This statement suggests the kind of aggression that NATO was formed to protect member countries from, but Rutte said nothing.

That public appearance dovetails nicely with the messaging that several administration officials have been sending out across the U.S. media networks — that Canada is the bad actor and needs to stop its aggressive and unfair trade behaviour toward the U.S.

It’s all strikingly similar to the loathsome accusations by Trump that Ukraine was the bad actor in its defensive war with Russia.

That level of propaganda effort may be what’s helping prop up the current level of U.S. public support for the president’s foreign policy actions, particularly its tariffs, which remains a little less than 50 per cent, according to a recent poll conducted by CNN.

‘America last’ era ending

An example of the message going out to Americans is a statement by trade secretary Howard Lutnick while speaking on MSNBC a week ago.

“These policies are the most important America has ever had.”

Later in an extended interview on CBS, he asserted that tariffs were intended to influence border security. Without providing evidence, he claimed 75 per cent of terrorists captured in the U.S. came through Canada and the amount of fentanyl was grossly more than statistics show.

A few moments, later he went on to say how important it is to have steel manufacturing back in the United States, pivoting away from the border security basis for tariffs and claiming they were an economic necessity, apparently wanting it both ways.

Speaking during a White House press briefing, the administration’s spokesperson said: “The America-last globalist era is ending under president Trump. He will no longer allow our country and our workers to be ripped off.”

The continued mixed messaging about Canada, economic imperatives and now broader application of tariffs to the European Union seems to make clear that the initial border security claim is a lie.

The greatest dealmaker?

When asked in that CBS interview what was being accomplished by on-again-off-again tariffs on Canada, Lutnick said, “the president is the greatest dealmaker to ever sit in that chair.” He suggested these were just clever negotiating tactics.

He then added the U.S. will eventually seek to negotiate separate bilateral trade deals with individual countries.

But what would be the value of those deals if the U.S. so easily walks away from the existing Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement?

Democratic Minnesota governor Tim Walz expressed his opinion on that in a March 12 interview on MSNBC.

“Donald Trump doesn’t know how anything works. Donald Trump is this caricature that had a reality TV show that pretended he knew how to run businesses. The reality is he doesn’t.

“He’s the guy that starts the fire, then stands there and gives directions, acts like he’s the only one that knows how to put the fire out. He’s an arsonist with our economy.”

Later in the interview, Walz stated the obvious, that the president’s long history in relation to contracts and ethics makes any new agreement largely meaningless.

“We (the U.S.) have become untrustworthy.

“If he thinks trade is so bad with Canada, he’s the guy that signed the deal. It defies logic. I think this is how he ran business. He stiffed contractors. He stiffed workers. He doesn’t pay his bills. He declares bankruptcy. One thing is he claims he’s the business president. He’s the worst possible business executive I have ever witnessed.”

The post Lutnick suggests U.S. to eventually make new bilateral trade deals appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“CCA has been following the bilateral negotiations closely and has been concerned at the lack of ambition and cooperation from the UK in these negotiations,” said Nathan Phinney, the CCA’s president, in a news release late yesterday.

Yesterday, Canadian officials said the UK had suspended talks on a free trade deal with Canada amid unhappiness on both sides about the lack of access to agricultural markets. The talks, which started in March 2022, are among a number of negotiations Britain has launched around the world in the wake of its decision to leave the European Union, which excluded it from existing EU free trade deals.

“The Canadian beef industry is a strong advocate of free and open trade. To avoid getting a bad trade deal for Canadians, we need trade partners that want to trade fairly and not use rules and regulations to their own advantage,” Phinney added.

The CCA said the beef industry will continue to oppose adding the UK into the Comprehensive and Progressive Transpacific Partnership (CPTPP) “until the fundamental obstacles to export Canadian beef to the UK are fully addressed.”

Canada and other nations welcomed Britain into the CPTPP in July. In response, the Canadian Meat Council (CMA), the Canadian Cattle Association (CCA) and the Canadian Pork Council issued a joint statement “strongly opposing” the move.

“The U.K. does not accept Canada’s food safety and animal health systems and measures, and those non-tariff barriers limit our access to the U.K. market,” the three groups said.

