THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 10, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met with videoconference this day at 11:30 a.m. [ET] to study Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management).
Senator Peter M. Boehm (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Peter Boehm. I’m a senator from Ontario and the Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
[Translation]
I would now invite the committee members who are present to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec, sponsor of Bill C-282.
Senator Gold: Marc Gold, Quebec.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
Senator Greene: Stephen Greene, Nova Scotia.
Senator Woo: Good morning. Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
Senator Harder: Peter Harder, Ontario.
Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface, Ontario. Welcome.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
Senator M. Deacon: Good morning and welcome. Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Greenwood: Good morning. Margo Greenwood, British Columbia.
The Chair: Thank you all for being with us today. I would like to thank those who may be watching us on Senate ParlVU across the country.
[Translation]
Before we hear your remarks and proceed to questions and answers, I would ask everyone present to please mute notifications on their devices.
[English]
For our first panel, we’re pleased to welcome Bruce Muirhead, professor of history at the University of Waterloo; from the Canadian Hatching Egg Producers, Chair Brian Bilkes and Vice-Chair Gyslain Loyer; and from the Turkey Farmers of Canada, we welcome Darren Ference, Chair, who is joining us by video conference; and Phil Boyd, Executive Director, who is with us in the room.
Thank you for being here. We’re ready to hear your opening remarks. They will be followed by questions from the senators in four-minute bites. We’ll start with three-minute statements by our witnesses.
Mr. Muirhead, you have the floor.
Bruce Muirhead, Professor of History, University of Waterloo, as an individual: Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to be here today to provide you with my thoughts on this very important subject that is of concern to all Canadians.
I have been researching and writing in the area of supply management and agricultural organizational models found in other countries for the past 15 years. In a previous life, I did a lot of work on the development of post-war Canadian trade policy, as I say, in trade negotiations in a previous life.
I have interviewed many, many dairy and egg farmers in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. I, along with my colleague Jodey Nurse of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada, have also retrieved tens of thousands of pages of archival documents relating to agriculture from those countries, as well as government documents and media accounts.
My remarks are based on extensive research, study and analysis of various agricultural models around the world. Based on my immense immersion in this area of research, I can state unequivocally that supply management in all sectors in which it operates is simply the best system for a country like Canada to have and very important to preserve.
Why do I maintain this? There are many reasons, and I hope they will be brought out over the course of the next hour, but I will raise only three for lack of time.
Given our neighbour to the south, of course, which I think a lot of your deliberations are surrounding, Canada would be remiss if it did not continue to fully support its supply-managed dairy, egg and poultry sectors. Arguably, we would rapidly lose those areas to American competition, not because our farmers are not state of the art and very productive, producing an excellent Canadian product to satisfy Canadian consumers at a reasonable price, but because of certain U.S. advantages for which we have no reply. These include public dairy subsidies for U.S. farmers, for example. As well, a 2015 study out of Texas A&M University noted that cheap immigrant labour has materially assisted American dairy to become more competitive.
Canadian consumers would also be confronted with ingredients like rBST in milk, which is a growth hormone that we have kept out of our system and that is designed to artificially increase a cow’s milk production by about 15%.
Canada’s supply management system also contributes to rural sustainability. Smaller dairy farms — of an average size of up to 96 milking cows — and egg farms — of an average size of about 23,000 laying hens — provide a stability on rural concession roads that is unmatched when they are adequately supported. They support local communities socially but also economically. In the U.S., about 68% of that country’s dairy is produced on farms of more than 1,000 milking cows, known as confined animal feeding operations. There are 7,000 cows on the Bar 20 farm in California, and there are other dairy farms with more than 15,000 milking cows, while egg farms of more than 1 million birds are not unusual. This does not contribute to rural sustainability, which is a bedrock of Canadian identity and public policy.
Finally, supply management contributes to food security and sovereignty. We saw first-hand with the pandemic the importance of food security. Without supply management, it is doubtful we could maintain our production of dairy, eggs and poultry from coast to coast to coast. I include the Northwest Territories in that.
Australia is an example of a country that promised its dairy farmers freedom to participate in the international market through deregulation in 2001, but ended up losing its dairy security and, following 23 years of declining production, is now importing butter and cheese for the first time. That could be Canada’s future, too, if the supply-managed system is given away in dribs and drabs in trade negotiations.
For these reasons and others that I hope senators will draw out over the course of the hour, it is vital that we maintain our system of supply management and not slowly compromise its integrity in various trade negotiations. It is important to say that enough is enough, and the necessity to keep dairy, eggs and poultry production in place to satisfy Canadian appetites in the years to come is crucial.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Professor Muirhead.
We will go to Brian Bilkes, please.
Brian Bilkes, Chair, Canadian Hatching Egg Producers: Thank you, honourable senators. I’m here today with my Vice-Chair, Gyslain Loyer.
I’m here today speaking in support of Bill C-282, not just as a representative of our dedicated hatching egg producers but also as a proud Western Canadian farmer. We live in an incredible country filled with talented, innovative farmers who, for decades, have delivered homegrown solutions and ensured that Canadians are fed with high-quality local products.
As a farmer in Saskatchewan and British Columbia, I deeply believe in supply management, our made-in-Canada approach to protecting and strengthening our agricultural commodities. But Bill C-282 is not just about protecting supply management. It’s about defending Canada’s sovereignty in trade negotiations and ensuring that critical agricultural sectors are not further bartered away for other trade concessions. We need this bill because supply management is the backbone of thriving rural communities, ensuring economic stability and growth.
Under supply management, import controls are critical in our ability to properly plan production to ensure that supply continues to meet demand. Unfortunately, the final Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, did not keep our import controls fully intact, and additional access to our market was granted. Over the 19-year implementation period, the cumulative broiler hatching egg domestic production losses due to the CPTPP broiler hatching egg and chicken tariff rate quotas, or TRQs, will total approximately 700 million broiler hatching eggs. That is equivalent to $313 million in estimated losses in farm cash receipts and $182 million in estimated losses in net operating income.
Broiler hatching egg producers are impacted not only by the importation of hatching eggs and chicks but also by any additional chicken imports, as they also represent chickens that were not grown from Canadian-produced hatching eggs. Therefore, broiler hatching egg producers have often felt an outsized impact when access has been granted on supply-managed products in trade agreements.
Every farm lost to trade concessions impacts families, workers and regional economies. We’re estimating an annual loss of 398 jobs and $28 million in GDP contributions to the Canadian economy due to these impacts of CPTPP.
In 2022, new access to the Canadian chicken market granted to Chile through the CPTPP represented 12 million broiler hatching eggs per year, plus over 28 million broiler hatching eggs displaced by the new chicken TRQ. Should we really continue trading away our ability to produce our own food for short-term trade wins?
Supply management represents less than 1% of Canadian tariff lines in trade negotiations, yet we are repeatedly asked to concede this small but vital part of our economy. I ask the members of this committee: Why is there such a willingness to give up the protections that ensure food security, price stability and the livelihoods of Canadian farmers? Our farmers in supply-managed industries should not be treated as a bargaining chip to be traded for gains in other sectors, yet that is what happens when concessions are made in the name of so-called trade liberalization.
Honourable senators, Canadians have elected representatives who have twice introduced legislation affirming the importance of supply management. Bill C-282 formalizes this long-standing policy in law, ensuring that future trade agreements do not sacrifice the interest of Canadian farmers and consumers. Members of this committee have suggested that this bill circumscribes the ability of our trade negotiators to negotiate freely. On the contrary, Bill C-282 ensures that our trade negotiators can no longer circumscribe the will of Parliament and the communities who have elected them.
Food security is national security. Without supply management, we risk empty shelves and price volatility. Bill C-282 does not prevent Canada from negotiating new trade agreements; it simply ensures that vital Canadian interests are protected.
Senators, your responsibility is not just to uphold the principles of free trade but also to defend the interests of Canadians, and it is time for the Senate to respect the will of Canadians, who have made it clear that they want to preserve their access to domestically produced, high-quality, safe and affordable food. I ask you to pass Bill C-282 and safeguard the future of Canadian agriculture. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Bilkes.
I want to acknowledge that Senator Al Zaibak from Ontario has joined us. We will now go to Mr. Darren Ference.
Darren Ference, Chair, Turkey Farmers of Canada: Good morning, committee members. I am Darren Ference, and I am a turkey farmer from Alberta and Chair of Turkey Farmers of Canada, or TFC. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about Bill C-282 today.
Concerns have been expressed that Bill C-282 will divide Canadian agriculture. We don’t share that view. There is no need for that to unfold. I am here to support Bill C-282; however, we also support Canadians’ participation in trade negotiations, as trade is vital for export-oriented industries. Many farmers of supply-managed commodities also produce farm products for which export opportunity is important.
My operation illustrates this balance. I raise turkeys, chickens, 460 head of beef cows, cow calves and a crop of about 3,500 acres. I am represented by several agricultural groups for my beef, canola, wheat, barley and pulse production, in addition to the TFC for turkey. These organizations are all important to my farm, and I am perplexed and troubled that some are attacking a bill that supports a significant part of my operation. These organizations go to bat for me by advocating for my varied interests. All parts are equally important to the success of my farm and others like it nationwide. Bill C-282 is crucial for supply-managed poultry operations serving as a form of business risk management on my farm.
