possibility of access in the back of our minds, whether or not that's where we end up. It's rarely the case that you would see 100% access in any free trade agreement, but you'd like to at least start with that notion in mind.
As you go through a negotiation with your various partners, you find that interests are enunciated, elaborated and narrowed down. You understand what's in the art of the possible, but you like to start as wide as possible when you do launch those negotiations. When you start from a very narrow band of possibilities and then that gets narrowed, the scope of the negotiations and the scope of the agreement is very much smaller than what you would have seen otherwise.
If we were to end up with this bill as it is written—and I'm going to emphasize this—if we were to end up with this bill as it is written, I think very much we would start with a much smaller scope of negotiations with various partners. It wouldn't be unusual for them to say, “That's fine, Canada has taken these issues right out of play. We will take issues that are of interest to Canada out of play,” and then you're talking about negotiating from a smaller pie, as it were.
Madam Chair, these are significant concerns. These are not small concerns that are being raised. This is not someone saying that this bill would strengthen the policy of defending the integrity of Canada's supply management system by enshrining it into law. In fact to me, this is saying almost the exact opposite. This is saying that this bill is highly problematic.
We can look at what else was said about this bill, the current versus what was said before.
On Bill C-282, we had a statement from Mr. Rosser, assistant deputy minister, market industry services branch, Department of Agriculture.
Honourable members, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on International Trade on its review of Bill C‑282.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC for short, works closely with and supports Global Affairs Canada in advancing Canada’s free trade agenda, playing an important role in trade negotiations, particularly in areas related to market access for agricultural goods.
As said by my counterpart Mr. Fowler, the Government of Canada has had a long-standing policy to defend the integrity of Canada’s supply management system for dairy products, poultry and eggs. This includes clear commitments made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to not provide any new market access for supply-managed products in future trade agreements. The bill is consistent with this policy.
That is something I don't think anyone has disputed. We're all singing from the same hymn book in that sense.
Canada’s supply-managed dairy, poultry and egg farmers are part of the backbone of rural communities across the country, generating almost $13 billion in farm-gate sales in 2021, and creating over 100,000 direct jobs in production and processing activities across Canada.
I absolutely agree with that statement. In my riding of Dufferin—Caledon, we have poultry, egg and dairy farms. I've had the pleasure to visit examples of all of those. I am particularly impressed with how our dairy farmers take care of their cows and with the quality product they are able to produce. I am 100% in support of supply management.
He continued:
With respect to the market access provided to Canada’s trade partners, it has only been provided in exceptional cases in regard to landmark trade agreements, such as the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, or WTO, CETA, the CPTPP and CUSMA. While not taken lightly, these trade agreements are overwhelmingly in the interest of Canada and to the overall benefit of Canada’s agricultural sector.
Furthermore, in the case of CUSMA it's important to remember that the original negotiating position in the United States was the full elimination of the supply management system. The outcome in CUSMA, while difficult and challenging, allows the supply management system to continue functioning with respect to its three pillars.
The Government of Canada is also fully and fairly compensating producers...with supply-managed commodities who have lost market share under the three agreements. As announced this past November, dairy, poultry and egg producers and processors are expected to share more than $1.7 billion in direct payments and investment programs in response to the impacts related to CUSMA. This is in addition to the over $3 billion in direct payments in investment programs for CETA and CPTPP. These programs will help drive innovation and growth in the supply-managed sectors.
In conclusion, the integrity of the supply management system has been successfully defended during multiple trade negotiations. The Government of Canada is working hard to ensure that the supply management system remains strong and that producers and processors operating in the system remain productive and sustainable.
Bill C-282 would protect these sectors from additional market access concessions in the context of future trade negotiations, and as such is fully consistent with existing policy.
Under Bill C-282, then, it would appear they are on the same page. There's nothing to see here. It's great. It's fully consistent with existing policy.
Let's go back to Bill C-216. Mr. Aaron Fowler, chief agricultural negotiator and director general, trade agreements and negotiations, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, responds to Mr. Aboultaif's question. Just so that we can all keep up with where we are, this was Mr. Aboultaif's question:
What I'm interested in is this. Although we've signed so many trade agreements without having to really jeopardize the supply management system and we have successfully done that throughout its history—and we have so many trade agreements that I don't have to mention it at the moment—the question is, are there any live examples out there that can advise us on what the consequences will be in the long run if Bill C-216 is implemented, since we know that we will lose that flexibility and we will be limiting our team of negotiators on the road when they try to achieve trade agreements with countries in the world?
The response was as follows:
Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.
I would certainly agree with everything Doug has said so far and associate myself with his response.
That response, as we all know, is that there are grave concerns about this bill and the implications it will have with respect to negotiating trade agreements.
His response continued:
I believe the question was whether there are examples of similar measures being imposed by some of our trading partners around the world and what the consequences of those might be. I have to say I am not aware of any legislative prohibition on our trading partners' ability to discuss an issue.
