logo
Supply management law not enough to shield system from Trump, experts warn

Supply management law not enough to shield system from Trump, experts warn

Global Newsa day ago
A new law meant to protect supply management might not be enough to shield the system in trade talks with a Trump administration bent on eliminating it, trade experts say.
'It's certainly more difficult to strike a deal with the United States now with the passage of this bill that basically forces Canada to negotiate with one hand tied behind its back,' said William Pellerin, a trade lawyer and partner at the firm McMillan LLP.
'Now that we've removed the digital service tax, dairy and supply management is probably the number 1 trade irritant that we have with the United States. That remains very much unresolved.'
When Trump briefly paused trade talks with Canada on June 27 over the digital services tax — shortly before Ottawa capitulated by dropping the tax — he zeroed in on Canada's system of supply management.
Story continues below advertisement
In a social media post, Trump called Canada a 'very difficult country to TRADE with, including the fact that they have charged our Farmers as much as 400% Tariffs, for years, on Dairy Products.'
Canada can charge about 250 per cent tariffs on U.S. dairy imports over a set quota established by the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement. The International Dairy Foods Association, which represents the U.S. dairy industry, said in March the U.S. has never come close to reaching those quotas, though the association also said that's because of other barriers Canada has erected.
When Bill C-202 passed through Parliament last month, Bloc Québécois MPs hailed it as a clear win protecting Quebec farmers from American trade demands.
2:17
Quebec dairy farmers fuming over Trump's trade war
The Bloc's bill, which received royal assent on June 26, prevents the foreign affairs minister from making commitments in trade negotiations to either increase the tariff rate quota or reduce tariffs for imports over a set threshold.
Story continues below advertisement
On its face, that rule would prevent Canadian trade negotiators from offering to drop the import barriers that shield dairy and egg producers in Canada from price shocks. But while the law appears to rule out using supply management as a bargaining chip in trade talks with the U.S., it doesn't completely constrain the government.
Get daily National news
Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
Pellerin said that if Prime Minister Mark Carney is seeking a way around C-202, he might start by looking into conducting the trade talks personally, instead of leaving them to Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand.
Carney dismissed the need for the new law during the recent election but vowed to keep supply management off the table in negotiations with the U.S.
Pellerin said the government could also address the trade irritant by expanding the number of players who can access dairy quotas beyond 'processors.'
'(C-202) doesn't expressly talk about changing or modifying who would be able to access the quota,' he said. Expanding access to quota, he said, would likely 'lead to companies like grocery stores being able to import U.S. cheeses, and that would probably please the United States to a significant degree.'
Carleton University associate professor Philippe Lagassé, an expert on Parliament and the Crown, said the new law doesn't extend past something called the 'royal prerogative' — the ability of the executive branch of government to carry out certain actions in, for example, the conduct of foreign affairs. That suggests the government isn't constrained by the law, he said.
Story continues below advertisement
'I have doubts that the royal prerogative has been displaced by the law. There is no specific language binding the Crown and it would appear to run contrary to the wider intent of the (law that it modifies),' he said by email.
'That said, if the government believes that the law is binding, then it effectively is. As defenders of the bill insisted, it gives the government leverage in negotiation by giving the impression that Parliament has bound it on this issue.'
2:01
Canadian farmers still uneasy despite dodging Trump's new tariffs
He said a trade treaty requires enabling legislation, so a new bill could remove the supply management constraints.
'The bill adds an extra step and some constraints, but doesn't prevent supply management from eventually being removed or weakened,' he said.
Trade lawyer Mark Warner, principal at MAAW Law, said Canada could simply dispense with the law through Parliament if it decides it needs to make concessions to, for example, preserve the auto industry.
Story continues below advertisement
'The argument for me that the government of Canada sits down with another country, particularly the United States, and says we can't negotiate that because Parliament has passed a bill — I have to tell you, I've never met an American trade official or lawyer who would take that seriously,' Warner said.
'My sense of this is it would just go through Parliament, unless you think other opposition parties would bring down the government over it.'
While supply management has long been a target for U.S. trade negotiators, the idea of killing it has been a non-starter in Canadian politics for at least as long.
Warner said any attempt to do away with it would be swiftly met with litigation, Charter challenges and provinces stepping up to fill a federal void.
'The real cost of that sort of thing is political, so if you try to take it away, people are screaming and they're blocking the highways and they are calling you names and the Bloc is blocking anything through Parliament — you pay a cost that way,' he said.
2:12
Canada's dairy, lumber supply under threat by Trump as trade war escalates
But a compromise on supply management might not be that far-fetched.
Story continues below advertisement
'The system itself won't be dismantled. I don't think that's anywhere near happening in the coming years and even decades,' said Pellerin. 'But I think that there are changes that could be made, particularly through the trade agreements, including by way of kind of further quotas. Further reduction in the tariffs for outside quota amounts and also in terms of who can actually bring in product.'
The United States trade representative raised specific concerns about supply management in the spring, citing quota rules established under the CUSMA trade pact that are not being applied as the U.S. expected and ongoing frustration with the pricing of certain types of milk products.
Former Canadian diplomat Louise Blais said that if Canada were to 'respect the spirit' of CUSMA as the Americans understand it, the problem might actually solve itself.
'We jump to the conclusion that it's dismantlement or nothing else, but in fact there's a middle ground,' she said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘We will definitely surpass the minimum': Lukaszuk confident anti-separatist petition can gather needed signatures
‘We will definitely surpass the minimum': Lukaszuk confident anti-separatist petition can gather needed signatures