Past trade agreements have come at a cost to Canadian turkey farmers like me. The CPTPP agreement increases import access to the Canadian turkey market by 71%, displacing natural growth in domestic production over 10 years. This translates to a further permanent annual loss of 4.5% in production. With the impacts of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, total import access to the Canadian turkey market will nearly double, or increase by 89%, from the years prior to these two agreements.
We do not support sacrificing one sector of Canadian agriculture to advance others. There is no need to do so. Pursuing trade negotiations for my export-oriented commodities is important. We believe it is possible to do this while protecting our domestic market. Both can and must coexist. Bill C-282 aims to ensure this focus. This benefits all agriculture, both supply-managed and non-supply-managed.
I urge the committee members to support Bill C-282, which would put legislation in place so that negotiators can prevent forfeiting additional import market access for the supply-managed commodities. This will help farmers like me with diverse interests in agriculture. I am open to any questions you may have. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your statement, Mr. Ference.
Colleagues, we will go now to questions and answers. As per usual, we will have four-minute rounds. I would really encourage you to keep your preambles and the like to a very short segment of your time because it includes also the answer to the question. I would also ask you, since we have multiple witnesses here, to be very clear as to whom you are directing your question to.
Senator Gold: Welcome, witnesses. My question is primarily directed to Mr. Bilkes, but I appreciate the statements of all of you, especially Mr. Ference’s reminder of how he is affected in different ways.
Mr. Bilkes, my understanding is that your industry has hatching egg producers in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, and I believe a few as well in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, if not only in Newfoundland. Given the cross-country impact of your industry, could you speak more to how the bill relates to potential regional impacts, not simply on rural economies, which you outlined, but also on urban areas where food processors are located?
Mr. Bilkes: Thank you for the question, senator. We have hatching egg production in all the areas you mentioned except Newfoundland. We do have New Brunswick as the other province where there is hatching egg production. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia supply the chicken market in Newfoundland.
There is an economy that is built up of production farms and hatcheries that are across the country. When there are trade implications, when there are reductions in production, then all of those farms and all of those hatcheries are producing at inefficient positions, and it may even be causing some farms to disappear if there is more access to our markets traded away. That’s the impact that we see from these issues.
Senator Gold: Thank you.
Mr. Ference, is there anything you want to add? I know I asked about eggs, but I believe turkey farming is not restricted only to the provinces you mentioned. Am I correct?
Mr. Ference: We have production in eight provinces across the country. There are hatcheries across the country also, and we have a turkey hatching business that is also part of the industry. These all drive the urban areas you were talking about; most of the hatcheries are in urban areas and service all of the farms across the country, east or west. There are hatcheries in Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, B.C. and Manitoba. There are also processing plants in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario, and they are all in urban areas. The feed mills are also usually located in urban areas. These all drive industries on the urban side, which are driven by the supply-managed piece, and it is all part of the GDP of the industry.
Senator Gold: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I want to say that I’m just coming back from a gathering held in favour of supply management policy and Bill C-282, where I saw members belonging to all political parties. It shows the multiparty will, desire and support for this bill. I am delighted to hear you talk about the provinces and sectors you respectively represent.
My question is for Mr. Muirhead. In an article in the Journal de Montréal on October 7, you stated that “without the shield of supply management, the Canadian milk market would face a veritable ‘tsunami of American milk.’” You also said it would be “a catastrophe for our countryside, where villages’ economic vitality depends on that of farms.”
Could you elaborate on that point and explain how Bill C-282 could avoid this tsunami and catastrophe for our countryside?
[English]
Mr. Muirhead: Thank you for the question. This comes from a number of different sources, actually. Without supply management, our dairy industry, by nature of the fact that it is in Canada and not in the United States, is more expensive to operate than the American industry.
The Americans, on the other hand, receive public subsidies from the government, and they have a number of other measures in place. They have milk marketing orders that guarantee a minimum price for dairy. There are a number of things that it seems to me — and I have often wondered about this — the Americans do not invoke when they want access to our dairy industry. Perhaps our Canadian negotiators also raise these issues with them, but they don’t get any satisfaction through that.
This was brought to my attention a couple of times when speaking to Australian dairy farmers. They said they have a completely deregulated system in Australia, with no government intervention at all. There is a regulator. The two supermarkets — Coles and Woolworths — are both regulators in the Australian industry. There is always a regulator in agricultural issues or agricultural commodities.
They said that they know why we have supply management. They didn’t necessarily agree with the system, but they knew why it was in place. A number of them have cited the possibility — in fact, they used the words “a white tsunami” of milk coming across the border should we get rid of supply management and should our industry be left open for unregulated imports. Without a supply-managed system in place, we would be losing massive volumes of milk.
American milk is cheaper; that is true. I don’t know that it would necessarily translate into cheaper prices once it comes into Canada, but that’s the nature of the neoliberal ethic under which the Americans operate. They also have tens of millions of gallons of excess production.
The primary objective of supply management — and this was the case of poultry and egg sectors in the early 1970s and dairy in 1966 — was simply to control excess production. It is a waste of resources and energy. It is a waste of money. The government of the day was on the hook for subsidies of the day, and the then‑finance minister Douglas Harkness, a Conservative, in 1962, said, “We can’t afford this, so we need to control production somehow in certain sectors.” They did that by supply management because it worked so well.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Professor Muirhead.
Senator MacDonald: I’ll direct my first question to Mr. Muirhead. It is great to have you here. You have done a lot of background work on this. I share many of the sentiments you just shared. I do a lot of work in the U.S. I’m down there three or four times a year, and they are always bringing up supply management. I say the same thing to them that you just said in terms of their overproduction and subsidies. Usually it shuts them up because they have nowhere to go.
We keep hearing about industrial production and family-scale production. What does that really mean? What constitutes family scale? What constitutes industrial scale? What percentage of Canadian production would be classified as industrial scale, and what percentage would be family scale?
Mr. Muirhead: That’s a very good question, and I don’t have a ready answer for it in terms of the industrial production. The average dairy farm across the country is anywhere between 83 and 96 milking cows. That is definitely a family production. There is a lot of academic literature on what constitutes a family farm. But that would qualify as a family farm. In the case of eggs, it is about 23,000 laying hens. That is also a family farm. You can operate it with a family, which I think is critical.
In Iowa, for example, in the U.S., they have farms of 8 million birds. The average egg-laying farm in Florida — well it was anyway, before the hurricanes — was 1.5 million laying hens. Those are not family farms. In dairy, they have farms of 15,000 milking cows in the Central Valley of California, which is simply outrageous for a number of reasons, including animal welfare. Those are known as confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs. The Union of Concerned Scientists in the U.S. in a 2006 report — a long time ago; the situation is much worse now, or better, I guess, depending on your perspective here — said that it was a ticking time bomb, and something needed to be done to prevent the environmental degradation and the health-related issues that come from that kind of agribusiness in the Central Valley of California: dust, pollution and all sorts of associated issues. Health concerns for workers and others also were a big problem.
In the U.S., about 70% of dairy production comes from farms of more than 1,000 milking cows, and CAFOs are defined as anything more than 1,000 cows. The majority of milk production is through these very large organizations in the United States. In Canada, I would say if we have any above 1,000 milking cows, I would say it would be fewer than five. That’s a very good question, and I will look it up. We focus on the family, and I think it is sustainable. If you read about American farmers, and dairy farmers in particular, they decry the effects of agribusiness on their industry as well. People milking 300 cows, which would be a very big farm in Canada, in the U.S. is a small farm.
Those farmers are very vocal, often wanting some sort of quota-based management system to protect them from their agribusiness competitors. I was asked to speak a couple of years ago to the Wisconsin Dairy Farmers Association, and they were actively lobbying for some system of supply management. Of course, it has to be a national system; it’s all or nothing. That will never happen in the United States. It is just not a possibility.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Professor.
Senator Woo: Thank you, witnesses. My question is for Professor Muirhead. You cite the Australian example as a case of failure of deregulation, and you point particularly to the advent of imports of dairy products into Australia. Do you have information to suggest that the quality of dairy products in Australia is diminished because of imports? Do you have information to suggest that food security has been diminished because of imports? Do you have information to suggest that consumers are worse off or less happy with the situation because Australia now imports dairy products?
Mr. Muirhead: Based on the research I have done in this area, I think in Australia consumers are less happy that they don’t have a domestic dairy industry.
Senator Woo: Are they less happy about the products they receive?
Mr. Muirhead: No. They import dairy primarily from the U.S. and from New Zealand. It is not a question of quality. But any time you compromise your ability to produce your own food, food security is a pillar of national identity, it seems to me. In a country like Australia — which is very much like Canada in many ways in terms of agricultural potential — the fact that it can no longer produce enough dairy to satisfy its own citizens is a significant disadvantage for that society.
Also, I have photographs that I have taken of Australian eggs on Coles and Woolworths shelves, with signs saying, “We are sorry if we do not have the eggs you require today. There is a shortage of supply.” I have been there probably three or four times, and over the period of 2012 to 2019 I have different photographs of that in different stores.
Senator Woo: Anecdotal evidence is interesting, but if you have evidence to suggest that Australian consumers are worse off or unhappy with the quality of the dairy product they are now getting because of imports, please send it to the clerk. We would love to see it.
