Summary#

This bill changes the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. It would bar the Minister of Foreign Affairs from agreeing in any trade treaty to expand import access for supply‑managed goods. These goods are dairy products, poultry, and eggs. It does not change Canada’s current tariffs or quotas. It only limits what future trade deals can include (Bill s.10(2.1)).

• Blocks any future trade deal from increasing tariff rate quotas (TRQs) for dairy, poultry, or eggs (Bill s.10(2.1)(a)).
• Blocks any future trade deal from lowering over‑quota tariffs on those goods (Bill s.10(2.1)(b)).
• Leaves existing trade agreements and current TRQs/tariffs as they are; the bill does not act retroactively (Bill s.10(2.1)).
• Affects how Canada can negotiate future trade agreements, by removing two bargaining options for these goods.
• No direct changes to domestic supply‑management rules or farm quotas.

What it means for you#

• Households

  • No immediate change in grocery prices. The bill does not change current tariffs, quotas, or prices (Bill s.10(2.1)).
  • In future trade talks, Canada could not expand import quotas or lower over‑quota tariffs for dairy, poultry, or eggs. Any price effects that might have come from such concessions would not occur. Data unavailable.

• Farmers and workers in supply‑managed sectors (dairy, poultry, eggs)

  • More policy certainty. Future trade deals could not add new import access for these products through higher TRQs or lower over‑quota tariffs (Bill s.10(2.1)(a)-(b)).
  • Existing protections remain. Over‑quota tariffs on these goods are high, often above 200% under Canada’s tariff schedule, and would stay unless changed by domestic law (Customs Tariff; Bill s.10(2.1)).

• Food processors, retailers, and restaurants that use dairy, poultry, or eggs

  • Future trade agreements would not create new or larger TRQs for these inputs. Planning should assume no extra duty‑reduced import volumes from future trade deals (Bill s.10(2.1)(a)).
  • Over‑quota import costs would remain high unless changed by domestic law, since trade deals could not lower those tariffs (Bill s.10(2.1)(b)).

• Importers of dairy, poultry, or eggs

  • No new access in future trade deals via larger TRQs or lower over‑quota tariffs for these goods (Bill s.10(2.1)).
  • Current TRQs and administration stay the same unless changed by other laws or regulations. Data unavailable.

• Exporters in other sectors

  • Canada would have fewer options to trade off market access in these supply‑managed goods when bargaining for access abroad. This could affect the scope or pace of future trade deals. Data unavailable.

• Federal government and trade negotiators

  • Negotiators could not offer, in any treaty or agreement, increases to TRQs or cuts to over‑quota tariffs for these goods (Bill s.10(2.1)).
  • The amendment is placed in the section of the Act dealing with the Minister of Foreign Affairs (s.10). Other ministerial authorities in the Act are not amended, which may raise interpretation questions (Bill s.10; Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act).

• Timing

  • If enacted, the constraint would apply on Royal Assent to future treaties and agreements; existing commitments would not change (Bill s.10(2.1)).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No appropriations are in the bill; it creates no new programs, taxes, fees, or penalties (Bill s.10(2.1)).
• No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable.
• Possible indirect economic effects would depend on outcomes of future trade negotiations. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Protects supply management by law. The bill prevents future trade deals from expanding import access for dairy, poultry, and egg products, preserving the current policy framework (Bill s.10(2.1)(a)-(b)).
• Provides certainty for farm planning and investment. With no future treaty‑based increases to TRQs or cuts to over‑quota tariffs, producers can plan around stable market shares (Bill s.10(2.1)).
• Avoids repeating past market‑access concessions in these sectors. Supporters say this reduces the risk that farmers lose domestic share in future talks (Bill s.10(2.1)).
• May limit future compensation needs. When past trade agreements granted access in these sectors, the federal government created compensation programs for affected producers; locking in protections could reduce that need in future (Government of Canada announcements; Data unavailable for totals).

Opponents' View#

• Reduces Canada’s flexibility in trade negotiations. By removing two standard bargaining tools—larger TRQs and lower over‑quota tariffs—Canada may find it harder to secure gains for other sectors (Bill s.10(2.1); Data unavailable).
• Could limit the scope or timeline of future trade deals. Partners often seek agricultural access; Canada would be unable to offer it in these categories, which may constrain agreements (Bill s.10(2.1); Data unavailable).
• May keep consumer prices above levels that could result from liberalization. Non‑partisan research has found domestic prices under supply management are generally above world prices; blocking future access keeps that structure in place (Library of Parliament, 2018; Data unavailable for bill‑specific effects).
• Legal drafting and enforceability concerns. The amendment applies to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (s.10), while trade negotiations are also led by the Minister for International Trade under a different section of the Act. This may raise questions about coverage and remedies if a contrary commitment were made (Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act; Bill s.10(2.1)).
• Unclear remedy. The bill bars certain commitments but sets no explicit enforcement process or penalties. Any dispute would likely be resolved only after a commitment is made, creating risk (Bill s.10(2.1)).