THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 6, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met with videoconference this day at 4:16 p.m. [ET] to examine Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management).
Senator Peter M. Boehm (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon. My name is Peter Boehm, I’m a senator from Ontario, and I’m the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
As usual, I would now like to invite committee members participating in today’s meeting to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Gold: Marc Gold from Quebec.
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.
Senator Housakos: Leo Housakos from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ravalia: Mohamed Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
Senator Plett: Senator Don Plett, Landmark, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Josée Verner from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Harder: Peter Harder, Ontario.
Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface, Ontario.
Senator Ross: Krista Ross, New Brunswick.
Senator Busson: Bev Busson from British Columbia.
Senator M. Deacon: Welcome. Marty Deacon, Ontario.
The Chair: I would also like to welcome Senator Youance from Quebec, who has just sat down with us. Thank you.
Welcome, senators, and welcome to all who may be watching us across the country on ParlVU today. We are going to look at clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-282. Before I get to the points to remind you how that works, Senator Plett has asked for the floor. Senator Plett, have the floor.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much, chair.
Yes, I would just like to make a few comments about why I am here. As I’m sure all of you know, this is my first meeting here on this particular piece of legislation. It is for obvious reasons. It is a private member’s bill. We have a few members of our caucus assigned to this.
It is a private member’s bill. That’s not to say I don’t get involved in some private members’ bills, because I am a “private member,” but I do not represent the government. This is not a government piece of legislation, and I find it difficult that if the government doesn’t have the courage to bring their own legislation forward, they do it through a private member’s bill and then send the government leader to act as an ex officio member to debate and vote. Of course, in fairness, he let me know each time that he was coming so that I had the opportunity to come, but I chose not to because I still did believe that.
However, he is clearly going to vote here on an issue that is controversial at best. Again — not wanting to repeat anything — if the government wants to pass legislation, they should bring legislation forward. So I am here, basically, Mr. Chair and colleagues, to counter the government’s vote. And although I have my own opinion on the bill, as does my caucus, I will not necessarily vote on those opinions, but I will be voting opposite to what Senator Gold is voting here today. Since G comes before P, I will have the opportunity to vote after him.
I am registering now why I am voting the way I am. With that, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett. It is always good to have a preview, as well.
Colleagues, I will read out a few of the rules as to how we’re going to handle the meeting today. It is the standard practice we enjoy at Senate committees.
First of all, if at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I wish to ensure that, at all times, we have the same understanding of where we are in the process.
Second, in terms of the mechanics of the process, when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of the clause. If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but, rather, to vote against the clause standing as part of the bill. This is not a long bill, so that aspect should be fairly obvious.
Some amendments that are moved may have consequential effect on other parts of the bill. Again, it is not a long bill, but I have to tell you that. It is therefore useful to this process if a senator moving an amendment identifies to the committee other clauses in the bill where the amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it will be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision making.
Because no notice is required to move amendments, there cannot, of course, have been any preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which one or ones may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
If committee members ever have any questions about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, they can certainly raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to arguments — this is normal — decide when there has been sufficient discussion of the matter or order and make a ruling. The committee is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll-call vote, which provides unambiguous results.
Finally, senators, I know you are aware of this, but I will mention it anyway: Any tied vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions regarding any of the above? If not, we can proceed. We have with us today the officials from Global Affairs Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Both Mr. Forsyth and Mr. Rosser have been witnesses here before, early on in the process, and if there are issues that require their expertise, they are here to answer any questions that we may have.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Woo: Could I ask a question of the witnesses concerning some witness testimony we heard after they testified that has a bearing on how we think about this bill as a whole — with your permission?
The Chair: I don’t have a problem with that. Go ahead.
Senator Woo: We heard witness testimony from two constitutional law experts that this bill is ambiguous in its intention and that while the stated intention of the sponsor of the bill and others who have advocated for it, particularly in the House, is to bind the Crown in terms of curtailing its Royal Prerogative on negotiating international treaties, perhaps the wording of the bill does not actually do that. That is not to mention the fact that there have been a number of Supreme Court rulings that may suggest that even if this bill were clearer in its intent, it doesn’t, in fact, do the job of binding the Crown.
I wonder if you could give us some clarity on that question.
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Forsyth. But at the outset, Senator Woo, I want to say that this is not a hearing with witnesses. The two officials with us are negotiators and not constitutional law experts.
Doug Forsyth, Director General, Market Access and Trade Controls Bureau, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. That was going to be my caveat: I am not a constitutional lawyer. However, the advice that we have from our legal team at Global Affairs Canada is that the bill is clear — its intent is clear — and the advice we have from our legal experts is that it does, in fact, bind the Crown, as stated. That’s what the intent of the bill is, and that’s what it does.