You mentioned that the principal sources of imports of dairy products to Australia are the U.S. and New Zealand. In fact, the overwhelming amount of dairy imports to Australia is from New Zealand. New Zealand to Australia is the analogue — I would suggest — of Canada to the United States. New Zealand also has a totally deregulated dairy market. Are you are aware of that?
Mr. Muirhead: No, it is not deregulated.
Senator Woo: They do not have a system like ours. Would you not agree that Canada is an analogue to the United States and that New Zealand is to Australia?
Mr. Muirhead: No. New Zealand’s system is not a deregulated system. It is a single-desk exporter through Fonterra, which is a dairy co-operative protected by New Zealand legislation since 2001, which then spins out into dairy farmers in New Zealand. It is absolutely not a deregulated system in New Zealand in the way that the Australian dairy system is deregulated, which means that they are on their own to do whatever they want to do.
Fonterra is an absolute protection for New Zealand dairy farmers, which is one of the reasons New Zealand is the world’s largest dairy exporter, controlling about 32% of the global market in dairy products. They have more cows there than they do people. I would say it’s a mistake to say that New Zealand is a deregulated market. I don’t accept the conflation of New Zealand and Australia with Canada and the U.S.
Senator Woo: What import barriers are there to dairy products in New Zealand?
Mr. Muirhead: They probably don’t need them. New Zealand milk is much more expensive than Canadian milk. But they don’t need tariffs because they have 8 million cows in New Zealand to deal with a population of —
Senator Woo: No tariffs on dairy imports?
Mr. Muirhead: No.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’re learning a lot about Australia and New Zealand, but we’re out of time on that segment.
Senator M. Deacon: You can see quite clearly that as a committee, we continue to be approached with very diverse views on this, and we’re trying to negotiate. I will leave New Zealand and Australia for a minute; I will come to what I would call our Mennonite and Hutterite country. Mr. Muirhead, you and I live within kilometres of a well-established, well-run Mennonite community. We know these are in different parts of the country. Whether it’s dairy, poultry or beef, is the data of those large-asset operations included in our Canadian data for farming, or are they very independent?
Mr. Muirhead: I’m not quite sure I understand the question. Are you asking if Mennonite farms are included in —
Senator M. Deacon: Mennonite, Hutterite — those who have different orders of how they run operations and businesses. Are their inventory and work included in the data when we talk about farmers in Canada?
Mr. Muirhead: Yes, I would say. I don’t know about Hutterites, but I would assume so. I’ve been to a number of dairy farmer organization meetings in Alberta and across the Prairies, and Hutterites often win the dairy awards for the best farms in a province like Alberta. So I would assume they are completely integrated. They would have to be integrated into the system in order to be able to provide dairy, for example, or eggs.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for that clarification.
Mr. Ference: I will add to that. I’m from the Western provinces. I’ve been involved in all the boards out here. All of the Hutterite colonies in the West have grower numbers and are part of the supply management system. They’re considered one farm, and they are in all of the data that is there. So those sizes are there. They are registered whether it’s chicken, turkey, milk — whatever it is.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for that. I’m sorry I didn’t refer to you. Thank you very much.
Then I’m going to come back to something that was said yesterday. I think we’re all using different filters and questions in trying to work our way through this. One of our guests said that at the end of the day when we’re looking this, does this bill provide trade negotiators with more or less latitude? And a second question was asked: Does this advance the public good or a narrower context?
I heard your testimony today. I want to make sure we’re crystal clear where each one of you may wish to enhance or respond to either one of those questions. I’m going to start with Mr. Boyd, if you don’t mind.
Phil Boyd, Executive Director, Turkey Farmers of Canada: Thank you very much, senator.
Yes, in terms of enhancing the public good, I will go to Mr. Ference’s testimony in terms of his farm operation. There are different endowments in Canada. He raises grain and cattle. They have export needs, and that supply chain needs to feed that. That’s important to his farm. For his turkey and poultry production, which is domestic in focus, it’s across the country in each region and province.
In our case, governments and parties over time have supported supply management for 50 years. Part of that commitment is that it creates the opportunity for supply chains to exist in each province and region, which are the provinces and regions from which the honourable senators are appointed in terms of their jurisdiction. In our view, that serves the public good.
Mr. Ference’s point, as well, is that Bill C-282 passing into place upholds that commitment to supply management over time. In the 20-year implementation phase, the cost to our farmers is going to be close to $0.5 billion just because of CPTPP and CUSMA. That is significant in our industry. We’re not a large industry. That is a significant amount of money that is forgone farm cash receipts.
Then we look at the farm cash receipts and go to the different parts of the country, and they’re really significant, for instance, in Atlantic Canada from supply-managed commodities. I would guess over 50%, but we’ll provide that information. In B.C., it’s a significant proportion of farm cash receipts from dairy, poultry and egg production as well.
You take that together with the local supply chains and the health of the industry in each region and province, and, yes, we see this as a public good.
In terms of —
The Chair: I have to intervene. We’re at four and a half minutes. I let you go because of the nature of the question, but I’m sure we will come back to these fundamental questions in a few minutes.
Senator Coyle: Thank you so much to all of our witnesses today for your testimony and your time, because I know you’re all busy people.
Just taking from what each person has said — the arguments that I’m taking from you are — one, food security; two, food sovereignty; three, preservation of family farms, jobs, income, rural communities, human health, animal welfare and the environment. Those are some of the key things I’m hearing from all of you, collectively. Those things are, of course, important to Canadians and everybody at this table — as is, to you and all of us at this table, a robust Canadian economy. All of that is what we need to be considering here.
I will actually go back to the conversation about New Zealand because I’m intrigued. They do not have a supply-managed dairy sector there, but they have an organized dairy sector that thrives and exports.
I guess what I’m trying to get my head around is if it’s possible to have it all. Can we have our cake and eat it too here? Is there a way for these very wonderful farming enterprises here in Canada that we highly value and benefit from in many ways — can we have that and have the kinds of open trade relationships that we need for everything that we’re doing to build Canada’s economy, to fund our schools, our hospitals and everything else we need that money for? I’m trying to understand why we would need to carve out our supply-managed sector exclusively.
Again, yesterday, one of our guests asked who is going to be asking for these concessions next. This is going to be a red flag to those who are entering the negotiations and renegotiations of existing agreements.
I don’t know who would like to take those questions on.
Mr. Boyd: I have a few quick points. Yes, we want to have our cake and eat it too for the health of farms like Darren Ference’s. No problem.
We look at beef exports. I think I saw an article that 50% of production — go hard and go for it. Canola, 90% of Canadian productions exported — go hard and go for it. It helps his farm. What doesn’t help his farm is chipping away at the underpinning of supply management.
Every country in the world wants its cake and to eat it too. Thanks very much.
Mr. Ference: Just to add to that, in the past, there were negotiations over the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA, where we traded off for some of the supply-managed pieces, giving access on that CETA deal, to trade off for better access on the beef side. As a beef farmer, we have never seen an increase in beef exports into those countries because of other protectionist pieces those countries then invoke afterward, even though they negotiated for that trade increase. Yet, with the supply-managed pieces that were given, that access is gone forever.
Mr. Muirhead: On New Zealand, it seems to me they are a completely different system than the one we have now. You’ve raised this: There is very little social acceptance among New Zealanders for the dairy industry, actually. There is a huge backlash. There is massive pollution in New Zealand. It is called “dirty dairy.” Dairy farmers are under attack across the board. There are pollution issues, there are methane issues. It’s not a happy story with dairy farmers in New Zealand at all. Also, it’s a very cheap —
The Chair: Thank you. Sorry.
Senator Harder: Thank you to our panel. I want to get us back to what we are studying. We are studying a bill to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act.
Professor Muirhead, are you aware of any jurisdiction which has used a founding document of the department dealing with trade to circumscribe negotiations?
Mr. Muirhead: For sure. In my previous life, as I said, with trade negotiations, I looked at the GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade from 1947 —
Senator Harder: What about a departmental act?
Mr. Muirhead: No, I’m sorry, I thought you meant any jurisdiction.
Senator Harder: I know jurisdictions do this, but they do it directly. What the sponsors of the bill are seeking is to use a departmental act to squeeze in a prohibition against a particular sector. I just want to confirm that no other jurisdiction has that.
My question for Mr. Ference is this: You quite articulately asked us to support the supply-managed sector with this bill, and you are asking us to reject the concerns of the non-supply-managed agricultural sector — from which you also benefit — who have appeared and will continue to appear and who are asking us to reject the bill. The Canadian Cattle Association, the National Cattle Feeders’ Association, the International Cheese Council of Canada, the Canadian Canola Growers Association and Cereals Canada have all asked us to not go forward with this bill.
Why should we pick your sector over the other agricultural sectors? Why are you dividing the agricultural sector in Canada?
Mr. Ference: I don’t think I’m dividing it; I think that it’s possible to support both sides and protect our domestic product and our production on this side. Our market is a domestic market and only a domestic market. As we chip away at that, it has great implications on all of those farms that are in that piece. As we move into my export-managed piece, as I said before, a lot of the trade negotiations were traded away for pieces. In my experience in the past, I haven’t seen the benefits from what we have given.
Senator Harder: Could I ask you one other question? It’s a very simple one. Could you not concede that you could support supply management and be against this bill?