“The UK currently has unlimited access for British beef exports to Canada while Canadian beef producers are unable to export into the UK market,” the CCA said in yesterday’s release.

In a statement posted on social media platform X, a British government spokesperson said “we reserve the right to pause negotiations with any country if progress is not being made”.

Before Britain left the EU trading sphere at the end of 2020, Canada rolled over existing trade arrangements to ensure free trade could continue. One particular arrangement dealing with cheese access has now expired.

“Since the UK has not shown willingness to resolve this market access issue, it is in Canada’s best interest to focus our efforts at different trade negotiations,” the CCA said. “Canadian beef producers would also encourage the Government of Canada to re-examine the UK’s current beef access to Canada in both the Trade Continuity Agreement (TCA) and the CPTPP to ensure fairness and equitable access.

–With files from Reuters

The post CCA disappointed, not surprised by breakdown in trade talks appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The United States had accused Canada of not meeting obligations under the 2020 Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) to open its market to foreign producers.

The three-person independent panel ruled that Canada had not acted unreasonably. The panel’s report was released on Friday.

U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai said in a statement that she was “very disappointed” by the ruling.

“The United States continues to have serious concerns about how Canada is implementing the dairy market access commitments it made in the agreement … we will not hesitate to use all available tools to enforce our trade agreements,” she said.

Trading partners say that although Canada has over the years agreed in a number of deals to allow some dairy market access to foreign firms through a system of tariff-rate quotas, it was in fact improperly allocating most of them to domestic firms.

“Canada is very pleased with the dispute settlement panel’s findings, with all outcomes clearly in favour of Canada,” Trade Minister Mary Ng said in a statement.

Dairy Farmers of Canada president David Wiens, in a separate one-sentence statement Friday morning, said the organization “welcome(s) the decision of the panel.”

In January 2022, an earlier CUSMA panel said Ottawa had violated the accord by not opening up the domestic market enough. Canada then amended its policies.

The CUSMA agreement kept in place Canada’s decades-old supply management system, which restricts domestic production of dairy, eggs and poultry to stabilize incomes of dairy farmers and protect them from import competition with high tariffs.

Canada’s roughly 10,000 dairy farmers form one of the most influential political lobbies. Most farm in Quebec and Ontario, the provinces with the most parliamentary seats.

— Reporting for Reuters by David Ljunggren in Ottawa; includes files from Glacier FarmMedia Network staff.

The post CUSMA panel rejects U.S. complaint on access to Canada dairy market appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

But despite the panel’s findings in New Zealand’s favour, Canada is also framing the panel’s ruling as a win — as it also generally upholds Canada’s ability to set criteria for dairy quota allocations.

In a ruling dated Tuesday, a three-member CPTPP panel found Canada’s policy of reserving priority access to its 16 dairy tariff rate quotas (TRQs) is “inconsistent” with its obligations under the 2018 trade pact — and that the pooling system Canada has set up in its allocation mechanism “operates to limit the opportunity for otherwise eligible applicants to use the TRQs fully.”

Canada in 2020 and 2021 issued 16 “notices to importers” that carve up its overall available TRQs for 16 separate dairy product categories, by reserving 80-85 per cent of them for processors, zero to 20 per cent for further-processors, and zero to 15 per cent for distributors.

Arguing that a system reserving the “vast majority” of available TRQ allocations for processors fell short of Canada’s CPTPP commitments, New Zealand had called for consultations with Canada under the CPTPP in May last year, then asked for a dispute settlement panel in November. A dispute hearing was then held in June in Ottawa.

New Zealand, which contended Canada was “impermissibly limiting access to TRQ quota to its domestic dairy processors,” notes its case marks the first dispute to be taken by any party under the CPTPP.

In its ruling, the panel emphasized it’s not requiring Canada or other CPTPP parties make sure each available TRQ quantity be fully filled each year — but “the opportunity to fill them must not be undermined by an overly compartmentalized and complicated system as is the case with Canada’s current allocation mechanism.”

On the other hand, the panel’s 60-page ruling found Canada did not introduce “new limits or eligibility requirements” on its dairy TRQs, and that its notices to importers, by setting up “additional criteria for eligible applicants” for a quota allocation, are within the discretion allowed to countries that use an allocation mechanism.