The Chair: Thank you. So going back to our routine here:
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
An Hon. Senator: No.
Senator Harder: Colleagues, you will remember that I voted against this bill at second reading because I disagree with it in principle. It is not a bill about supply management but rather about trade policy. The witnesses we’ve had have clearly spelled that out and revealed the innate flaws of the bill. It is unfortunate that the atmosphere surrounding this bill has turned from one of policy to one of politics, as well as how this issue has now become a focus on the appropriate role of the Senate, as some would characterize us as an unelected body and, therefore, not legitimate in expressing its views on a bill.
I believe we need to de-risk this bill while engaging in a respectful dialogue between the Senate and the elected chamber. Therefore, in amendment, I move:
That Bill C-282 be amended in clause 1, on page 1, by adding the following after line 17:
“(2.2) Subsection (2.1) does not apply to a commitment made on behalf of Canada by
(a) international trade treaty or agreement that existed upon the coming into force of that subsection;
(b) renegotiation of an international trade treaty or agreement that existed upon the coming into force of that subsection; or
(c) international trade treaty or agreement that was in the course of being negotiated upon the coming into force of that subsection.”.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Harder. I know other senators want to intervene. We are keeping a list here.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: To begin, I would like to thank the committee and all its members for this in-depth study of the bill.
We’ve heard from many witnesses who shared widely divergent views, but who, in the vast majority of cases, provided welcome clarification on the ins and outs of Bill C-282.
I’ve carefully read the amendment proposed by our colleague Senator Harder, and I appreciate this constructive approach. However, hon. colleagues, you won’t be surprised that I’m opposed to the amendment. The effect of the amendment is to remove our provincial free-trade agreements from the intent of the bill, which is to take supply management off the negotiating table altogether. If the amendment is adopted today, supply management would still be a potential target for most of our trading partners and could still be used as a bargaining chip. We’ve heard this, and it’s a reflection of what’s being done and has been done in many agreements.
However, that is neither the will of the House of Commons nor of the government. It’s important to remember that Bill C-282 isn’t just any private member’s bill. It was passed by all party leaders in the House of Commons with a very strong majority of 262 to 51.
What’s more, the bill is the result of four unanimously passed motions to ensure that supply management is fully protected, in 2015, in 2017, as part of the NAFTA negotiations and twice in 2018 as part of the conclusion of the CPTPP. It also follows a similar bill, Bill C-216, which died on the Order Paper in 2021.
Bill C-282 expresses a clear will of the elected House to fully protect supply management, as I said earlier, from further breaches that threaten its operation and survival. I want to emphasize the word “fully,” which is in the bill, which states that the minister must not make any commitment for the applicable tariff rate quota for supply-managed products or for their tariff when those products are imported in excess of that quota.
There is no ambiguity in the bill on that point and no additional commitment. Beyond the tariff-rate quota issues, I would like to reiterate what Bill C-282 means in practical terms for tens of thousands of family farms in our country and for nearly 350,000 jobs.
As we’ve heard during this study, this bill is essential for supply-managed producers who have been able to rely on our domestic market for 50 years, so that our domestic market can make a decent living from the fruits of their labour and continue to produce essential food on Canadian soil for Canadians.
If we take only the example of dairy farmers, who gave up a total of 18% of their domestic market, their numbers have fallen dramatically, from about 12,500 farms in 2012 to about 9,500 in 2023, according to the Canadian Dairy Commission and Statistics Canada — a rate of loss of almost 200 farms per year on average. That’s a lot.
As we’ve heard, the decline in the number of family farms means the decline of our rural areas and the depopulation of our villages. That’s what this short bill is all about, and the stakes are high.
Therefore, distinguished members of the committee, I respectfully ask you to oppose this amendment, which empties the bill of its substance and intent. We now know who the new President of the United States is. It seems clear that supply management will once again be a target. That’s why we need to take a firm stand to protect it now.
Far from tying the hands of the negotiators, I believe this bill is a unique way for them to uphold the will of the House of Commons, the government and Canadians.
However, I think that dithering on our red lines is an admission of weakness when it comes to negotiations.
Mr. Chair, I too would like to make some observations if we’re going to move forward.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Gerba.
[English]
Senator Gold: First of all, let me subscribe to what Senator Gerba said. I thank the chair and the committee for your hard work on this. I am also glad to have Senator Plett, my counterpart here. This might be the first time that my vote will influence yours. Glad to have such influence.
