Protects Dairy, Poultry, Eggs in Trade Deals

Summary#

Bill C-202, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), proposes to amend that Act. Its stated aim, as indicated by the title and summary, is to prevent certain international trade commitments affecting dairy, poultry and eggs.

• The Minister of Foreign Affairs would be barred from making a commitment on behalf of the Government of Canada in an international trade treaty or agreement that would increase the tariff-rate quota for those goods.
• The Minister would also be barred from making a commitment that would reduce the tariff on those goods when they are imported above the applicable quota.
• The bill restricts what the Minister may commit to; it does not itself change quota levels or tariffs.

What it means for you#

• Federal trade negotiators: If enacted, the Minister could not make the specified commitments on behalf of the government through an international trade treaty or agreement.
• Dairy, poultry and egg producers, importers and consumers: The bill would not directly change current quotas or tariffs, or guarantee any particular market or price outcome.
• People in Canada generally: The bill does not create a new benefit, fee, tax or service.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The bill contains no stated spending, staffing, tax or fee provision.

What is unclear#

• The supplied material does not include the parent Act, so I cannot verify how the proposed rule would fit with current law or existing commitments.
• The bill does not say when it would start.
• It does not explain how the rule would be enforced or what would happen if a prohibited commitment were made.
• It does not set out a process for assessing whether a commitment would increase a quota or reduce an above-quota tariff.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to protect existing tariff-rate quotas and above-quota tariffs for dairy, poultry and eggs from being reduced through international trade commitments.
• A clear legal limit could make those protections less dependent on the choices of a minister during trade negotiations.

Case against#

• One concern is that the restriction could limit the Minister’s ability to make trade commitments involving these goods.
• The bill does not explain how to handle proposed commitments whose effects on quotas or tariffs are disputed or indirect.
• It is unclear how the restriction would interact with existing trade commitments or what remedy would apply if it were breached.