But the panel also emphasized “it is not suggesting that Canada, or any party using a TRQ allocation mechanism, has unfettered discretion to adopt any manner of eligibility criteria that it wants.”

‘Have to change’

CPTPP rules now give Canada “a reasonable period of time to change its TRQ administration to comply with the panel decision,” New Zealand officials said Tuesday.

“Canada was not living up to its commitments under CPTPP, by effectively blocking access for our dairy industry to upscale its exports. That will now have to change,” New Zealand Trade Minister Damien O’Connor said in a separate statement.

The panel ruling, he said, will give New Zealand’s exporters the “confidence and certainty that the mechanisms in place will ensure they receive the market access that all members agreed to.”

New Zealand, he said, “look(s) forward to our dairy exporters being able to properly utilize the hard-won market access we negotiated through CPTPP and we hope Canadian customers will welcome more consumer choice.”

Dairy Farmers of Canada president David Wiens, in a separate statement Wednesday, said the organization is “disappointed” with the dispute panel’s findings. Out of the six challenged elements of Canada’s system, two were ruled to be inconsistent with the CPTPP while New Zealand’s other four claims were ruled as “unfounded,” he said.

DFC, he said, now calls on Ottawa to run a “thorough review of the measures the government of New Zealand has put in place to support its dairy sector to ensure that they are consistent with its international trade obligations.”

In a separate statement Tuesday, Canada’s Trade Minister Mary Ng and Agriculture Minister Lawrence MacAulay said the panel “has made a significant finding by recognizing Canada’s discretion to set TRQ allocation policies, including determining who is eligible to obtain an allocation.”

Canada, the ministers said, “will not negotiate these allocations with countries who seek to weaken Canada’s supply management system.”

The panel’s findings on Canada’s use of pools also “will not undermine Canada’s supply management system,” they added.

Canada’s system of reserving TRQs for imports by domestic dairy processors has been a target of two separate disputes launched by the United States under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). The U.S. is not a party to the CPTPP.

Canada’s supply management systems on dairy, poultry and eggs are meant to ensure regulated supplies of those perishable goods, by regulating the levels of domestic production; regulating pricing according to end-use; and managing imports through the use of TRQs and an otherwise high tariff wall.

Martin Harvey, New Zealand’s High Commissioner to Canada, said in a separate statement the outcome of this dispute “would not take away from the excellent relationship” between the two countries.

“It is a good example of how dispute settlement chapters in free trade agreements are meant to work. It’s an outcome that supports our shared commitment to a rules-based international trading system, and a good day for CPTPP.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post New Zealand, Canada each claim wins in CPTPP dairy dispute appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The decision follows Washington’s request for a dispute settlement panel through the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), which escalated its objections to the restrictions imposed by Mexico on imports of GM corn.

Mexico in mid-February modified an end-2020 ban on GM corn, allowing its use in animal feed and industrial food, but maintained a ban on GM corn for human consumption, specifically in the use of making flour for tortillas, which is a staple of the Mexican diet.

Canadian Trade Minister Mary Ng and Agriculture Minister Lawrence MacAulay said in a statement that the country “shares the concerns” of the U.S. that Mexico is not compliant “with the science and risk analysis obligations” under CUSMA’s sanitary and phytosanitary measures chapter.

“Canada believes that these measures are not scientifically supported and have the potential to unnecessarily disrupt trade in the North American market,” the statement said.

Earlier this week, Mexican economy minister Raquel Buenrostro told Reuters her country would not modify the decree on GM corn ahead of the CUSMA panel as Mexico’s policy is based on science.

Tortillas in Mexico are made with non-GM white corn, in which it is self-sufficient, but the country imports corn worth around US$5 billion annually from the U.S., most of it yellow GM grain for livestock feed.

The CUSMA panel was announced after the failure of formal consultations to resolve deep differences between the two trading partners over GM corn.

— Reporting by Reuters newsroom, writing by Carolina Pulice.