Because my role was commented on, for those who are watching, I want to be clear that Senator Plett is the Leader of the Conservative Party in the Senate, and he is tasked as an ex officio member representing the opposition in the Senate, as I am representing the government. My vote represents the views of the government, and I will explain why I oppose this amendment in a second. His vote is the vote of his leader, Mr. Poilievre, and he has made it clear that he intends on voting in favour of this amendment, which, as I will explain further, significantly weakens the intention of protecting supply management that is expressed clearly in Bill C-282. I wanted to be clear that his vote is the vote of the leader of his party.
I hope that my argument will persuade you, Senator Plett, to change your mind and vote with me.
The fact is this bill, as drafted, is consistent not only with government policy but with the stated will, as Senator Gerba said, of all parties in the chamber, albeit the Conservative Party was divided, notwithstanding that their leader voted in favour of this. Therefore, to amend this very short bill would fundamentally negate its intended effect, which was to protect supply management, entrenching what is already government policy and the policy of the Government of Canada.
The bill is clear in its intent, as the officials confirmed today, and the proposed amendment, in my respectful view, would so diminish the scope of the protection that the bill purports to give as to render it useless.
Colleagues, Canada has 37 free trade agreements that are either in force, in negotiation or in exploratory discussions. These cover practically the entire economy. To amend this bill as proposed would make this bill have no real, material impact for all intents and purposes. The intent of Bill C-282 is to protect any further encroachment on our supply-managed sector. The proposed amendment would effectively nullify its function. Frankly, it is rather unlikely that we would be entering into any new agreements — therefore those not covered — with any nations that have a major interest in our supply management market. For this reason, I will be voting against the amendment.
Colleagues, I don’t want to speak for much longer, but I do want to address something that was stated in committee during this hearing. I want, again, those who are watching to at least have the benefit of my attempt to correct the record. It has been mentioned here — by some, indeed, around the table and witnesses — that the bill did not receive proper, thorough study in the House of Commons and this was one of the reasons why we as the Senate needed to do our job. Colleagues, we do need to do our job whether it is well studied in the other place or not, and we have done that here. But, in fact, it was studied, and it was studied far more extensively than the impression that was given by at least a witness or others.
This bill is pretty much an identical copy to Bill C-216 from the previous Parliament that was discussed by Senator Gerba. Bill C-216 was supported by the government at second reading and was sent for further study in committee on March 10, 2021. During that study of Bill C-216, the House Standing Committee on International Trade heard from a variety of witnesses, including officials from Global Affairs Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. They heard from a constitutional law expert. They heard from the supply-managed agricultural sector and the export-oriented agricultural sector. The study of Bill C-216 was concluded in June 2021, and it was referred back to the House without amendment. It then, however, died on the Order Paper due to the federal election.
The bill in front of us today, Bill C-282, was then introduced in June 2022 by a member of Parliament from the Bloc Québécois, and it was studied at the same House committee. They heard from 45 witnesses, including those from both the supply-managed agricultural sector and the export-oriented agricultural sector, as we did here, as well as others, such as academics, as we heard, and a constitutional law expert, as we did as well. Our amendments were considered at that committee hearing and rejected by the House committee. The bill came to us, as you know, unamended. We are now here at clause by clause, following seven meetings, hearing from witnesses representing many perspectives.
Clearly, colleagues, there are many views on this bill, but, once again, I would like to put on the record that, following thorough study, this bill received all-party support in the other place and from a large majority of elected members of Parliament.
For those reasons, I will be opposing the amendment. Thank you, chair and colleagues.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. Just one little thing: We had eight meetings, not seven.
Senator Gold: All the more reason to be proud of the work we do here in the Senate.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I accept that.
Senator Housakos: I, too, oppose the amendments being put forward on this bill. I want to remind colleagues that supply management has been something that has been around now for decades in this country. It has served food security of this country, and has served it very well.
I also want to remind colleagues that Canada has more free trade agreements, probably, than most other nations on Earth. We signed a ton of them during the decade of the Stephen Harper government, going back to Mr. Mulroney, who signed the first free trade agreement with the United States.
Supply management was something negotiated hard back in the 1980s. Canada stands steadfast in support of supply management in every single trade deal we have ever had. It has never been an impediment to us coming back to Canada with good trade agreements and giving Canadian industries the markets they require while protecting certain sectors of our agriculture industry.
As we all know, supply management is applied to a certain narrow sector of the agriculture sector. We also have a very open market in most of our agriculture sector. They work together cohesively without any challenges.
