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 335
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 Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
I simply want to clarify the situation.
With all due respect, Mr Savard-Tremblay, I tried to move the study of Bill C-216 forward. Then there was a discussion about the forestry industry and the possibility of holding an emergency debate on other equally important questions, I agree. Certainly not all of the committee members didn't want to have this discussion earlier.
I do not share Mr. Blaikie's opinion, given that some committee members still have questions to ask, but I will obviously respect the decision that the committee members make.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Earlier in this discussion, we raised the question of the cultural exemption.
Quite frankly, I am surprised that my colleagues, the members from Quebec, have not had more to say about this question, because the fact that we had to defend the cultural exemption and many other issues is essential to this discussion, in my opinion.
My question is for either Mr. Fowler or Mr. Forsyth.
Given that we have a number of defensive sectors—I believe that's what you called them, Mr. Forsyth—and given that we have a number of areas that we try to protect in Canada—particularly the cultural exemption, but others as well—do you feel as if putting one particular defensive sector into law in this legislation somehow diminishes the importance, in the eyes of our potential trading partners, of the other things we try to defend, such as the cultural exemption?
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
In the course of your consultations ending just now in May or previously, have other sectors indicated that they also would like to see legislative tools in order to exempt them from any potential harm in future negotiations?
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much.
Mr. Fowler, seeing as how just a few short days ago we did hear from other agriculture sectors, including beef and pork farmers, I wonder what reaction or commentary you may have heard on the agriculture side on behalf of our other farming industries. Do you feel there is a common thread among our agri-food sector, or is there divergence on this particular point?
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thanks to my colleague for allowing me this valuable time.
Thanks to all the witnesses. We are beginning a very important discussion today and it's one that will continue over several meetings.
My first question is for Ms. Citeau and her colleague.
As you know, our government has committed itself to no longer allowing concessions for the supply management system in future trade negotiations. We recognize that this system is essential for our farmers. That's why we made our commitment. Here in Quebec, where I live, we support more than 10,000 dairy farms directly and indirectly.
I know that you and the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance have a number of concerns about Bill C‑216. I understand from your presentation and your replies that you are mainly talking about problems with respect to future trade agreements.
Are you afraid on behalf of other farmers and other agri-food sectors? Couldn't we do two things at the same time?
I'll give you time to answer.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to start by underscoring how important the forestry industry and softwood lumber are to Quebec, which exports approximately $10 billion a year in forest products and supports more than 65,000 direct jobs in the province, and many more. I should mention they are well-paying jobs.
It is also important to note that Canada and Quebec are at the international forefront of sustainable forest management, with some of the strictest legal and policy frameworks in the world, as the Minister pointed out.
The softwood lumber trade dispute between Canada and the U.S. is nothing new. It's a long-standing problem that goes back to the 1980s.
Actually, Minister, I remember studying the softwood lumber disputes while I was in law school studying international trade dispute resolution. It's really important to remember that this is a disagreement that spans many different Canadian governments and many different American administrations.
Could you let us know a bit more specifically the approach this particular government has taken, since coming into power, to defend the Canadian softwood lumber industry?
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much for that, Minister.
I know we will have the opportunity, perhaps later with officials, to ask questions about Canada's position and the legal analysis behind the government's position. I understand that we as a government are fully in compliance with our CUSMA obligations.
Of course, though, these legal disputes do have a tendency to drag on. With regard to diversifying the market for our forestry sector, do you feel as though there are any particular markets this government can help the sector diversify to in terms of new trading opportunities?
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to see Mr. Lewis back at the international trade committee.
I would like some clarification from our officials. I did not catch the minister identifying Australia in particular as a market for diversification of this particular sector. I did ask a question about what markets we might be looking at for our forest industry.
Could officials clarify? Are there specific countries we are looking at, or are we looking at all options?
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
From a legal perspective, I understand that lawyers at international trade, representing the government, have been studying this issue very closely for some time now, and believe that Canada has nothing to be concerned about in terms of respecting our obligations under CUSMA.
Even though our preference, of course, would be for a negotiated settlement with the United States, our government is prepared to use the tools that are available to us under CUSMA's chapter 19 in order to advance our position and resolve the matter.
Could you take us through what a chapter 19 dispute would look like?
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Of course, I said chapter 19, but that was under NAFTA, and now it is chapter 10 under CUSMA.
Mr. Owen, obviously this is a question hated by lawyers, but how long, approximately, do you think that this type of dispute would take before arriving at a decision?
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much.
Results: 1 - 15 of 335 | Page: 1 of 23

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

For more data options, please see Open Data