Mr. Ference: I support the bill, and I support supply management. I think we need a protection for the piece to not give away more pieces of our industry in the supply-managed sector. The last few negotiations have had great implications on my farm, and that has caused a lot of changes that have had to happen with the decreases and the loss of growth.
Senator Harder: Thank you.
Senator Boniface: Thank you all very much for being here. My question actually follows up on that and goes to Mr. Ference because I’m also struggling with the various views we’re getting from the agricultural community. In your comments and in comments we’ve heard over the last few meetings, farmers like you are caught in this fray of the split that’s taking place. We’ve certainly heard it here.
From your perspective on the food security argument, would you not have the same argument on other agricultural products that come from your farm? I’m not saying it’s a good or bad argument, but isn’t there an argument to be made for the others from a food security perspective?
Mr. Ference: The others are all export commodities. The production of them is large, so the food security on those pieces — on the canola piece and the beef piece — we have an oversupply of the production for our own, so the food security should be there. The production is here so that if you hit a pandemic, I’m hoping that Canada looks after Canada’s needs first.
When you’re in the supply-managed piece, this is our production. So as we decrease it if we’re going to rely on imports or the tsunami of milk that may come in from the States, what happens if you hit those pieces? What happens if we get a disease and the border is locked down? The food security piece, if it’s not produced here, as soon as there is a bump in the road, the first place to get cut off is us. I think food security is very important to have production here. With these commodities, as Mr. Muirhead said in the past, they have been selected out to make sure the production is here in Canada to provide for Canadians.
Senator Boniface: Maybe, Mr. Boyd, you can help me in terms of clarifying beef production. Is it only for export in this country?
Mr. Boyd: I’m not an expert in the beef industry, senator, but I read an article that said 50% of Canadian beef is exported and, in the same article, 90% of Canadian canola.
Senator Boniface: Right.
Mr. Boyd: And that’s significant. I don’t think that from the Turkey Farmers of Canada’s perspective or my colleagues’ perspectives we have any issue with that at all.
Senator Boniface: But I think you appreciate the dilemma we have in terms of the positions taken by others. If I were arguing it from a food security perspective, we would obviously like to make sure that we are satisfied here. The argument back that because 50% is exported, it’s not as much of a risk — is that the argument?
Mr. Boyd: To Mr. Ference’s point, I don’t think that food security is necessarily an issue in those commodities at all — or in ours, given the way that our different industries are structured.
I understand your dilemma. The antagonists to this bill are very vocal and very strong against it to the point that, as a casual observation, I would say that some of those arguments are significantly embellished. Reading the last column, you would think if Bill C-282 comes into place, the Canadian economy will crash and burn. This is not accurate, in our view.
Again to Mr. Ference’s point, both kinds of systems can coexist in this country. Bill C-282 just helps the nation continue to keep supply management intact in the various regions and provinces. It’s not complicated. Food security, I think, is important from our perspective in our structures. In the other structures, they can make their case on that, but I agree with Mr. Ference.
The Chair: Thank you. We are now in the second round.
Senator Gold: At the committee yesterday and before, we heard from some that the adoption of the bill would tie the hands of negotiators. I would invite anyone to comment on that, given that the bill simply reinforces existing government policy when it comes to supply management and trade negotiations. I invite any or all of you to comment.
[Translation]
Gyslain Loyer, Vice-Chair, Canadian Hatching Egg Producers: Thank you for the question. We heard that kind of comment yesterday, but we also heard a comment from former negotiator, Steve Verheul, who said the opposite, that having a bill like Bill C-282 would not tie the hands of Canadian negotiators — far from it. I would like to seize the opportunity of having the floor to answer a few questions I heard, if I may, Mr. Chair.
Senator Harder was asking if it is possible to protect supply management without passing Bill C-282. The answer is no. I have been sitting at the international table for 30 years. Every time we’ve gone into negotiations, we’ve always gotten plucked — literally. The message was always the same: We will protect supply management. If we have Bill C-282 before us today, it is because of that. It is because we have to reassure our fellow citizens and our farmers that supply management will survive.
When it comes to the issue of a product’s quality, it is possible that no differences exist today, but I’m looking ahead to 50 years from now. What will happen in 50 years? No one knows. We know today what supply management is. We know that a lot of production is protected with subsidies, deservedly so. I find it very hard to understand why we have to divide agriculture in Canada.
We are here to feed our citizens, one way or the other, and make sure there is enough food on the shelves in the coming years. That is the work we have to do.
Thank you.
Senator Gold: Thank you very much, Mr. Loyer.
[English]
Is anyone else willing to weigh in? Perhaps Professor Muirhead?
Mr. Muirhead: Could you repeat the question?
Senator Gold: Given that this bill implements or would carry forward government policy, how do you respond to the criticism that this simply ties the hand of negotiators, and that’s simply going to harm Canada’s ability to make deals or keep our deals or grow our economy?
Mr. Muirhead: Again, I’m not a trade policy expert in the sense that I’ve never been a practitioner of this, but it seems to me that countries all around the world in every single negotiation reserve sectors not for discussion. In 1955, for example, at the Review Session, the Americans withdrew discussion of all agricultural products at that Review Session, and that was the way it stood in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, really, from 1955 until 1994, when the Uruguay Round ended.
I don’t see that this is necessarily a problem. As I say, I’m not an expert in this area, so I’m speaking blindly here, but I would say that based on my historical research, governments do reserve areas all the time not for discussion.
The Chair: Thank you, Professor Muirhead.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: This question is for all our witnesses, particularly Mr. Bilkes and Mr. Ference.
According to the witnesses we heard from yesterday, the United Kingdom’s recent withdrawal from the negotiation of a new free trade deal is being ascribed to a conflict over the amount of cheese that the British want to bring into Canada. Do you agree with that statement? Is that really the main reason why the United Kingdom withdrew from negotiations?
[English]
Mr. Ference: I did not know that the U.K. withdrew from the table, so I don’t have an opinion on that. I have an opinion on what happened in the past when we negotiated the CETA when it was over there.
There was access given for more cheese into Canada in that negotiation in promise for more beef going over there. I know, and I have read articles where no more beef went over there. They found other protectionist ways to keep it from entering, yet the cheese has entered the Canadian market.
That’s where I think it’s very important that we protect our supply-managed pieces and our farmers here, because other countries find other ways around it to protect their industries that are important to them, even though they may have traded it away.
We have a supply management system. We’re the only supply management system in the world, and we’re always under attack. I think this bill would help support us and our negotiators going in so that we’re not a last-minute trade away in any negotiations coming.
Senator Gerba: Thank you. Any comment?
Mr. Boyd: I’m not an expert on cheese or some of these things — I’m a hatching egg producer — but from my knowledge of Britain, the United Kingdom is seeking entrance into the CPTPP agreement. That would, I believe, cover whatever concerns they had about the Canada-U.K. trade negotiations that were in the works.
One other thing I would like to point out is that the United Kingdom is an island, New Zealand is an island, and Australia is an island. I think islands always have a distinct advantage. Instead of having a giant neighbour to the south with a land border in between, there are some significant advantages to countries that are islands in terms of protecting their borders and the economic costs to bringing goods into those countries.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator MacDonald: Mr. Ference, you mentioned basically non-tariff trade barriers. I think that’s a legitimate concern that countries can do through the back door what they don’t do through the front door. We have to be cognizant of that.
When it comes to the Americans and the size of their economy — and we do share a border with them — it is a big concern, but because we throw in their face the level of subsidization of their agriculture, they don’t really have a strong argument to rebut that. Until they get rid of their agricultural subsidies, I think we’re on strong ground when it comes to our supply management.
Supply management was introduced in a very different market environment than we have today. There are all kinds of trade deals. The world is much smaller. Transportation is much quicker and more efficient. This question is for the turkey farmers and the hatching egg producers: You mentioned the pressures caused by these trade deals. How have you adjusted to them? Are we still in good shape? Are our egg-hatching and turkey-production industries subject to a lot of pressure that’s eroding them?
Mr. Bilkes: Thank you for the question. Our industries are in good shape, but every time a trade negotiation has a cut or has given access away, it has hurt our production, has emptied our barns and reduced our efficiencies. That is why we’re asking for this bill to be passed. We need this protection.
I forget the other part of the question.
Senator MacDonald: Do you not work more efficiently?
Mr. Bilkes: We’ve gotten more efficient, but, as you all know, there have been a lot more disruptions in the past couple of years with the pandemic, with avian influenza, with weather events. There have been a lot more disruptions to deal with, so it’s very important for us to have that domestic production in our country so that we can continue to supply our Canadian consumers with the production they need. And especially those disruptions have been significant.
Mr. Boyd: Just a couple of points to what Brian said. Our industry tends to be an underdog industry, and we have struggles increasing consumption for a number of reasons. I’m happy to share that later on.
Supply management in our sector is a uniquely Canadian approach to preserving the value chains across the country, in each province and in each region.
With respect, Senator Harder, I’m not sure that other jurisdictions should matter to this committee, the Senate or the House of Commons, because this is a uniquely Canadian proposition. To put Bill C-282 into place, we don’t see it tying anybody’s hands. Every negotiator wants less instruction. That’s how they’re wired. We all understand that. It makes it a red line, like it is a red line to increase export access for Canadian products as well.
