Bloc Quebecois takes Conservatives to task for opposition to private member’s bill that would prevent concessions in future trade deals
Bloc Quebecois agriculture critic Yves Perron slammed Conservative MPs last week during Commons debate for their stance on Bill C-282.
Although all parties overwhelmingly agreed to move the bill to protect supply management in future trade negotiations through the parliamentary process earlier this year, some Conservatives are speaking against it, saying it could have unintended consequences and has divided agricultural sectors.
Perron said they are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
“I am sick and tired of hearing members claim that they support supply-managed farmers, that they think they are important, that they want to protect them and that they are committed to looking after them, but then refuse to actually protect them,” he said in the House May 15.
Read Also
Farming Smarter receives financial boost from Alberta government for potato research
Farming Smarter near Lethbridge got a boost to its research equipment, thanks to the Alberta government’s increase in funding for research associations.
Perron said this is why people are cynical about politicians.
Dufferin-Caledon Conservative MP Kyle Seeback said the party supports supply management but doesn’t support this particular bill.
“A big part of it is that the bill has turned into a gigantic wedge issue with all the rest of the folks in the agriculture sector,” he said. “Every agricultural sector outside of supply management has said it does not support the bill. These people are concerned about what the repercussions will be to their sector in any future trade agreement.”
Seeback said witnesses at the international trade committee from grains, oilseeds, cattle and even the International Cheese Council of Canada spoke forcefully against the bill.
Concerns about C-282 were also expressed when a previous version, C-216, was before the House prior to the last election.
Seeback quoted Doug Forsyth, director general of market access in trade policy and negotiations at Global Affairs Canada, as saying that the bill, as written, would limit the scope of negotiations with various trading partners.
He quoted a letter from Robert de Valk, a consultant and lobbyist: “Remember what Canada had to pay in 1989 to keep supply management off the table when the Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement (CUSTA) was completed — increased access. Now all our trading partners can rightfully ask for compensation. The bill, unfortunately, may have the unintended consequence of putting the supply management sector in focus early in any future negotiations.”
Seeback said taking supply management off the negotiating table puts trade deals in jeopardy.
However, he also said Canada can support supply management without legislation.
“In all the free trade agreements we have around the world, there is only a couple where access has been granted on supply management,” he said.
“When that access was granted, Canadian producers were compensated financially.”
Those sectors have said they would rather not give up market access in return for taxpayer funding.
NDP agriculture critic Alistair MacGregor said his party supports the bill.
“The system has proven itself time and time again over decades of use,” he said during the debate.
“Supply management protects the taxpayer because we avoid subsidizing the industry.”
MacGregor said Liberal and Conservative members of the international trade committee were split when they voted to return C-282 to the House.
“I’m very curious to see the final vote on this bill when we come to third reading,” he said.
Perron said he expected it will pass.
The bill dropped to the bottom of the order paper after the debate concluded and will return again later.