The post Canada says will join as third party in U.S.-Mexico corn dispute appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The request to send the dispute to arbitrators was announced after formal consultations failed to resolve deep divisions between the two close trading partners over use of genetically modified (GM) corn, widely produced by U.S. farmers.

Mexico’s economy ministry said it would defend its GM corn policies before the dispute panel, saying on the social media platform X that they “are consistent with trade obligations.”

Washington alleges that Mexico’s decree banning imports of GM corn used in dough and tortillas for human consumption is not based on science and violates its commitments under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) on trade launched in 2020.

If the panel rules in favour of the U.S. and Mexico fails to comply with its directives, USTR could ultimately win the right to impose punitive tariffs on Mexican goods, which could spark a rare North American trade war.

U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai said in a statement that the move was aimed at enforcing Mexico’s CUSMA obligations to maintain science-based regulations on agricultural biotechnology.

“It is critical that Mexico eliminate its (CUSMA)-inconsistent biotechnology measures so that American farmers can continue to access the Mexican market and use innovative tools to respond to climate and food security challenges,” Tai said.

Mexico now buys about US$5 billion worth of U.S. GM corn annually, mostly for livestock feed. It says biotech corn harms native varieties and may have adverse health effects, an assertion that the U.S. side disputes.

Mexico also plans to ban the herbicide glyphosate, which it considers dangerous amid lawsuit settlements with cancer patients despite regulators worldwide determining its safety. Many GM corn varieties are modified to tolerate the herbicide.

Canada’s trade ministry, which has sided with U.S. concerns about Mexico’s corn policies, “is considering its next steps,” a spokesperson said, adding Trade Minister Mary Ng “has consistently been clear about the importance of maintaining science-based approaches to biotechnology approvals.”

Corn futures temporarily pared gains at the Chicago Board of Trade after USTR’s announcement as traders worried the spat could threaten U.S. exports to Mexico.

Fruitless consultations

The panel request follows 75 days of formal consultations requested by U.S. officials in June. Mexico has sought U.S. co-operation to jointly conduct scientific research on the health impacts of genetically modified corn, but Mexican officials told Reuters on Aug. 3 that their U.S. counterparts denied the request.

“Mexico’s approach to biotechnology is not based on science and runs counter to decades’ worth of evidence demonstrating its safety and the rigorous, science-based regulatory review system that ensures it poses no harm to human health and the environment,” U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in the statement.

He added that innovations in agricultural biotechnology to enhance yields also help ease challenges on global food and nutrition security, climate change and food price inflation.

USTR’s decision drew cheers from U.S. corn trade groups and U.S. lawmakers from both parties, who say Mexico’s policies were hurting U.S. farmers.

“U.S. officials have exhausted every avenue trying to resolve this conflict and are left with no other choice but to turn to a third-party panel in hopes of quickly rectifying this issue,” National Corn Growers Association president Tom Haag said in a statement. “We are deeply appreciative of USTR for standing up for America’s corn growers.”

Republican Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska said the move would “hold Mexico accountable and prevent its blatant trade violation under (CUSMA).”

Under CUSMA’s dispute settlement rules, a five-person panel, chosen from a roster of pre-approved experts, must be convened within 30 days, with a chair jointly chosen and the U.S. side choosing two Mexican panelists and Mexico choosing two U.S. panelists. The panel will review testimony and written submissions and its initial report is due 150 days after the panel is convened.

Previous CUSMA dispute panels last year ruled in the U.S.’s favour in a dispute over Canadian dairy quotas, and against the U.S. on automotive rules of origin, siding with Mexico and Canada.

There have been other disagreements between the U.S. and Mexico, most notably over energy in which the U.S. has argued that Mexico’s nationalist policy prejudices foreign companies.

— Reporting for Reuters by David Lawder; additional reporting by Steve Scherer in Ottawa, Adriana Barrera and Valentine Hillaire in Mexico City and Caroline Stauffer in Chicago.

The post U.S. escalates Mexico corn trade spat with dispute panel request appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The Dairy Direct Payment Program (DDPP), which issued $1.75 billion over four payments from 2019 to 2023 to compensate for the Canada-European Union (CETA) and Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) trade pacts, this year begins to roll out $1.2 billion over 2023 to 2029 to compensate for the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).