Senator Harder, you’re absolutely right that this has been taken over by politics — unfortunately, by politics in the Senate, which is not supposed to be the case. If we look at the House of Commons and how they have spoken, the elected house in this Parliament — and we are part and parcel of that Parliament — every single political leader and the vast majority of members of Parliament on all sides spoke in favour of this particular bill.
You can say, of course, that it was for political expediency. You can make whatever argument, because we have the net benefit of not having run for office and have the privilege of sitting here as parliamentarians without having the same level of accountability to the public. That has to be underlined.
On many occasions when you were government leader, I heard you say that when you had such overwhelming voices from the House of Commons, the elected chamber of all parties, all parliamentarians and all leaders, it’s incumbent upon this chamber to take a step back — and I agree — and provide sober second thought. Unfortunately, that is not the case here.
I also want to highlight for the benefit of the public who are paying attention that, around this table, there are only four senators who will be casting a vote who were not appointed by Prime Minister Trudeau and his government. So, my personal feeling is that if there is any politics being played right now in this institution around this table, it’s by the current government, which wants to have its cake and eat it, too. That is with all due respect to the government leader, who is saying he opposes the amendments, as I do, because, in principle, he supports the bill.
Colleagues, I remind everybody around the table and all our viewers that on many occasions when the government wanted to put their political will behind the bill, including a private member’s bill, the government leader, with time allocation and the vast majority of government-appointed senators in the Senate, never hesitated to use that political will and that political tool. In this particular instance, let it be noted that this is not what is being exercised.
So it’s important to highlight that, sometimes, I get the impression with this government that they want to do through the back door what they are not willing and don’t have the political courage and will to do through the front door. Doing it through the front door and doing it in the House would have much more integrity and respect, I think, to the electorate and the public than doing it through the back door using this institution.
Thank you, chair, for the time. I will be voting against the amendment.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Housakos.
Would any other senator wish to take the floor?
We are calling the question on Senator Harder’s amendment. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I think the “yeas” have it. Shall we go to a recorded vote? Okay. Honourable senators, there has been a request for a recorded vote. I will first ask the clerk to name all of the senators present who are entitled to vote at this time.
Chantal Cardinal, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Boehm, the Honourable Senator Boniface, the Honourable Senator Busson, the Honourable Senator Deacon, the Honourable Senator Gerba, the Honourable Senator Gold, the Honourable Senator Harder, the Honourable Senator Housakos, the Honourable Senator MacDonald, the Honourable Senator Plett, the Honourable Senator Ravalia, the Honourable Senator Ross, the Honourable Senator Verner and the Honourable Senator Woo.
The Chair: If any member present does not wish to vote, you may withdraw from the table now.
The clerk will now call members’ names, beginning with the chair, followed by the remaining members’ names in alphabetical order. Members should verbally indicate how they wish to vote by saying “yea,” “nay” or “abstain.” The clerk will then announce the results of the vote. The chair will then declare whether the motion is carried or defeated.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator Boehm?
Senator Boehm: Yea.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator Boniface?
Senator Boniface: Yea.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator Busson?
Senator Busson: Yea.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator Deacon?
Senator M. Deacon: Yea.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator Gerba?
Senator Gerba: Nay.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator Gold?
Senator Gold: Nay.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator Harder?
Senator Harder: Yea.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: Nay.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: Abstain.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yea.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator Ravalia?
Senator Ravalia: Yea.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator Ross?
Senator Ross: Yea.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator Verner?
Senator Verner: Yea.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator Woo?
Senator Woo: Yea.
Ms. Cardinal: Yeas, 10; nays, 3; abstentions, 1.
The Chair: Accordingly the motion is carried.
Shall clause 1, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Is it agreed that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make technical, grammatical or other required non‑substantive changes as a result of the amendment adopted by the committee, in both official languages, including updating cross‑references and the renumbering of provisions?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report? Yes?
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. I have two observations. If you can distribute the first, that would be great.
The Chair: Colleagues, I missed a line here, and that is whether we should go in camera or stay public. It’s the view of the chair that since this is a rather consequential bill, we stay in public — unless anyone really objects vociferously. Are we good?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator M. Deacon: May I carry on?
The Chair: You have the floor.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
I have a couple of observations I wish to make this afternoon. The first one is the result of reviewing the proceedings from the House and from this committee, as well as from the many folks we have met with over the past months.
I have — and you’ll see in the record — asked questions to really get at the heart of what this bill is, what this bill is not and what is really going on here. We have heard repeated messaging over and over. This has led me to submit this observation, with the greatest respect to all invested in this bill today.
It is as follows:
Your committee observes that Bill C-282 is a bill on how Canada conducts its international trade negotiations, as it specifically amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, and not, despite testimony provided by supporters of this legislation, a bill on the policy of supply management itself.