This is interesting, because some members of this committee, when they were asking questions, were saying that other countries have things they won't negotiate. To me, that would appear to be an incorrect position. I don't think any other country in the world has a legislative prohibition on what you can negotiate in an international trade agreement.
The statement continued:
Were such a prohibition in place, I feel that depending on the level of commercial interest that Canada had in the matter that was covered by such a prohibition, we would use the exploratory stage of our trade negotiations to indicate that we see this as an important issue that needs to be discussed in the context of the negotiation.
Free trade agreements are really about changing the legislative and regulatory regime that our trading partners have in place in order to create commercial opportunities for Canadian exporters, so I suspect that were our interests sufficiently significant for us to want to discuss that issue in the negotiations, we would make that [very] clear at the exploratory stage and base our decision on whether to move forward in the negotiations on our partners' indication of their capacity to have discussions in that area.
On the specific question of whether there are examples I could point to, I have to say offhand that I can't think of any similar prohibitions that are in place.
Mr. Aboultaif then asked another question: “What would you see as the reaction of other sectors if something like Bill C-216 went forward? What would you see as the reaction as far as opportunities on the world stage...go?”
Mr. Forsyth said, “Do you mean reaction from Canadian stakeholders, or from—” and Mr. Aboultaif replied, “Yes, I mean Canadian stakeholders.”
Mr. Forsyth said, “Honestly, I think if this did go forward, the reaction we would see would be other groups seeking to have their concerns, their issues, inserted into the departmental act as well.”
What we're hearing very clearly here under Bill C-216, and perhaps not as clearly under Bill C-282, is that this bill is, in many ways, a Trojan Horse. There are grave concerns about what would happen with other sectors of the economy that felt they were vulnerable in a trade agreement. They might be saying that they think a member of Parliament should come forward with a bill that should say that in no future trade agreement.... There should be no access to pork into the Canadian market, because they feel they're losing too much market share.
That was a concern raised by department officials when we heard this in Bill C-216. It's not a concern that has been significantly raised this time.
There was another question for Mr. Forsyth. This was from Ms. Rachel Bendayan.
Sir, if I may follow up, I believe you mentioned in your introduction, and I have certainly heard from legal experts within government, that policy objectives are not normally found within the departmental act. This is not the usual instrument to include policy objectives like the one regarding supply management. Can you perhaps give us examples or let us know where these types of important policy objectives should be found, if not in this particular act?
Mr. Forsyth replied, as follows:
I think that assessment is correct. It would be unusual to find policy-prescriptive issues like this in a departmental act. I'm not aware of any departmental acts that include them.
I think that where we see policy prescriptions like this is in the words enunciated from the government. It's [very] clear that this is a Government of Canada position, a policy position. You find it in speeches. You find it in departmental legislation, for example, at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and you find it in various places like that. I think it would be unusual to put something like this within the context of the departmental act.
What we're seeing here from government officials, again, is this. We are seeing that, in conclusion, Bill C-282 would protect these sectors from additional market access concessions in the context of future trade negotiations. As such, it is fully consistent with existing policy.
I read through the entire statement that was made by Mr. Rosser. None of that raises even a scintilla of the concern that was being raised by government officials under Bill C-216. I'm yet again left with some significant consternation as to why there would be such a different view from government departments towards a bill—Bill C-216—that was, as far as I can tell, identical to the bill that is being put forward now.
It raises enormous questions. It raises questions that I believe this committee should dig into. It raises questions that we should absolutely as a committee be very interested in getting to the bottom of.
For my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, to suggest that everything has been heard that needs to be heard and that we should just move on to clause-by-clause in the face of this very contradictory evidence from department officials, really does not make a lot of sense. It gives me enormous concern about why there would be such a change in position and view about the bill, and not just that it has changed. It gives me concern as to which statements are the ones the committee should look at to say that this is what the department officials think. Do department officials believe what they said on Bill C-216, or do they believe what they said when they came and spoke on C-282?
I'm left confused. I'm left extraordinarily confused. I think other members of the committee should be confused as well. I think Liberal members of this committee should be confused. I think NDP members of this committee should be confused. I understand that Bloc Québécois members may be confused but aren't interested because it's a Bloc Québécois private member's bill, and they want it to be passed. I would feel the same way about one of my colleagues' bills—I would want to help that colleague get the bill passed—but I think the rest of us should be very concerned.
Mr. Dhaliwal had a question about Bill C-216:
My question is for Mr. Forsyth. He mentioned numerous times that there are some risks involved.
That's talking about his statement numerous times that there were risks involved. There was no mention of risks in the opening statement under Bill C-282.
One of them, he mentioned, is a narrow outcome. I would like to ask him to explain or elaborate on those risks and the potential impacts.
It's interesting that he asked a question about narrow outcomes, because when we had witnesses come last Thursday, the canola growers or the Canadian canola—I'm going to find it here—