The plan for CUSMA compensation for supply-managed sectors was first laid out in broad strokes last November.

One significant difference announced Tuesday for this segment of the DDPP is that dairy producers must hold a valid dairy quota licence registered with a provincial milk marketing board or agency on Aug. 31 to be eligible for a payment in a given year.

Previous DDPP program years had used an Oct. 31 calculation date. The government noted Tuesday that this change has been made “in consultation with industry.”

Since the calculation date affects the opening of the program registration period, setting the date earlier in the year “will ensure producers have more time to sign up before the deadline and may receive their payment sooner.”

The registration period for the fifth payment is expected to open this fall of 2023. Eligible producers must register before March 31, 2024, the government said.

Those producers can expect letters from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in the fall with registration details. Payments would follow once a producer completes the registration, AAFC said Tuesday.

Setting the new quota reference date for the DDPP will ensure producers “have the necessary information further in advance to be able to plan and evaluate their farm situation,” federal Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau said in Tuesday’s release.

Sustainability research

Bibeau on Tuesday also announced an unrelated funding envelope of over $7.5 million for Dairy Farmers of Canada (DFC) from the federal AgriScience Program – Clusters Component.

AgriScience — a federally funded program under the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership (S-CAP) — will back DFC for research into “solutions to improve the environmental and economic sustainability, and resilience of the Canadian dairy industry.”

To that end, the government said, DFC is to develop and implement plans to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and sequester carbon, and to improve the health and welfare of cows and the quality of milk produced.

Outcomes in the former area are expected to help the industry hit DFC’s previously stated goal of reaching net-zero GHG emissions from dairy production by 2050. Research in the latter areas, meanwhile, will include antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in dairy cattle, genetic improvements in cattle, and “eco-efficient” dairy processing.

DFC president Pierre Lampron said in a separate release that the funding is “essential to enable strong, robust and evidenced-based research material that ultimately helps dairy farmers increase the efficiency of their farms.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Dates moved up in dairy sector’s CUSMA compensation calendar appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The annual meeting of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) Free Trade Commission will take place on Thursday and Friday in the Mexican resort city of Cancun, with participation from Tai, Mexican Economy Secretary Raquel Buenrostro and Canada’s Minister of International Trade Mary Ng.

The meeting is required under the rules of CUSMA, which replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement in 2020, for the trading partners to discuss issues related to the trade pact.

A senior USTR official, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity, said the three ministers will discuss the ongoing implementation of CUSMA, which is scheduled for a major review and potential updates in 2026. A new subcommittee created last year on competitiveness and supply chains also will meet to update officials on work to facilitate trade flows during crisis situations and prevent disruptions, the official added.

The official said North American trade irritants that are in dispute consultations or arbitration — and which could ultimately lead to punitive U.S. import duties — are being handled through separate channels. The “primary place” to discuss these issues are in issue-specific consultations started under CUSMA dispute settlement rules, the official added.

These issues include U.S. complaints over Mexican policies to limit use of genetically modified corn imported from the United States, and over Canada’s allocation of dairy import quotas that U.S. officials have said hurts U.S. producers.

These disputes also include the USTR’s long-running consultations with Mexico over its energy policies that fail to meet commitments to open its energy market to outside competitors.

“Those are obviously very important issues that remain important on all levels, so they’re on the top list of priorities,” the official said. “I wouldn’t say that they’re walled off, but certainly the primary space for discussing them is in the actual consultations.”

After a CUSMA dispute settlement panel ruled in January against the stricter U.S. interpretation of the trade pact’s automotive rules of origin, siding with Mexico and Canada, the U.S. was working separately with its two partners to find a solution for “enhancing North American motor vehicle production and jobs,” the official said.

The Cancun meeting also will include discussions on CUSMA’s “rapid response mechanism” for labor rights violations at specific factories. The U.S. has invoked 11 cases under the mechanism since CUSMA was launched, including an investigation at a Goodyear plant in Mexico that is the sixth this year.