Your committee wishes to make clear that it has taken no view on supply management in Canada and has focused its decisions on this legislation’s impact on Canada’s crucial trade relationships as an export-oriented nation reliant on trade.
The Chair: Would anyone wish to comment? Senator Harder?
Senator Harder: I think this is a helpful observation to make clear what we have heard and what I said in my preamble with respect to the focus of my amendment.
Senator Gold: I have no difficulty with the observation, but it was clear from some witnesses that they really did have an issue with supply management. Some were a little bit more direct than others. But if this simply represents the view that the decision of the committee was not influenced by those negative views on supply management, I have no difficulty with it.
But we did hear both explicitly and, frankly, implicitly many comments that disparaged supply management, those that were seeking its protection and, indeed, even some segments of industry that were deemed to be seeking special privileges. So, I’m not sure what that means, but I want to go on record as saying we did hear that — for those of us sensitive to these issues — loud and clear and somewhat upsetting.
And I accept — I’m not asking to look inside each individual’s hearts and minds — but I just want to go on record and make that comment. I’m not suggesting any changes to the observation.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. You’re obviously on the record, so that’s good. Does anyone else want to comment?
Senator Woo: Out of respect for those who did not agree to the amendment, perhaps we should leave out the two words “its decisions.” This is the last sentence of the observation. It is because I think while we can all agree that the intent was to focus on the impact of the bill on trade negotiations, not everybody came to the same decision on how we proceed.
I think it would have the same effect, but it might be more representative of a collective view.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Woo. Does anyone want to comment on the suggestion of Senator Woo? Could you repeat it, please, Senator Woo so we can make sure we capture —
Senator Woo: It’s in the last line of the observation. I’ll read it: “ . . . has taken no view on supply management in Canada and has focused its decisions on . . . .” I would take out the words “its decisions,” so it would read, “. . . has focused on . . . .”
The Chair: Are we agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Deacon, did you have a second observation?
Senator M. Deacon: I did. Could we have that distributed? Thank you.
This second observation is reflective of policy, the political aspects around this bill and looking at a statement that I think addresses that; that is, in focusing on the specific purpose of Bill C-282, that is how Canada —
The Chair: Senator, I’m sorry to interrupt, but could you read the observation first, please?
Senator M. Deacon: That’s what I’m doing.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator M. Deacon: Are we good?
The Chair: We were a little confused.
Senator M. Deacon: That’s okay. I started reading. Thank you to the chair. Keep us on our toes; that’s fine. The observation is as follows:
In focusing on the specific purpose of Bill C-282, that is, how Canada conducts its international trade negotiations with regard to supply management, your committee observes that the overwhelming evidence from expert witnesses focused on the negative impacts of Bill C-282 on Canada’s trade negotiations and international relationships.
Your committee agrees with this assessment and expresses concern at the highly politicized nature of this legislation and the debate with which it has been accompanied.
While your committee has agreed to recommend this bill, your committee wishes to make clear that it is doing so on the strength of its recommended amendment to limit the bill’s application to trade agreements not yet in force when the bill enters into force.
While your committee respects the will of the elected house, which passed this bill unamended, your committee does not agree that this bill represents sound public policy.
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Gold, you asked for the floor. Go ahead.
Senator Gold: Thank you, Senator Deacon, for this well‑intentioned observation. I have several problems with it which I would like to share, colleagues, in the hope that it can either be adjusted or even perhaps deemed redundant in terms of our decision.
There was evidence from expert witnesses, to be sure. To say it was overwhelming — it may have felt that way to you, but not to those of us, frankly, who have a different view of the bill. But that’s a small matter.
To say that the committee agrees with this assessment, I think, again, doesn’t reflect the views of the whole committee, so I’m not comfortable with that, frankly. Nor am I fully comfortable — perhaps for different reasons — with the statement that the committee “. . . expresses concern at the highly politicized nature of this legislation and the debate . . . .”
I really do think that the study, at least — and I participated in every session here — was respectful most of the time, certainly amongst ourselves, and serious. Whatever political context existed, I think the Senate and senators did their job properly with focusing on the legislation and the policy. I’m not sure that I share the same concern as a member of this committee.
Again, I respect your decision, senator, as you brought this forward, and maybe others’ decision was to vote in favour of this bill because of the amendment. I can understand that. In some sense, Senator Harder also provided that context in his introductory remarks, which I appreciated.