CTV News

time13 minutes ago

  • CTV News

‘We will definitely surpass the minimum': Lukaszuk confident anti-separatist petition can gather needed signatures

Former deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk speaks with Alberta Primetime host Michael Higgins about his pro-Canada referendum application being approved by Alberta's Chief Electoral Officer. This interview has been edited for clarity and length. Michael Higgins: Are you already collecting signatures? Thomas Lukaszuk: No, we're not. There is a process in place. The chief electoral officer now has to decide whether the old rules, or the rules created for separatists by Danielle Smith, will apply to me. He will make that decision, and then we will take it under consideration whether we agree with it or not, and then I have 30 days to appoint a chief financial officer. The moment I appoint a chief financial officer, the clock starts ticking for collecting signatures. We don't know which clock yet, whether it be it'll be the 90-day clock under the old rules, or the 120-day clock created for separatists. MH: How much hangs on this July 4 implementation of the new legislation? TL: It's really a technicality. The premier, oddly enough, chose American Independence Day to proclaim her pro-separatist legislation. It just really changes the rules on how many signatures we have to get, and judging by the response of Canadians living in Alberta, we find that we will definitely surpass the minimum requirement — no matter which rules apply. It's always nice to have more time, 120 days to 90 days, but I think we'll be fine within 90 days. MH: The premier said that she would let the various processes play out. How do you interpret that? TL: The premier is wrong on two points. Number one, she doesn't get to speak or determine which rules apply. That is up to an independent officer of the legislature of Alberta, the chief electoral commissioner. He will make that decision, not the premier. Second of all, there are no processes. There is a process. My application was the first application filed. It was approved. And the law is clear: There cannot be two competing questions. There cannot be two competing plebiscites or referenda. So, this is the application. This is the process that's going forward. For reasons unknown to me, those who are pro-separation didn't file their application on time. So there will be a process, and no more than that. MH: The premier is leading the Alberta Next town hall tour, which is set to get underway in just a couple of weeks time. Is that a conversation that you take your petition to if it's ready to roll by that point? TL: We will bring facts to the table. There are a number of reasons why I did what I did, but I firmly believe that if we are going to have a discussion about the future of Canada, because this is not only about Alberta, this is actually the future of Canada, that conversation must be led by Canadians who actually care about the well-being of Canada as a whole and not separatists. More importantly, this conversation has to be based on facts, on laws, on economic data, and not on disinformation. This web-based survey that she put out is anything but survey. And I know, because when I lived in totalitarian Poland, there was a little joke going around: 'I have two pairs of pajamas, checkered ones and striped ones. I'm taking the checkered ones. Which ones do you want?' That's exactly the analogy. It is not polling. It is leading Albertans towards certain answers. We won't have any part of that. We will lay out the facts and I am certain that the vast majority of Albertans will not consider separation in any shape or form. MH: How much of a fight are you bracing for from those who are on the pro-separatist side? What kind of conversation do you envision evolving here? TL: I think the biggest obstacle will be our premier and her government. She devised this term, 'Sovereign Alberta within a United Canada', which is really a word salad. It means nothing. It's like me telling you I am single within the confines of my marriage. She's trying to fuel the separatist movement by passing legislation to make things easier for them — 'Wink, wink. You know I'm behind you. I'm choosing American Independence Day to proclaim this act for you', but at the same time, she's saying, 'Well, no, I'm not a separatist'. My petition will force her and her caucus to finally get off the fence and make a decision, which the premier is not willing to answer at this particular time. I don't anticipate that she will sign my petition. Although, if she truly is a loyal Canadian, if she lives up to the oath that she swore, both as an MLA and as a cabinet minister, she should sign this petition. My hopes are not high for that. MH: There are two independent MLAs who were expelled from the UCP caucus who are looking to revive the PC brand. How does that sit with you? TL: Good for them. I think it's good for democracy. I don't like the fact that we really have only two viable parties right now, the NDP and UCP. It reminds me of American politics. The more viable parties you have that offer different ideas, different perspectives, the better for democracy and for the electorate. So good on them. I'm not sure how successful they will be in reviving the party to the point where it can at least become opposition, or one day form government; building a party is a difficult process. What it will do is create a lot of additional danger for Danielle Smith because she already has the Republican Party of Alberta, which is nipping at her from the far right and taking away support there. I imagine that this Progressive Conservative Party will be a moderate centre-right party and will be stealing away support from the left side of her caucus. And let's bear in mind that Danielle Smith has a very small majority at this point in time. She has openly declared separatist MLAs and cabinet ministers in her caucus and many of her Calgary MLAs won the last election only by a handful of votes. If she loses five to seven per cent of support on either end, she is in political trouble.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store