Senator Woo: Mr. Boyd, you tried to debunk what you say is the claim on the part of opponents Bill C-282, saying that the economy will “crash and burn” if this bill is adopted. I’m not sure I have heard anyone use the term “crash and burn,” but we did hear from experienced trade negotiators and policy-makers yesterday that this bill could jeopardize not just the market access for a number of Canadian sectors to the U.S. but the entire agreement itself, the entire CUSMA. We heard that from experts.
Would you not agree the abrogation of CUSMA post-renegotiations in 2026 would effectively be a crashing and burning of the Canadian economy?
Mr. Boyd: I think that’s a different question, Mr. Chairman, than I was answering. I was just getting —
Senator Woo: No. Answer the question I asked. Would you consider the end of CUSMA would be devastating for the Canadian economy?
Mr. Boyd: When I look at 2026, we see a CUSMA review, not a CUSMA renegotiation. There is quite a substantial difference in that.
My only point was a lot of the arguments against the bill seem to have become rather embellished. We heard from a trade negotiator this is not an issue, not a problem. He is an experienced negotiator through several big deals. Negotiators will have different views on different matters, for sure.
The Chair: We have come to the end of our first panel today. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank our witnesses, Bruce Muirhead, Brian Bilkes, Gyslain Loyer, Darren Ference and Phil Boyd. You gave very straightforward answers in response to some very straightforward questions. We thank you for enriching our deliberations.
[Translation]
Dear colleagues, we are now moving on to the second part of our meeting.
[English]
We now welcome, from the Canadian Canola Growers Association, Dave Carey, Vice-President, Government and Industry Relations; from the Canola Council of Canada, Troy Sherman, Senior Director, Government and Industry Relations; and from the National Cattle Feeders’ Association, Cathy Jo Noble, Vice-President. Welcome to you all.
We begin with your statements, Mr. Carey, and then we’ll move along to questions and answers. You have the floor.
Dave Carey, Vice-President, Government and Industry Relations, Canadian Canola Growers Association: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for the invitation to appear before this committee to discuss the impact of Bill C-282 on Canada’s 40,000 canola farmers, who rely on open and rules-based trade for their farms’ success.
The Canadian Canola Growers Association, or CCGA, is the national association for Canada’s nearly 40,000 canola farmers, representing them on issues, policies and programs that impact their farms’ success. Developed in Canada, canola is a staple of Canadian agriculture as well as of science and innovation. Today, it is one of Canada’s most widely planted crops and is the largest farm cash receipt of any agricultural commodity, earning Canadian farmers over $13.7 billion in 2023. Annually, the canola sector alone contributes $29.9 billion to the Canadian economy and provides more than 200,000 jobs. Canola farmers are heavily trade-dependent, exporting 90% of what they grow as seed, oil and meal. Exports of canola alone were valued at $15.8 billion in 2023, reaching over 50 countries.
Canola’s continued success and its ability to continue to be a significant contributor to our economy is based on innovation and international trade. Free trade agreements, or FTAs, eliminate barriers and provide clear rules of trade; they are a centrepiece for predictable, rules-based trade.
Bill C-282 challenges the essential elements that FTAs are designed to provide. Let me be clear that this is not an agricultural bill; it will impact every sector of the Canadian economy that relies on trade, both imports and exports. Unfortunately, in the other place, the committee process was expedited for political purposes, and only agricultural stakeholders appeared.
If passed, the bill would constrain our negotiators’ ability to seek the best and most ambitious deals for Canada as a whole. In addition, the bill creates a dangerous precedent by inviting our trading partners to also seek exclusions.
CCGA supports the government’s ongoing efforts to diversify our exports and strengthen free trade worldwide, the importance of which is underscored by canola’s current trade situation with China. However, this bill contradicts these efforts and sends a strong protectionist signal globally.
If passed, Bill C-282 poses an existential threat to Canada’s global trading reputation. It would no doubt be an irritant in the upcoming CUSMA review. The U.S., which is a critical market for canola, has initiated multiple disputes over access to Canada’s dairy market. In addition, the U.K. has walked back its talks with Canada on a free trade agreement due to concerns over limitations to Canada’s cheese market. These trade tensions already exist, and Bill C-282 would further exacerbate these trading relations.
There has been a narrative that we already have a number of FTAs in place and that this bill would not impact them. I would remind the committee that all FTAs are subject to review, whether they be CUSMA, CPTPP or bilaterals, and many FTAs can be cancelled by any signatory with six months’ notice.
I urge the committee to think about the impacts this bill will have not only on canola but on Canada as a trade-dependent nation. The ramifications are significant and will be felt for years in both the agricultural sector and Canada’s reputation and ability to be an advocate for open and rules-based trade. Thank you very much.
Troy Sherman, Senior Director, Government and Industry Relations, Canola Council of Canada: Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today along with my colleagues as part of your study on Bill C-282. My name is Troy Sherman, and I am the Senior Director of Government and Industry Relations for the Canola Council of Canada.
The Canola Council is a full value chain organization representing approximately 40,000 canola farmers as well as exporters, processors and life science companies. As a value chain organization, our goal is to ensure the industry’s continued growth and success, and to do so by meeting domestic and global demand for canola and canola-based products, which include canola seed, oil and meal.
Canola’s success is Canada’s success. Our industry represents almost $30 billion in economic activity annually, supports over 200,000 jobs across the country and $12 billion in wages, and is one of the largest sources of farm cash receipts.
International trade is vital to the Canadian canola industry, with exports totalling $15.8 billion in 2023 alone. With approximately 90% of Canadian canola exported to as many as 50 different markets, the canola industry depends on ambitious, fair and science- and rules-based trade. For many years, we have worked with Canada’s trade negotiators to make sure Canada and Canadian canola is well positioned to help feed the world.
To achieve this goal, it is imperative that Canada pursue and achieve the most ambitious and commercially viable trade agreements possible. Bill C-282 puts that goal at risk and will significantly harm Canada’s trade policy and reputation as a trading nation.
To be clear, our concerns and opposition to this bill are not a commentary on supply management or its value. Our opposition to this bill is based on the principle that our trade negotiators should have all tools in the tool box available to them to be able to negotiate the best agreements for Canada. While this particular bill is specific to protecting supply management, we would be equally opposed to any bill that would carve out legislative protections for any other industry and risk forcing concessions in other areas of interest to Canadian exporters.
Additionally, amending the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act sets a dangerous precedent that other groups or industries can seek to amend the act to achieve similar carve-outs. This is a slippery slope and would fundamentally erode Canada’s trade policy. We urge the Senate to reject Bill C-282, given the harm it will do to Canada’s trade policy and the risks it will create for those industries that rely upon trade, including Canadian canola. The Senate must play its constitutional role as the chamber of sober second thought and make the distinction between what’s good politics and what’s good policy for Canada.
Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Ms. Noble, please go ahead.
Cathy Jo Noble, Vice-President, National Cattle Feeders’ Association: Good afternoon. The National Cattle Feeders’ Association represents family farms across Canada that are producing high-quality beef. We are strongly opposed to Bill C-282 due to the incredibly negative impact it will have on Canada’s economy and international reputation.
Canada exports approximately 50% of the live cattle and beef we produce. Seventy-five per cent of those exports are going to the United States. Thus, CUSMA is a critical agreement for our sector, as is diversifying our exports through new trade agreements.
Bill C-282 will make it untenable to negotiate new trade agreements in the best interests of all Canadian sectors and unnecessarily waves a red flag before the 2026 CUSMA review. We know the bill is already negatively impacting Canada’s reputation. Our trading partners tell us they are watching with concern. This is not the kind of global leader Canada is or wants to be. Canada must not prioritize the economic interests of one sector at the expense of all other sectors, sectors well beyond agriculture.
This is not a discussion about supply management. It is a discussion about good trade policy and bad trade policy. If this bill were protecting the auto sector instead of supply management, it would still be bad trade policy. If it were protecting aluminum or steel instead of supply management, it would still be bad policy. This is about asking the question: Is this good trade policy for Canadians?
If Bill C-282 passes, it will set a dangerous precedent where politicians take over the role of trade negotiators. Canadian trade negotiators need flexibility to manage unexpected changes around the globe, and we must let them do their job, not legislate their job.
All Canadian sectors face challenges. For instance, Canadian beef is currently locked out of the U.K. and China, and that has a tremendous economic impact on our sector, but the answer is not to resolve it at the cost of other sectors. There is so much global opportunity for Canada, enough for all of us to win. If this bill passes, I don’t see a win for any of us.
The Canadian Cattle Feeders’ Association implores senators not to support Bill C-282.
The Chair: Thank you very much to our three witnesses. We will go to questions. As per usual, you have four minutes, senators. Please keep your preambles concise and your questions short to allow for maximum response.
Senator Gold: Thank you for your presentations today. I was glad to meet with representatives of your groups recently to get your perspectives on this bill. I want to thank you for your testimony today. Thank you, Mr. Sherman, for noting the importance of the role of the Senate. That’s very much at the heart of what we’re challenged with. I come to a different conclusion than you have, but, nonetheless, it is precisely what our role is in the face of this.
Ms. Noble, respectfully, I think politicians and certainly Parliament as a whole have a role to play and a right to play in order to set boundaries and terms and conditions for trade negotiators. We are a rule-of-law country.
Forgive me; those are my comments.
I would like you to expand a bit on the role that your organizations play during trade negotiations. What avenues and channels of outreach and engagement do you have and utilize — properly so, by the way — when these processes are under way? I would like to understand how things work for you and with you in the process.