Again, I’m not sure that it fully reflects the decision of the committee as a whole — some of us oppose the amendment. But, equally importantly — and this is very important — this bill would apply not only to trade agreements that are enforced but to those that are currently in negotiation. The amendment covers more than the observation would suggest, so it’s inaccurate. The bill is not limited to only agreements that are in force; plain words of the amendment are those that are being negotiated or at various stages.
Finally — and on this I’ll conclude — I’m not sure that every member of the committee, though a majority may do so, agrees that the bill does not represent sound policy. There are those around the table who believe — for reasons expressed in testimony and also around this table — that, in fact, this is sound policy. Clearly, a majority may very well disagree. For those reasons, I wonder whether it’s really necessary.
We passed the bill with an amendment that I continue to believe really denudes the bill of so much practical impact. Our actions speak louder than these words, but these are concerns that I have. If this observation goes forward, the language would need to be adjusted significantly, so I invite you to consider whether it’s really necessary.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. I look to the chair —
The Chair: We have other senators who want to take the floor on that.
Senator M. Deacon: I wasn’t sure if I should respond or not —
The Chair: Maybe you can at the end, Senator Deacon.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I think Senator Gold has made most of the points I wanted to make here about that observation. We did nevertheless — and I thank the chair for this — a fairly balanced study, and we heard fairly clear positions. This isn’t a political issue. Yes, some people think the subject was political — and again, thank you to the chair — but it was a fairly balanced study in the sense that we heard arguments for and against. However, there weren’t many people who came to remind us that this was a political issue. With the amendment we have, I think we’ve achieved almost the same result. Personally, I don’t see the need for this other amendment, unless it is rewritten with different wording. Going into a political debate, which has been politicized…. Parliament is political. That’s all there is to it.
[English]
Senator Housakos: I just want to reiterate and repeat: I still find it perplexing with what enthusiasm the government leader is supporting this legislation. And he should because it’s a piece of legislation that has the support of the vast majority of the House, and, like I said, every single leader of every single party endorsed this bill. Yet, the government doesn’t show that same enthusiasm by just simply using time allocation. And I repeat; the government leader has used time allocation on bills far less than this. He used time allocation to change and amend rules and procedures of the Senate, for God’s sake, which is unheard of and has never been done before. That’s something that is usually reserved for a consensus process.
My question is to Senator Deacon, who moved this forward. Wouldn’t you agree that public policy making in a democracy is driven by political discourse and the views and the voices of the people? When the House of Commons speaks overwhelmingly in favour of such, do you believe that a place of sober second thought, an appointed body, has the right to call their legislation not sound public policy? So the public doesn’t matter? We matter?
The Chair: Why don’t you think about that for just a moment, Senator Deacon, because I saw that Senator Gold was in hot pursuit on something Senator Housakos has just said.
Senator Gold: Thank you, chair; I appreciate it. And thank you, Senator Deacon, for yielding to me. For those who are watching, this is a bit of inside baseball, and I apologize for this, but I do need to correct the record.
The Rules of the Senate are very clear that the powers of the government to use its tools on time allocation are limited to government bills and government motions. I don’t have the power and would never purport to use the power or to even orchestrate or manipulate the Rules of the Senate to try to use the power which is clearly not bestowed upon me as Government Representative on a non-government bill.
I should add as well, only to be complete, that, look, this bill was brought forward by an elected member of the House of Commons. There are many private members’ bills that come forward. Some of them the government supports; some of them the government opposes. It’s the same for any other party. I won’t repeat who voted for and against, but I simply want those who are watching to understand that Senator Housakos, a former Speaker of the Senate, understands very well why I did not try to use time allocation on a non-government bill, albeit one that the government supports and has supported because it is the embodiment of government policy.
The Chair: I will allow Senator Housakos to respond, and then we will go back to Senator Deacon.
Senator Housakos: For the benefit of our audience and for those around the table, because I am a former Speaker, Senator Gold, I encourage you to go back and seek precedents in the Senate. You will find that the government can revert private members’ bills into government legislation if they want to use time allocation. It has happened on a number of occasions when there was the political will to do so. You chose, in this instance, not to.
Senator Gold: If I misunderstood what you said before, I apologize. I thought you were saying I should have and chose not to use time allocation on this particular bill. That was the only point I was raising. This is clearly not a government bill. If I misunderstood you, I apologize.
Senator Housakos: I just want to be even clearer that it is well within your purview as the government to transform it into a government bill. It has been done many times in the past. You could then use time allocation to carry it through.
The Chair: It is convenient that the two of you are sitting so close together, but it’s difficult to moderate you. We will leave that there and turn to other speakers, and then I have a proposal.
Senator Woo: If we could move away from inside baseball —
The Chair: We are into hockey season now.