The official said the USTR has brought good co-operation from Mexico on the mechanism, which is aimed at improving labour rights at Mexican factories. A senior U.S. labour official separately told Reuters that Mexico needs stronger institutions to protect workers as companies shift supply chains to the southern U.S. neighbour.

— Reporting for Reuters by David Lawder in Washington; additional reporting by Daina Beth Solomon in Mexico City.

The post NAFTA meeting to skirt major disputes, U.S. trade rep says appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Members of the House of Commons voted June 21 to adjourn until Sept. 18, while the Senate did likewise June 22, to return Sept. 19.

While the two houses of Parliament were able to see to passage and royal assent of the federal budget bill last week among other government legislation, at least three private members’ bills — on which multiple farmer groups have lobbied for months — are now parked for the summer, including:

• Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act;
• Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (deemed trust – perishable fruits and vegetables); and
• Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management).

C-234

Introduced Feb. 7 last year in the Commons by Conservative MP Ben Lobb, C-234 passed third reading in the House on March 29 this year. It last appeared in the Senate on June 13, when it passed second reading.

The Senate on June 13 also referred C-234 to the standing Senate committee on national finance, “to examine and report on the subject matter of the bill.” The bill was also referred to the standing Senate committee on agriculture and forestry, which the Senate also authorized to take into account any findings from the finance committee’s study.

C-234 would grant farmers an exemption from federal carbon pricing on propane and natural gas used for drying grain and heating of barns.

Farmer groups including the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan and Manitoba’s Keystone Agricultural Producers had called on the Senate on June 13 to pass the bill before breaking for the summer.

“We understand that senators are looking forward to enjoying the summer season. Prairie farmers want to enjoy theirs by knowing this bill is passed so they can look forward to the fall harvest,” APAS president Ian Boxall said at the time in a joint release.

“If we experience a wet harvest like 2019, I have real concerns about the added burden farms across Saskatchewan and the Prairies will be forced to absorb.”

C-280

Introduced on June 8 last year by Conservative MP Scot Davidson, C-280 passed second reading in the Commons on May 17 this year and was referred at that time to the Commons standing committee on agriculture and agri-food.

Several Canadian produce growers’ groups said last Thursday in a joint release that they were “thrilled” to then see the committee pass the bill “without amendment and with the support of all political parties” on June 21.

C-280 proposes to set up a “deemed trust,” which the groups described as “a vital financial protection mechanism for fresh produce sellers in Canada.”

Such a trust is meant to help growers of fruits and vegetables secure payment in the event of buyer bankruptcy. “The perishable nature of fresh produce, coupled with the industry’s typically longer payment terms, leave sellers unable to recover losses when faced with buyer bankruptcy,” said the groups, which included the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, Canadian Produce Marketing Association and Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation.

“The recent case of Lakeside Produce in Leamington, Ont. serves as a reminder of the urgent need for a financial protection tool to safeguard this essential sector and uphold food security in Canada,” they said.

Such a trust could also help restore Canadian producers’ access to the U.S. Perishable Agricultural Marketing Act Trust (PACA Trust), which provides a protection mechanism to secure payment in case of a U.S. buyer’s bankruptcy.

The U.S. government in 2014 withdrew Canada’s preferred access to the PACA Trust payment dispute arbitration mechanism, unless or until such time as Canada comes up with an equally effective resolution process for buyer defaults.

“Looking ahead to the final rounds of debate and voting in the House of Commons, we are optimistic that all parties will continue to lend their support and work to advance the bill as quickly as possible,” FVGC executive director Rebecca Lee said. The groups acknowledged the bill would not return to the Commons again until this fall.

C-282

Introduced June 13 last year by Bloc Quebecois MP Luc Theriault, C-282 completed third reading in the Commons last week, on June 21, and passed first reading in the Senate the following day.

The bill, Theriault said last year, is meant to “protect supply management from further dilution in future international trade negotiations,” following tariff rate quota concessions granted to imports through the Canada-E.U. free trade agreement (CETA), the Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) which he said “really did a number on this agricultural system.”

The bill would amend existing federal legislation with new provisions to exclude supply management from future trade negotiations.

Groups representing farmers in Canada’s supply-managed dairy, poultry and egg sectors, in a joint release June 22, hailed the bill’s passage in the Commons, saying it would “safeguard the sustainability” of production in those sectors.

