Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 946
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
I was raising my hand to vote, Madam Chair.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I thank the witnesses, of course, but also the members who have joined us today for this important meeting. I particularly thank Mr. Plamondon for introducing this bill.
Before beginning, I would like to stress the importance of the supply management system here in Quebec and everywhere in Canada. It is important not only to our producers, but also to our food security. We must continue to be open to the world and encourage international trade while at the same time protecting this supply management system. I believe we have shown that this was entirely possible.
We have continually renewed that commitment. We upheld it in concrete terms in the new trade agreement with the United Kingdom, which does not grant any additional access, as you know. I have repeatedly said in the House: not one ounce more of cheese will enter the country under that agreement.
Perhaps, since I am addressing you, Mr. Forsyth, I will switch to English.
Mr. Forsyth, could you explain to us whether, in your view, the adoption of this bill is necessary for the government to continue to defend Canada's supply management system?
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
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?
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just as a quick follow-up, Mr. Forsyth and Mr. Fowler, you referred to a negotiating mandate. Mr. Forsyth, you were at the negotiating table with the United Kingdom. Did you receive a mandate on behalf of our government not to hinder supply management in the negotiations that you undertook with the United Kingdom?
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Greetings to all the witnesses.
I will yield my speaking time to Mr. Perron for this first round of questions.
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Chair, thank you for your greetings. It is always a pleasure to be with you.
Thanks also to Mr. Savard-Tremblay.
I will address Mr. Forsyth first.
In your opening statement, you acknowledged that this bill was consistent with Canada's long-standing policy and its intention of protecting supply management.
Did I hear you correctly?
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
So it is part of a continuing process and is consistent with the intentions expressed orally. I believe this bill puts the election promises into concrete form.
You said that this might carry risks in the negotiations.
Whenever we enter into negotiations with a country for a free trade agreement, is there not always precisely such a risk, given that we need to be vigilant and protect our key sectors?
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Forsyth.
Some opponents of the bill argue that a change would not be prevented, because any act can be amended at a later date. So a government that had its negotiating mandate limited could always come back to Parliament to change it.
Is that correct?
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
Perfect, thank you.
If I understand correctly, a government that came after and wanted to make concessions would have to assume the political responsibility and have the courage to include it in its mandate and seek the permission of the House first.
So the power is delegated to the members of the House. That is the aspect that I find interesting. I don't think it conflicts with our interests.
There have been several references to the agreement with Great Britain. I would like to point out specifically that the market shares that had been allocated to Europe had also been allocated to Great Britain. It was obvious that we could not have expected new concessions on its part. Unfortunately, the agreement signed with Great Britain is temporary. There is therefore still a risk of fresh demands.
I would like to bring this point to the attention of the committee members, because I think it is important.
You spoke earlier of the negotiating mandates. When a representative of the government participates in negotiations, they have a mandate from the government. Would the law proposed in Bill C-216 not simply be part of the mandate? Would it not impose a limit to prevent the representatives from touching supply management?
Would that not have the same impact?
There seems to be a desire to dramatize the fact that it is a law, but it could simply be set out in the government's instructions. On the other hand, if it is in a law, we are sure it will be there, regardless of what government is in office.
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
You agree with me that it would be more or less equivalent, right?
It is simply defining a future government's negotiating mandate in advance, no matter what party is in power.
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you. I will move on to my next question.
You say that all governments have expressed their support for supply management. That's true, but in the recent agreements, all governments, regardless of stripe, have made concessions, except in the case of the agreement with Great Britain, obviously, that we spoke about earlier.
So the goal of this bill is to cement that.
Someone cited the danger that other groups will be asking to have their interests entrenched in law. Is that not a slight exaggeration? We know that the other groups are not governed by supply management.
It must be understood that if we grant more concessions, then at some point, the supply management system will no longer be able to function. In order for a supply management system to function, supply has to be controlled. That is the very foundation of the system.
I would like to hear your thoughts on that subject.
I am putting the question to Mr. Fowler from the Department of Agriculture.
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you very much.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I am very grateful to the people from the departments for being with us today.
Mr. Forsyth, you said just now that the mandates assigned to the negotiators concerning the protection of supply management are reflected well in the intent of Bill C-216.
Can you explain what happened in the case of the Canada—United States—Mexico Agreement, CUSMA, not just so that we would concede another market to the Americans, but also so that we would permit them to limit Canadian exports, in particular for powdered milk?
How is it that at some point, despite those intentions on the government's part, the negotiating teams go even further than concessions that are not provided in BillC-216, as we have it before us today?
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
Excuse me for interrupting you, Mr. Forsyth.
What happened for those concessions to have been made at the last minute? We have seen that this was done at the very end. Did we not draw attention to supply management by saying at the outset that there would be no concessions? Is that not one of the points on which Canada had to give in, at the very end of the negotiations?
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Fowler, to continue in the same vein, when we decide to make concessions like that one at the last minute, there are major repercussions for a sector. This was a sector that the Americans had targeted.
When we decide to protect a sector, if we keep our position like a card up our sleeve, are we not running less risk of having to give in at the end?
Results: 1 - 15 of 946 | Page: 1 of 64

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data