Senator Woo: — the one sentence with which I heartily agree in this observation is that last one. It says that this bill does not represent sound public policy, but that’s my view, and it’s clear that we have colleagues who don’t agree with that view. If this is something that we feel strongly about, we should say so in the chamber, perhaps when we speak to the report or at third reading. But I don’t think it’s fair for this to be an observation that in any way represents the whole committee.
I think the previous observation already says very well many of the things that this observation tries to say. I commend Senator Deacon for the effort, but I’m not sure that this observation is necessary.
Senator Ross: In addition to what my colleague Senator Woo has said, I wonder if it might be more palatable for everyone around the table if this observation simply ended after the words “. . . make clear that it is doing so on the strength of its recommended amendment,” period.
The Chair: That’s one option. Senator Deacon, did you want to respond to this?
Senator M. Deacon: Very much so, chair. The observation —
Senator MacDonald: I just wanted to — I’m not quite sure about Senator Ross’s intervention, but I do agree with Senator Woo’s. It makes sense to take that particular sentence out. I think that’s best. I think it’s more accurate.
Senator Ross: So on the three points of the amendment, it talks about agreements that existed on coming into force, agreements in renegotiation and ones that are currently being negotiated. But this observation only talks about a portion of those three things that are in the amendment. It makes sense to either add all three of those points or to remove that in its entirety.
Senator MacDonald: I don’t have a strong opinion on that one way or the other, I guess.
Senator Ross: I will take that as agreement.
Senator MacDonald: But Senator Woo’s, for sure; I agree with his suggestion.
Senator M. Deacon: I think we have emerging a couple of opportunities or possibilities here with this observation. But to come back a little bit to Senator Housakos’s question and thoughts and comments, I would absolutely agree that this was a very balanced study, a good, thorough study. We worked hard. We should be proud as senators on listening to a variety of viewpoints, digging in deep to try to hear from a variety of Canadians and international players in this space. So I would agree. I also feel strongly that, as senators, our job is typically sober second thought and third and fourth and fifth. It really is our job.
This bill, for me, when we talk about it being political and becoming politicized, there were a number of things at play before the bill came to us. I felt that I had done diligent homework, right down to finding the MP sponsor, driving to his community in Quebec and seeing what this bill initially meant to him and getting a good, thorough grasp on what this was.
I think the terms “political” and “politicized” — what happened here is so many folks from the House also approached me about the terms “policy” and “good policy” and “bad policy” and things being politicized. We can have a difference between politics and political institutions. “Highly politicized” in this sense meant that we actually took on an ultimatum from the Bloc, and that got into — I’m just being quite candid — some distractions that we mitigated with balanced, classy testimony.
I wanted to say that to you as a partial response to your comments, and that this observation is to generate the debate. If we pull this observation, and we think the teeth are still there that we need today, we pull the observation. If we make some suggestions that are more indicative and representative of this group, I am fine with that.
The Chair: Okay, colleagues. We have a number of options here. Senator Gold has suggested that he finds multiple parts of that observation problematic. Senator Gerba has agreed. Senator Housakos put it into a broader context for us. Senator Ross has suggested an editing change. And Senator Woo, if I am correct, you have suggested maybe the easiest is just to chop it all. And I think, Senator Deacon, that’s the direction you are kind of heading in; at least you left that option open.
The other option is that, at other committees, the names of the senators supporting an observation have, in fact, been listed. My own personal view as chair is I don’t think that’s a good idea for this particular bill. So my view, if I am allowed to express it — I have not expressed too many views on the study of this bill — is that the best thing would be to retire this particular observation.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is that agreed? Do we need to vote on it? Okay. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
I think Senator Gerba would like to make a few observations.
Senator Gerba: I have two brief observations, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: We’ll wait for the documents to be distributed. Go ahead.
Senator Gerba: I have two simple observations. There has been a lot of discussion about the fact that this bill isn’t about supply management. I wanted to reiterate, and I quote, “That the committee recognize the importance of supply management in supporting and maintaining the national food supply of dairy, poultry and eggs.”
That’s the first observation. I’d like the committee to acknowledge this fact, because we’ve heard it so often from our witnesses.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
[English]
Senator Harder: I don’t support this observation. We have already adopted an observation that states more neutrally what the committee didn’t do, which was with respect to having a view of supply management. If we were to adopt this, we would have had a completely different set of hearings with respect to the mandate of the committee. That wasn’t the bill we had before us, so I think this observation should be either withdrawn or defeated.
Senator Woo: I support Senator Harder’s position. If there is an appetite to amend it, I have suggestions for significant amendments.