However, the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, which represents producer groups in export-dependent ag sectors, said June 21 its members were “profoundly disappointed” in C-282’s passage in the Commons.

CAFTA president Dan Darling said the bill will diminish Canada’s negotiating hand in future trade negotiations and MPs who voted to pass the bill “have chosen to entrench protectionism and favour one economic sector above all others.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Adjournments put off ag bills to September at earliest appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Rob Stewart, Canada’s deputy minister for international trade, wrote Friday to U.S. and Mexican trade officials, formally announcing Canada’s intent to take part in the CUSMA dispute settlement consultations U.S. officials requested earlier this month.

“Canada shares the concerns of the U.S. that Mexico’s measures are not scientifically supported and have the potential to unnecessarily disrupt trade in the North American market,” federal Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau and Trade Minister Mary Ng said in a joint statement Friday.

U.S. Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack and Trade Representative Katherine Tai on June 2 announced that Washington would seek dispute settlement consultations, following a round of technical consultations with Mexico in March under the sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) chapter of the CUSMA pact.

Those technical consultations “did not resolve the matter,” Tai said in a statement June 2.

Bibeau and Ng said the dispute settlement consultations cover measures laid out in a presidential decree published by Mexico in February — “namely the ban on use of biotechnology corn in tortillas and dough, the intention to gradually substitute the use of biotechnology corn in all products for human consumption and animal feed.”

The consultations are also meant to address Mexico’s plans for “rejection of applications for authorizations covering the importation and sale of certain biotechnology products,” the ministers said.

Mexico has been discussing such a ban since 2020, citing sustainability, self-sufficiency and the protection of native corn varieties, with the stated aim of ultimately replacing its imports of U.S. yellow corn with domestic non-GMO production and halting the use of glyphosate herbicide.

“We have always been clear that Canada expects our partners to uphold their commitments under CUSMA — including sanitary and phytosanitary measures,” the Canadian ministers said in Friday’s statement.

The federal government, they said, is “committed to science-based decision-making and keeping food, feed and the environment safe, while supporting the ability of our farmers, workers and exporters to succeed in an innovative and sustainable agricultural sector.”

In these consultations, they said, Canada will work toward “an outcome that preserves trade predictability and market access for our farmers and exporters.”

“When a key trading partner such as Mexico does not authorize biotechnology applications for Canadian agricultural exports, this creates an asymmetry in North American regulatory conditions that can lead to trade disruptions,” Stewart said in Friday’s letter to U.S. and Mexican officials.

Mexico’s approach in its decisions “may have a significant economic impact on Canadian producers, developers of innovative agricultural technologies, as well as consequences for trade flows into and out of Canada,” he wrote.

Canada, he added, has “an important systemic interest in ensuring the correct interpretation of the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) obligations of CUSMA, namely that SPS measures are based on scientific principles, relevant international standards, guidelines and recommendations, or appropriate risk assessments.”

Also, he wrote, Canada maintains that “SPS measures shall not be more trade-restrictive than required to achieve a party’s appropriate level of protection and shall be applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health.”

The Canada Grains Council, in a separate release Friday, hailed Ottawa’s decision, saying “Mexico’s decision to ban products with a proven record of safety has far-reaching consequences.”

The introduction of Mexico’s decree has “injected uncertainty into North American markets,” CGC vice-president Krista Thomas said, and if the measure is not withdrawn, “it has the potential to trigger food price inflation and undermine food security within the intricate supply chains of North America.”

There have been “some positive signals from Mexico recently” on the matter, the Canola Council of Canada said Friday in a separate statement, but “more formal and substantive assurance is required to provide clarity and certainty about the regulatory approach moving forward.

“Without that, there is concern that similar issues could arise in the future and precedence established for approaches not based on science.”

For its part, the U.S. government “has been clear that it would consider all options, including further steps to enforce U.S. rights under (CUSMA), if Mexico did not return to science- and risk-based biotechnology policies that are in compliance with (CUSMA) commitments,” the USTR said June 2. — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Canada gets in on U.S. trade challenge of Mexico’s GM corn ban appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.