Thank you.
The Chair: To whom are you directing the question?
Senator Gold: To anybody who would like to answer. I apologize, chair. I know you want me to be more specific.
Whoever is first can start, and then the time will run out.
Mr. Sherman: I am happy to start. It’s a great question.
All of us are deeply engaged with our trade negotiators, leading up to, during negotiations and afterward as well. We can’t forget the implementation part of free trade agreements.
There are a number of different ways that we engage. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, as you know, has a Chief Agriculture Negotiator. There is an agricultural trade negotiations consultation group, which provides us an outlet to engage directly with negotiators during negotiation sessions with different partners. There are also other kinds of ad hoc bodies that will be created in the event of an issue coming up. As an example, as folks might know, Canada joined as a third party to the U.S. complaint against Mexico as it relates to GM corn under the CUSMA dispute resolution mechanism. There is a Mexico working group, for example, that exists with industry and government to talk about what that means and Canada’s submissions to those different panels.
So there are a multitude of mechanisms at play that we can engage with. Mr. Carey and I were in Abu Dhabi with Minister Ng at the WTO Ministerial Conference earlier this year and had engagements very regularly during those negotiations. There are a number of different ways for us to provide input to negotiators.
Senator Gold: Would anybody else like to add anything?
Mr. Carey: We regularly go to our key markets. We host the Japanese every year; we go to Japan every year. We often go to China every year. If there is a trade mission that the federal government is embarking upon, we will often go on those, as Troy mentioned. There is the WTO and public forums. All of us are on the board of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, or CAFTA, of which I am the Vice-President. We engage through CAFTA three times a year with trade negotiators for updates.
The government is very good at keeping us in the loop on those sorts of things, and we have mechanisms to feed in, senator.
The Chair: There is some time left if you want to comment, Ms. Noble.
Ms. Noble: We participate the same way as canola in terms of before, during and after trade negotiations. We have important relationships with our trading partners in those countries and with other associations — our sister associations — in other jurisdictions so that we’re all winning on all sides.
Senator Woo: Thank you, witnesses.
We heard from representatives of supply-managed industries that they would have great difficulty competing in the United States because of the asymmetry in the relationship, the U.S. being so much bigger. Allegedly, they cut corners with irregular labour, hormones, chemicals — all of that stuff.
But your industries have been quite successful in the U.S., I understand. Can you tell us why you have been able to be successful in the U.S.?
Mr. Carey: Canada is the largest producer and exporter of canola in the world. The benefit that we have with canola is that it is a crop that was created by government and universities in collaboration with the private sector. Australia is actually our largest competitor when it comes to canola, and the United States is our biggest market, with $8.6 billion of canola last year.
It’s a Canadian innovation; it is driven on science and rules‑based trade. As a result of that, we’re able to export 90%, because 10% is what we need for Canadians, and canola earns farmers a lot of money. We have innovated and competed. Canola did not exist until the 1970s, and now it is one of Canada’s most valuable commodities, not even just agriculture specifically, sir.
Mr. Sherman: I would be happy to add to that. Exactly as Mr. Carey said, it is our largest market, and it is quite significant. From a percentage standpoint, the U.S. accounted for about 54% of our total value of exports back in 2023 alone.
Part of the reason why we are able to be so successful in the United States is because we have highly ambitious, commercially viable trade agreements, and CUSMA is one example of that. CUSMA is probably the world-leading text on biotechnology, for example. CUSMA also provides us a dispute settlement mechanism, which we are currently engaged in with the dispute against Mexico on GM corn. It provides a very strong set of rules that allows us to export to the United States in the volumes that we do, and it sets very strong parameters about what is allowed, what is not allowed and what we can bring to the dispute settlement process. All of that, we believe, would be at risk in the event of Bill C-282 passing.
Ms. Noble: It’s a very integrated North American market for the cattle industry. A lot of live cattle go across the border every day. Some Canadian producers also have feed lots on the other side in the U.S. What is important is that we have been taking issue with the U.S. in regard to their country-of-origin policy and calling them out on that, so seeing Bill C-282 pass is not going to enhance our arguments against that.
Senator Woo: It is not as if we don’t have problems accessing the U.S. market. There are sanitary and phytosanitary, or SPS, issues, there are countervailing duties that they sometimes impose and so on, but there are mechanisms that we can use through CUSMA to address these issues, through the SPS agreement and dispute settlement in particular. The DSM, the dispute settlement mechanism, was something we fought hard to have in the CUSMA agreement, because they didn’t want it previously. Would the loss of DSM be harmful to your industries in the renegotiation?
Mr. Sherman: The loss of dispute settlement mechanism would absolutely be detrimental to not just agriculture but all Canadian industries that avail themselves of that tool. As we know, and we were in Abu Dhabi for the WTO’s 13th Ministerial Conference, the WTO is not a well-functioning appellate body for these kinds of dispute settlements. Having something embedded within our current FTAs, including CUSMA, is absolutely essential moving forward.
Senator Woo: Bill C-282 would run the risk of the Americans pulling back on DSM in the renegotiation. They didn’t want it in the first place.
Mr. Sherman: That is a great example, senator. If we say we’re going to take this sensitive part of the economy off the table, what is to stop the Americans from doing the same? Instead of a race to the top for the most ambitious, most commercially viable trade agreements, it is a race to the bottom on what we can get from them.
Senator Woo: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Welcome to our witnesses. Thank you for your opening statements.
Around this table and around the world, we all know that Canada is proud of its agricultural sector — which you represent — and that Canadian products are in great demand. You’ve given the numbers to back it up. However, we are talking here about a bill passed by representatives elected by the people. We’re not talking about politics, but rather about representatives elected by the Canadian people. They passed this bill with a strong majority, 262 votes to 49. Our trading partners are familiar with this policy. Does it change anything, since it’s a policy the Parliament of Canada recognizes, accepts and protects?
[English]
Mr. Carey: Absolutely. Every country we negotiate with has sectors that they protect, whether that is India, China, Japan — they all have sectors that they protect. Negotiators go in, eyes wide open, recognizing that.
If Canada did this, in my understanding, we would be novel. We would be the first country to say not just that our negotiators are going to get the best deal but that we have legislated out a component of our economy there will be no discussions on. What will stop the next country — the slippery slope — or the next commodity?
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Why does supply management always have to be the bargaining chip?
[English]
Mr. Sherman: Senator, that’s not the only thing on the table when we go to a trade negotiation; it is a full suite of things that we go to the table with. I believe you also had expert testimony from officials who talked about how in many instances you have 30-plus chapters. To say that the negotiations isolated to the agriculture chapter aren’t going to have an impact on other chapters is not how a trade negotiation works. Everything should be on the table. That’s why our opposition to this bill is not because it is supply management; it is because it is bad trade policy.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: What guarantees that, if supply management is abolished, there will not be other countries around the table with their own demands and requirements? What guarantees that, if we decide to shelve this bill, other countries will not keep demanding that Canada sacrifice something else?
[English]
Mr. Sherman: I think there are a couple of things. One, we have some of the best trade negotiators in the world. I think that they were very clear when they came and provided testimony to the committee that the events that led to their giving up access on supply management were in the national interest. It is up to Parliament to decide, when that legislation comes to pass, whether you are going to vote for it.
The second aspect is that the government also put in place very transparent ways for Parliament to pronounce itself on the trade negotiating objectives. The minister now has to table in front of Parliament what those objectives are. That’s another opportunity for parliamentarians to provide input in that process.
Ms. Noble: What is important, too, is that if Bill C-282 does not pass, we wake up the next morning and there is still supply management. It doesn’t mean that the government or the Senate doesn’t support supply management. It means that we’re not supporting this approach to trade negotiations.
[Translation]
The Chair: Senator Gerba, you can ask your other questions during the second round.
[English]
Senator Harder: Thank you for your testimony; it is very helpful to us. I have two questions, but I’ll ask them separately.
Previous testimony — in fact, the previous panel — accused your sectors of dividing the agriculture sector. How do you react to that?
Mr. Carey: We are not here to focus on supply management. We’re focused on the bill in front of us, which is a trade policy bill. We work well with supply management on a number of issues. Canola meal is actually a key feed ingredient for dairy production. It increases milk production, so the U.S. and Canadian dairy market are very integrated. I’m sure Ms. Noble can speak to the cattle side of things.
We’re reacting to a piece of legislation that could hurt the Canadian economy, Canadian interests and the farmers whom I represent. If this bill were not here today, I would not be here today either, senator.
Senator Harder: Thank you.
Ms. Noble: I will reinforce that message as well. The agriculture sector works together on many issues, and we’re very integrated across all sectors. We’re trying to pull this out of the agriculture versus agriculture framing; it is just a question about trade policy. I certainly encourage the Senate to invite witnesses outside of agriculture as well to hear how that is going to impact them.
Senator Harder: I agree with that. My second question is asking whether you could paint for us what American retaliation — if the bill passes — could look like for your sector.
Mr. Sherman: We talked about it. Dispute settlement is definitely something that we would be worried about. The former president, back in 2017-18, was very clear that they wanted to see that eroded. It is a massive protection for Canadian agriculture, and it is a massive protection for other industries as well in the Canadian economy. Anything that could potentially jeopardize that tool within the CUSMA, and especially going into the CUSMA review in 2026, would not be welcome by exporters. And I’m saying exporters generally; that’s not unique to canola.
