
New supply management law won't save the system from Trump, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
'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.'
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.
'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.
But a compromise on supply management might not be that far-fetched.
'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.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 3, 2025.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


USA Today
14 minutes ago
- USA Today
Speaker Mike Johnson touts passing of spending bill as Dems lament
Speaker Mike Johnson touts passing of spending bill as Dems lament After Republicans' sweeping spending bill passed out of Congress, House Speaker Mike Johnson said it'll be "a great thing" for every American.


Fox News
16 minutes ago
- Fox News
‘The Five': Victory stalled by a 'big, beautiful stunt'
All times eastern Special Report with Bret Baier Fox Business In Depth: "Reenergizing America" Kelsey Grammer's Historic Battles for America Kelsey Grammer's Historic Battles for America Kelsey Grammer's Historic Battles for America FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Trump kicks off July 4th weekend with remarks at the Iowa State Fairground


San Francisco Chronicle
16 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
MAGA faithful cheer Trump for pausing Ukraine weapons after bristling at Iran strikes
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is getting praise from his most ardent supporters for withholding some weapons from Ukraine after they recently questioned the Republican leader's commitment to keeping the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. This week's announcement pausing deliveries of key air defense missiles, precision-guided artillery and other equipment to Ukraine comes just a few weeks after Trump ordered the U.S. military to carry out strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Bombing those sites in Iran had some hardcore supporters of the "Make America Great Again" movement openly questioning whether Trump was betraying his vow to keep America out of 'stupid wars" as he inserted the U.S. military into Israel's conflict with Tehran. With the Ukraine pause, which affects a crucial resupply of Patriot missiles, Trump is sending the message to his most enthusiastic backers that he is committed to following through on his campaign pledge to wind down American support for Ukraine's efforts to repel Russia, a conflict he has repeatedly described as a costly boondoggle for U.S. taxpayers. 'The choice was this: either prioritize equipping our own troops with a munition in short supply (and which was used to defend U.S. troops last week) or provide them to a country where there are limited U.S. interests,' Dan Caldwell, who was ousted as a senior adviser to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, posted on X. Caldwell publicly worried before the Iran strikes that U.S. involvement could incite a major war and ultimately cost American lives. Far-right influencer Jack Posobiec, another ardent MAGA backer, warned as Trump weighed whether to carry out strikes on Iran last month that such a move 'would disastrously split the Trump coalition." Both the White House and the Pentagon have justified the move as being consistent with Trump's campaign pledge to limit U.S. involvement in foreign wars. 'The president was elected on an America first platform to put America first,' Pentagon chief spokesman Sean Parnell said. At the same time, the decision is stirring anxiety among those in the more hawkish wing of the Republican Party. Many are flummoxed by Trump's halting the flow of U.S. arms just as Russia accelerates its unrelenting assault on Ukraine. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican who hails from a district that former Vice President Kamala Harris won in 2024, wrote to Trump and the Pentagon on Wednesday expressing 'serious concern' about the decision and requesting an emergency briefing. 'We can't let (Russian President Vladimir) Putin prevail now. President Trump knows that too and it's why he's been advocating for peace,' Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, wrote on X. 'Now is the time to show Putin we mean business. And that starts with ensuring Ukraine has the weapons Congress authorized to pressure Putin to the negotiating table.' Trump spoke by phone with Putin on Thursday, the sixth call between the leaders since Trump's return to office. The leaders discussed Iran, Ukraine and other issues but did not specifically address the suspension of some U.S. weapons shipments to Ukraine, according to Yuri Ushakov, Putin's foreign affairs adviser. Zelenskyy said in Denmark after meeting with major European Union backers that he hopes to talk to Trump in the coming days about the suspension. The administration says it is part of global review of the U.S. stockpile and is a necessary audit after sending nearly $70 billion in arms to Ukraine since Putin launched the war on Ukraine in February 2022. The pause was coordinated by Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby. Colby, before taking his position, spoke publicly about the need to focus U.S. strategy more on China, widely seen as the United States' biggest economic and military competitor. At his Senate confirmation hearing in March, he said the U.S. doesn't have a 'multi-war military.' 'This is the restrainers like Colby flexing their muscle and saying, 'Hey, the Pacific is more important,'' said retired Navy Adm. Mark Montgomery, an analyst at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Backers of a more restrained U.S. foreign policy say the move is necessary, given an unsettled Middle East, rising challenges in Asia and the stress placed on the U.S. defense industrial complex after more than three years of war in Ukraine. 'You're really coming up to the point where continuing to provide aid to Ukraine is putting at risk the U.S. ability to operate in future crises,' said Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities. 'And you don't know when those crises are going to happen."