The Chair: We will come back to that if we need to.
Senator Gold: I would support this observation, respectfully, and it is in large part because both implicitly and explicitly, both in witness testimony and in witness questioning, the importance of supply management was put in issue. Observations have no binding force. The bill as passed or as amended clearly will have the effect of exposing supply management sectors to continuing challenges in negotiations. But at least members around this table, even when they argued that this was not a supply management bill but a trade policy foundational act and other such expressions, did pay lip service to the importance of supply management, and I think it is, at worst, harmless to include this.
I would be interested as well to hear what alterations or amendments Senator Woo might propose.
The Chair: We may get to that.
Senator MacDonald: I have two quick comments on both of these observations. The first one, that the committee recognize the importance of supply management to support and maintain domestic food supply — I have no problem supporting that observation. But I have a lot of trouble supporting the second one — that the committee recognize that Bill C-282 was passed with the majority support of all federal political parties in the House of Commons. We have had quite a few bills that have been passed with all-party support in the House of Commons, and that doesn’t seem to have a lot of traction when it comes to our chamber, so I don’t support the second observation.
The Chair: Okay. We are just sticking with the first one for now, senator, and we’ll get to the second.
Senator MacDonald: I’m on the record for the second one.
The Chair: Noted, thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: I agree with Senator Harder. I’m not a member of the committee, in the sense that I didn’t hear all the witnesses on the study of the bill, but I’ve read enough briefs and attended enough meetings to recognize that this was not the subject of the bill being studied.
The bill being studied dealt with Canada’s negotiations with its other partners. If it were a matter of recognizing the importance of supply management, I think the committee would have invited people to comment on the importance of supply management, but that wasn’t the purpose of the bill. I don’t think it’s appropriate to add that observation.
[English]
Senator Boniface: I was going to point out — and I thank everybody for speaking on this — that we have passed an observation which spoke to the emphasis on this bill, and then we do a second observation which appears to contradict the first one. I will speak just to the first. It is an important one to make when people make speeches in the chamber. That’s where it belongs, but I cannot support it within this given that we just passed the other observation. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. I am detecting a sense that there isn’t support. We can, if we wish, go to Senator Woo.
So we will call the question on the observation then, senators. Those in favour of the first observation, please say, “yea.”
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chair: Those against?
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Chair: I think the “nays” have it.
Let’s move to the second observation. We have Senator MacDonald’s views already on the record.
Senator Plett: Thank you. I will be very, very brief. You all heard me last night. I talked about two bills, one that received the vote of 320 members of the House of Commons versus 1. The other one was 278 to 33. Both of those bills were amended at committee. Need I say more?
Senator MacDonald: So I guess you are against it?
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Senator Harder: Let me just say that I think this is right for a debate in the chamber, but not for an observation. It’s provocative in its context.
The Chair: I forgot to ask Senator Gerba to read the observation.
[Translation]
Could you please read the observation?
Senator Gerba: They’ve already read my observation.
In fact, this observation is just a reminder that this bill didn’t arrive here as a controversial, politicized or political bill; it became political over time. It’s important to remember that this bill has been here for over a year. That’s why I’m trying to explain the purpose of this reminder, because people tend to think that it’s a highly politicized bill. It has become political. That’s why I wanted to point out that the committee recognizes that Bill C-282 was passed with the majority support of all federal political parties in the House of Commons.
[English]
The Chair: Any other comments?
I think we have captured this in the main observation that we have — that’s my view as the chair — so I’m not sure we need this, but we will put it to the question.
Those in favour of the observation?
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chair: Those against?
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Chair: I think the “nays” have it.
[Translation]
Thank you, Senator Gerba.
[English]
So we have agreed on that.
Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the observations being appended to the report, in both official languages, taking into consideration today’s discussion and with any necessary editorial, grammatical or translation changes, as required?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Is it agreed that I report this bill, as amended, with observations to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
Senator Woo: May I just thank you and the team for doing a terrific job in leading us through a sensitive bill that has had a lot of public attention? I especially want to thank the sponsor of the bill, Senator Gerba. You were dogged, you were principled, and you were fierce in your defence of the bill. You were gracious throughout, so thank you for that.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
The Chair: Would anyone else like to take the floor?
If not, I thank our committee clerk, Chantal Cardinal; our two analysts from the Library of Parliament, Brian Hermon and Zachariah Black; my Director of Parliamentary Affairs, Christina Cail; and my Parliamentary Affairs Advisor, Rania Abi; as well as all of you who have participated. I would like to thank our senior officials who came and didn’t have too much work to do. Thank you very much. With that, thank you senators.
(The committee adjourned.)