Senator Harder: You are aware that Vice President Harris, as Senator Harris, was one of 10 senators who voted against CUSMA?
Mr. Sherman: Yes, absolutely. This is the challenge that we face.
I know we’re talking a lot about the United States, and I think we should, given the upcoming renegotiation, because it will be a renegotiation regardless of who is in the White House. But this is also going to have impacts in other trade negotiations as well, whether that be with Indonesia, with an accession to the CPTPP or if we ever get back to the table with India. To say that they don’t have sensitive areas that they want to keep off the table that we would like to have access to, I think that is a fundamental misunderstanding of how important ambitious and commercially viable trade agreements are for us.
Senator Harder: Thank you.
Senator Boniface: I really appreciate you being here, as I do all witnesses who have tried to give the perspective, and I feel a little bit like we’re trying to thread a needle here. I would like to step back and ask at what point you were consulted on Bill C-282 before it was drafted.
Mr. Carey: We were not consulted. This is a perennial bill that is introduced in every Parliament. It has never got past, from my knowledge, second reading in the House of Commons. It has never been voted on at third reading. We were all invited to the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade, to which only agriculture stakeholders were invited. No other organizations were invited or appeared, so this wedge issue, this agriculture-versus-agriculture narrative, was perpetuated.
Other than that, we have not been consulted other than our committee appearances or feeding into discussions with parliamentarians. But we are here at a very important stage, and this is really our chance that we’re now finally consulting in the upper chamber.
Senator Boniface: And for the cattle?
Ms. Noble: Same.
Senator Boniface: Just to be clear, you appeared in the other place, but prior to the bill being drafted or reintroduced in whatever form, you were never consulted on the impact on your sectors. Have you raised these concerns, at the time, with the minister?
Mr. Sherman: Yes.
Mr. Carey: Absolutely.
Mr. Sherman: We have raised that concern with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of International Trade. We raise it at every occasion that we can, given the fundamental erosion of our trade policy that will come as a result of this bill. So we represent 40,000 canola farmers between these two organizations. I also represent the exporters. This will have a fundamental impact on our trade policy at a time where we need access to more markets and more ambitious and commercially viable trade agreements, not less, particularly given the current geopolitical situation that we are facing with China.
Senator Boniface: Exactly. So if I look outside, because you would sort of fit within the umbrella of the agricultural community, I assume others would be in the same position. Are you aware?
Mr. Carey: Yes, there are certainly a lot of concerns. However, often witnesses, when it’s portrayed as a wedge issue, as has been discussed with agriculture versus agriculture — let’s let agriculture adjudicate this — there is a big difference between requesting to appear before a Senate committee versus being summoned to a Senate committee.
The issues that we bring, I believe, would be the same for the mining and forestry and auto sectors. However, the way it has been portrayed is that this is an agriculture issue, and they have been more reluctant. We have had a lot of engagement with colleagues in other sectors, and we hope they will come out and write to senators in support of defeating Bill C-282.
Mr. Sherman: One example of that, senator, if I may, is the recent letter that the Business Council of Canada also shared — the top CEOs in the country — identifying some of the concerns with this legislation outside of agriculture. They represent CEOs across the country in multiple different sectors and industries. We should take that to heart as well.
Senator Boniface: What I’m hearing in your very clear message — and I come from an agricultural background, raised on a farm — is that we really need to look at this in the broadest — as trade policy and not as specific to the agricultural community. I happen to be one of those people who see it as important that we see the community as a whole in terms of what it does in rural communities. So I thank you for your clarity.
Senator MacDonald: Senator Harder touched upon what my first question was going to be, but I want to go back to it. Canola is such an interesting subject. We created it. We’re the world leader. If the Americans wanted to target us and picked canola to target us, could they find an economical replacement for canola from other countries like Australia or Ukraine or somewhere else, or could they do it themselves?
Mr. Sherman: Without trying to give anything away to anybody who may be watching, look, I think we have to be very cognizant of what we’re facing on the oilseed side in the United States. They dwarf us in terms of the production of soy and corn. So the big play for Canadian canola is obviously in the biofuel sector. We have a very competitive carbon intensity score. We just got approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, as an advanced biofuel feedstock. From 2022 to 2023, as a result of that one decision, we had a 100% year-over-year increase in exports of canola oil to the United States to the tune of $1 billion in additional exports.
It is a hugely important market for us. We want the most commercially viable agreements and the most ambitious trade agreements that are going to protect that market.
Senator MacDonald: We live in an era of liberalized trade, I would think, compared to 50 years ago. I’m a free trader by disposition. Outside of the U.S., there have been other trade agreements over the years and the ones over the last decade and a half. How has that impacted your industry? Have you been able to take advantage of it in a way that you couldn’t 20, 25 years ago? I’m thinking of agreements with Chile and South Korea and so many countries around the world.
Mr. Carey: Absolutely. It opens the door. It gets our foot in the door. It absolutely has. Our largest markets are the United States, Mexico, the U.A.E., which is a relatively new market, our fifth-largest market now. Mexico is in our top five markets, which we haven’t spoken about today, but nearly $1 billion is going to Mexico. There’s Japan. So we are definitely benefiting from trading — and we’re seeing the rise of protectionism, particularly post-COVID, as countries look to shore up some of their domestic issues.
However, if you see the U.S. and the EU going to more protectionism — they are such a large market, so much larger geopolitically than we are. Canada cannot afford to broadcast protectionism. We cannot afford to legislate protectionism. Those free trade agreements — half of Canada’s GDP is a direct result of multilateral trade, which is in a direct correlation with our standard of living. Canada cannot afford to be protectionist. We are a trading nation; we always have been, and we are beneficiaries of free trade agreements.
As I mentioned in my opening comments, trade deals, even ones on the book, can be cancelled. The United States could pull out of the CUSMA with six months’ notice. And I agree with my colleagues — it’s not going to be a review. It is going to be a renegotiation. Vice President Harris recently tweeted she’s looking forward to the renegotiation of CUSMA. We cannot downplay the significance of that market, and the Mexican market being critically important too.
Ms. Noble: As I mentioned, we rely heavily on the U.S. market, but we need to diversify, and the Indo-Pacific Strategy is something we’re very much focused on. Going down the road in new trade agreements, we’re protecting products that we don’t even know if our trade partner actually wants access to. We’re showing our card and giving them a right to protect something when they didn’t even want the supply-managed products anyway.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much for your very clear testimony today. Two of a number of things we hear from the proponents of this bill are the importance of predictability for the sectors and also food security for Canadians. Could you tell us, in your areas of agriculture — canola and beef — first of all, how important the current system is to predictability and food security, if that’s relevant to you? And if this legislation were to pass, what impact would that have on predictability and food security, if that’s a matter for you as well?
Mr. Carey: I’m happy to start. If there’s any food insecurity in Canada, it’s as a result of socio-economic issues. It’s not a lack of food. Canada is not food-insecure. The province of Saskatchewan alone produces enough food for Canadians for about three years every harvest. It maybe wouldn’t be the most diverse palate, but Canada is not a food-insecure nation.
However, Canada has an economic imperative but also a moral imperative to export as much food as we produce to the world. We are the beneficiaries of a great nation, soil; we have got innovative farmers; we have had significant investment in research and development; we have a robust biotechnology regime; we have some of the best negotiators in the world. So when we export, 10% of that stays in Canada because that’s what Canadians need from canola, and 90% goes to the world. Colleagues in other sectors, among the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, would be in the same position where we’re able to export to parts of the world where there is food insecurity, where there is food scarcity. Canada is not food-insecure. Those are socio-economic issues about which farmers really can’t do a whole lot, unfortunately. It is a serious issue, but food bank usage is not because of a lack of food but because of a cost issue that is outside of our ability to control as stakeholders.
Mr. Sherman: The predictability piece is essential for everybody. Different market forces are going to have impacts on different commodities at different times. As you know, we’re facing that right now with China from a canola perspective.
By passing legislation such as this where we are showing our cards before we even get to the negotiation table, where we are telling our trading partners they are also going to be allowed to take something off the negotiation table that we may need in order to access that market, that’s going to be hugely detrimental to us. We don’t know what that’s going to impact. It might be dispute settlement; it might be a sanitary and phytosanitary chapter; it might be a less ambitious text on biotechnology at a time when we are looking to invest in biotechnology and gene‑edited products because of climate change. We want more heat‑resistant and drought-resistant crops; gene editing is going to be a key part of that. If we don’t have market access to export markets because we don’t have an ambitious text on biotech, we will not be able to export our product.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
Ms. Noble: If I could give a perspective from the beef sector, certainly, when we export, that’s what allows our beef farmers in Canada to grow and succeed and thus be able to offer Canadians affordable beef. It’s essential, those exports, to keeping Canadian farmers such as our sector in business.
Predictability in the global trade market is not really a thing anymore, I would say, and that’s exactly why we want our trade negotiators to have as much flexibility as possible to manage what is unpredictable at those tables in other countries. Thanks.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you very much. I understand negotiation. I understand our favourite Kenny Rogers song, knowing “when to hold ‘em,” knowing “when to fold ‘em.” I think we all understand that. I couple that with spending Sunday afternoon driving through this rural community in south Quebec and saying I want to understand where this bill started, and I want to understand the community that MPs were representing originally. We heard today a definition — I think it’s probably the best one we’ve had so far in committee — of a family farm and that size and a yield and goals.
