Ag committee was supposed to begin analyzing proposed legislation banning further concessions in future trade talks
Debate on the private member’s bill that would prevent supply management from being used as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations may continue longer than expected.
The standing committee on international trade was supposed to go through clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-282, which would amend the Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, March 30.
But Conservative MP and shadow minister for international trade Kyle Seeback introduced a motion to have more meetings on the bill and then spoke at length about why more scrutiny was required.
Read Also
Strong cattle prices boost forage sales, reps report at Ag in Motion 2025
Representatives from Proven Seed and BrettYoung at Ag in Motion 2025 are reporting strong forages sales across Western Canada this year, driven by high cattle prices, as well as more producers establishing new, higher-quality stands and exploring drought-tolerant varieties.
He outlined what he called inconsistencies in testimony from government officials when they addressed the previous version of the bill, C-216, in the previous Parliament. Seeback said although the two bills are similar, officials didn’t say the same things then and now.
“I think members will be shocked at the inconsistencies that government officials gave with respect to a bill that is in fact virtually similar in nature,” he said. “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’ve been influenced perhaps to say something else.”
Seeback said among those discrepancies was a statement during C-216 discussion that the amendment carries risks, and that wasn’t re-stated this time around. The meeting adjourned before any other discussion.
Although all political parties voted to send the bill to committee, the Conservatives are not likely to support it when it gets back to the Commons.
The agriculture sector is divided over the bill. Supply managed commodity organizations and others, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and National Farmers Union, support it, while exporters and organizations representing them do not.
Supporters say supply management has been around for more than 50 years and Canada was able to negotiate trade deals without concessions until recently.
Dairy Farmers of Canada president Pierre Lampron said lost market access has cost them, on average, $450 million per year from the three trade agreements with Europe, North America and the Trans-Pacific region.
Although the dairy, egg and poultry sectors are receiving compensation, Lampron said that isn’t the best route.
“Granting repeated market access concessions, followed each time by compensation, is not a model that will support the long-term success of our industry, nor would it work in any other sector of the Canadian economy,” he said.
But exporters claim that passing the bill will put their business in jeopardy. For example, the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance said the bill would “put us on a collision course” with the United States and other countries.
President Dan Darling said there are negative consequences for grain and livestock exporters who rely on open trade. He noted Canada is currently negotiating in the United Kingdom, and that agricultural negotiations at the World Trade Organization are ongoing. The North American deal can be re-opened at any time, he said.
“My point is that this is not time to be making it more difficult for our negotiators to do their jobs,” he said.
Daniel Turp, a former Bloc Quebecois MP and international law expert, didn’t buy that argument.
“Has that really prevented Canada from being part of agreements that have benefited all industries? I think it’s a little odd we now find it OK to say that the system, which in the past has not harmed Canada, could harm it now,” he said during committee testimony.
Turp said Parliament should play a greater role in international treaties, including being able to limit the powers of the minister, as C-282 suggests.