My statement is the farmers, our family farmers, without this bill, with the integrity and the intent of trade negotiations are going to be okay. They’re going to be able to carry on doing the work they’re doing and their concerns of food security and sovereignty will carry on, will still be successful without this bill coming forward.
Mr. Carey: I am always reluctant to speak on behalf of farmers whom I don’t represent. I have nothing against supply management. I think supply management has been successful. I think they’ve got a robust system. Many supply-managed commodities are also in the export business now. It is not only importation. Again, the previous panel referred to “have your cake and eat it too,” but Canada’s agricultural community is large and diverse. Canola is grown coast to coast. The Prairies are certainly where it’s grown predominantly. I think, by doing this, the Senate should be prepared for the next sector to say, okay, now lumber, now steel, now aluminum. We are an importing and an exporting nation, and there is a harmony to be found there. As I said, we have some of the best negotiators in the world who are always able to find that equilibrium in the national interest.
Mr. Sherman: Senator, to your point, as we look toward negotiations or renegotiations and what this means for our trade policy, I think the Senate also has to consider how much risk we are willing to take. What is the gamble that we are willing to play here with our current trading relationship with current partners, our future relationship? What is our risk tolerance when it comes to that? If we know that 2026 is going to be a renegotiation, if we know that a lot of the other trading partners we’re looking to have free trade agreements with have other sensitivities as well, are we willing to take that risk that we are not able to achieve the most commercially viable and the most ambitious trade agreement for all Canadian exporters, not just the agricultural exporters, as a result of this legislation?
Ms. Noble: And I just wanted to add, in all due respect, supply management doesn’t have a monopoly on the family farm. Beef is family-farmed. Canola is family-farmed. We are family farms, and we contribute the same thing that our supply-management colleagues do. Together, as an agriculture sector, we supply food security, rural community development, health, family farms. We all do that all together.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I’m also coming back to food security. According to an Abacus survey from 2023, 9 out of 10 Canadians say it’s important for the dairy products, eggs, chicken and turkey they buy to come from Canada. Ninety‑seven per cent believe it’s important for Canada to have a robust domestic food supply chain that makes it possible for us to produce enough food to feed Canadians year-round.
What’s more, 94% of Canadians think it’s a good thing when they learn that a food product has comes from a farmer subject to Canada’s supply management system, which includes mandatory standards for food safety and animal welfare.
So, given that Canadians care about local production, our food sovereignty, local well-being and Canadian health standards, why keep the door open to more concessions within the supply management system?
[English]
Mr. Carey: I would say to my friend David Coletto over at Abacus that Canadians’ responses are that way currently without Bill C-282. They already are buying Canadian products at the grocery store. They are buying Canadian dairy, eggs and chicken. Bill C-282 doesn’t exist currently in law, and Canadians are responding that way, so you can look at it two ways. It can be an indication that Canadians want what we currently have. But Bill C-282 does not exist currently, and that is what Canadians are purchasing. I think some Canadians also want imports from other countries. Maybe they want an Irish cheese or a Cabernet from California. I think as an exporting nation, we also have to be able to tolerate imports.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: How do you justify prioritizing access to foreign markets, to the detriment of the stability and survival of producers who depend on supply management?
[English]
Mr. Sherman: Senator, no one is saying we want to get rid of supply management. We are saying, though, that this is an unnecessary bill that will tie the hands of our negotiators for generations. I think we have to understand that. This will have generational impacts if we pass this legislation. Once it is law, once we fundamentally alter a departmental act to do this, I think, one, we’re going to see others come knocking on the door. It’s a preview to coming attractions: Others will come knocking on the door asking for the same kind of protections. Two, this is going to impact our trade posture for generations. It’s the farmers now, and it’s the farmers 25 years from now, because of how political this bill has become. That is why it is so important that the Senate look at the policy and the substantive elements of the bill, not the politics.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Do you agree with me that, in the past, a number of motions calling for the protection of supply management were simply dropped? In this bill, we are being asked to exclude supply management, because we no longer want to deal with the fact that promises are made and, in the end, the goods are not delivered.
[English]
Mr. Sherman: Senator, I am also conscious of the fact that, yes, a number of motions have been passed to that effect, but the same legislation that was passed in terms of CUSMA was adopted by parliamentarians as well. Parliament did decide at that point that that agreement — as the CPTPP, as the CETA —was in the best interests of the nation. So I think that’s a decision for parliamentarians to make once the implementing legislation is tabled.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Do you agree with me that parliamentarians are being asked to decide on something, but if necessary, negotiators always have the option of returning to Parliament? Parliament sends a signal about what our country wants to protect. Other countries have done the same. You’re probably familiar with the Farm Bill. You know India’s and France’s policies on chicken and farming.
[English]
Mr. Sherman: Parliament does have a role to play in terms of outlining what some of the priorities are. The government is very proud of its new, transparent process for the negotiation of free trade agreements. I think that is the perfect occasion for senators and members of the House of Commons to pronounce themselves on what those objectives should be so negotiators go in there with an understanding of what we should be looking to achieve. That is always available to parliamentarians. I would suggest the government can speak to that process moving forward.
Senator Gold: This is a two-part question. One, Mr. Carey, am I correct in noting that the chair of your association did, in fact, appear before the House committee, testified and responded to questions? I just want to make sure that my information is correct.
Mr. Carey: Yes.
Senator Gold: Thank you. The question is, “Would you agree that . . .,” so here is the comment but wrapped in a question. You’ve mentioned a number of times the role of the Senate. I think it was you, Mr. Sherman, who said the Senate should be wary of the next one coming to the Senate in terms of a demand for exclusion from negotiations.
But would you agree, in fact, that it wouldn’t come to the Senate right away? It goes to the government, and it may go to the elected house. This bill came to us from the elected house with the support of the government and members of all political parties. Whether it’s the government in the exercise of its Royal Prerogative or Parliament as the elected House of Commons, we get it afterwards. Would you agree our role, constitutionally, is to be a complementary chamber to the House and not necessarily to substitute our particular policy perspectives, although our job is to air the concerns, and they’re being aired very fulsomely here, and the arguments continue to repeat themselves? That’s to be expected.
But would you not agree that the Senate’s role is different from that of the government with regard to setting parameters for negotiators and, indeed, different from the elected house, if it chooses in its wisdom or lack of wisdom — and clearly people disagree — to be even clearer about what is off the table as a sign of strength and sovereignty going into the negotiations? We all know — you’ve been very candid about it, and properly so — that there are lots of things truly off the table even before the first meeting happens. I’m sorry; short answers to a long question.
Mr. Sherman: I appreciate the question; however, this isn’t a government bill. This is a private member’s bill. There are members of the government and on the Conservative benches who voted against this bill as well. This is not government legislation. This is a private member’s piece of legislation that has made it way through the House. This is at least the third time that this same bill has been presented. This is the only time it has been passed at third reading in the House. Every other time, it’s either died on the Order Paper or not advanced in that process.
This is a “Groundhog Day” bill; we’re seeing it again and again. There are very real concerns. That’s why we took the opportunity to speak in the House about that. It was a rushed process, and we hope this can be a more thorough process with not just agricultural stakeholders coming to speak to this but also other sectors of the economy coming to speak to the detrimental impacts on their sectors.
There is a role for the Senate to play, recognizing that the politics of the House is what is driving this bill, not necessarily the policy, and substantive elements of the bill were not as well discussed in the House during that process. That’s why we’re very hopeful we can have a very thorough discussion here both at committee and in the Senate Chamber about that.
Senator Gold: For the record, one party was quite divided on it, but the Government of Canada and all cabinet ministers supported this bill, as did members from all parties. Each and every one of them were elected democratically, would you not agree?
Mr. Sherman: Absolutely, I do agree with that. But I would say senators have been appointed to provide that level of scrutiny as well without the shackles of politics tied to them. Providing the sober second thought to this bill is absolutely vital given the generational impact this will have on our trade posture and trade policy.
The Chair: Thank you. The level of scrutiny for today is ending because we are at the end of our meeting.
I want to thank our witnesses — Cathy Jo Noble, Troy Sherman and Dave Carey — for your testimony today. It was very useful to the deliberations of this committee.
Colleagues, before we adjourn, I simply wish to address the public attention on the committee’s work on this bill and reiterate what I said yesterday in the Senate in response to a question from Senator Gerba during Question Period.
With the approval of the steering committee, we’re focusing on Bill C-282 for the remainder of October, with clause by clause planned for the first week of November. This committee will continue — and I will ensure this — to have an in-depth, diligent and timely review of what is clearly consequential legislation. We will return to our study of Bill C-282 after the upcoming break week.
Colleagues, witnesses, staff, I wish you all a happy Thanksgiving this weekend with your families and friends.
Senator Woo: I support your plan. We’ve heard from a number of witnesses that it would be valuable to hear from other sectors that could potentially be affected. Can you reassure us that we will be hearing from these sectors — in a timely fashion, of course?
The Chair: We have a series of witnesses. They were submitted earlier on by Senator Gerba. They were submitted by Senator Harder, the official critic of this bill. We have a full slate. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)