Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management).

As you well know, when I rise in this chamber, I often speak about agriculture and rural communities. It is crucial to Canada that we highlight the issues, concerns and successes of this very important industry and that we talk about how legislation will affect agriculture and rural communities across this country.

Just as I do with any bill or issue that I speak to in this chamber or in committee, I work to engage with all stakeholders within the industry, as well as with community leaders throughout the country and with my neighbours down the road, to get their thoughts and opinions so that I know better how they may be affected or impacted.

I always say that I cannot speak on behalf of agriculture and rural communities if I don’t speak with those who might be directly impacted by government policies or federal legislation.

In preparation for this speech, as always, I actively sought out to speak with farmers and producers within the entire industry — those who are supply-managed and those who are not.

What I’ve learned and what I’ve come to realize is that this bill not only divides the industry; it divides me as well.

I heard loud and clear from all sides, colleagues, that while this bill may appear to be about agriculture and the supply-managed sector within agriculture, this bill is actually about international trade and future trade negotiations. This is even stated directly in the bill’s title: “An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act.”

This bill will not only direct Canada’s trade negotiators to continue to protect our supply-managed sector but, in fact, enshrine into law the protection of this particular part of the agriculture sector.

Colleagues, the protection of supply-managed goods has always been an issue in the industry, for years. The SM-5 group, which includes eggs, chicken, turkey, hatching eggs and dairy, is seen as separate from the rest of agriculture, which benefits little from a supply management system.

Supply management is a way for farmers and policy-makers to control, through a managed system, the supply or quantity of a commodity. In order to market their products, those producers under supply management must hold a permit, commonly known as “quota,” without which they would not be able to sell their products to a processing plant.

It is understandable then, colleagues, why supply management might cause tension between the SM-5 and other agricultural producers. It really pits agriculture against agriculture, and it has become a wedge issue.

This is the very reason that I wanted to speak with people who come from all different parts of the agriculture and food industry, specifically those marketing under a supply-managed system and those who are outside of the SM-5, to hear their thoughts and opinions on this bill.

But let me turn back to my previous comments, colleagues. This bill is not about agriculture. It is about international trade policy and what it will mean for future trade negotiations — beyond discussions about supply-managed products.

Obviously, SM-5 producers support this bill because it will enshrine into law the protection of their products. Yet, many of those in the industry who do not fall under our supply-managed systems do not support this bill — not only because many believe it is not appropriate to protect only one part of an industry but also because enshrining and protecting certain products into law for future trade negotiations ties negotiators’ hands, and other industries may cry foul and want the same protections.

In fact, I hear industries like steel, the auto sector or even the softwood lumber industries could request the same protections.

Honourable colleagues, I am not going to get involved in debate about whether supply management is good or bad. I am not going to advocate for one side over the other. I do not want to pick between one side or the other, and that is really what this bill does: It pits agriculture against agriculture. This is a fact agreed upon by the entire industry regardless of what side you stand on. The agriculture industry cannot — and should not — be divided in such a controversial way.

All farmers, producers and processors are on the same side — the side of us, as Canadians — working hard to put food not only on our plates, but also on the plates of people all over the world. I am going to briefly talk about the implications that this bill could have on international trade and other industries beyond the SM-5, like steel, softwood lumber or any other product that we produce here in Canada, as I alluded to earlier.

Colleagues, I have heard from both sides of the issue, and this is clearly protectionism. Some support this, as they benefit from it, while those who do not benefit from it are worried about the spiralling effects this could cause.

Honourable senators, the world continues to grow and face new, unprecedented economic challenges. The fluctuation and volatility of global markets require us to be flexible as well, and that means being open to negotiation, especially in the coming decades, as resource management, supply chains and food security become more crucial.

Canada has an obligation — not just to itself, but also to the world — to continue to provide quality products from all sectors, not only the agricultural sector. That comes from the economic willingness to approach the table and negotiate the best deal for Canadians and for people across the world at the time of the negotiations. That is what free trade means.

I would like to quote from the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance’s February-March 2023 “Trade Insights” document:

. . . this legislation would have far reaching implications for Canadian interests, would encourage our trading partners to protect their own sensitive areas and would erode Canada’s credibility as a country standing tall for free and open trade on the world stage. . . .

The article continues:

Members also pointed out that Canada’s largest and most beneficial trade agreements such as the Canada-US-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) and the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) have come through the compromise and flexibility needed when negotiating complex and ambitious trade agreements.

Colleagues, the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance President Greg Northey appeared before committee in the other place and said:

If we’re taking things off the table, and it doesn’t matter what sector it is or what protection of the sector we’re doing, it means we will never be able to have commercially viable deals with any country. . . .

It is clear that this bill is about protectionism. We need to consider if this is the future of Canadian trade and commerce.

Do we want to be perceived as protectionist?

Other countries are watching Canada, and watching our actions. It is only a matter of time before other countries start pulling their products off the bargaining table. Let’s just hope they are not products that Canada relies upon, or there will be other issues to deal with in the future.

Our trade negotiators must remain open to the discussions and concerns of all stakeholders in participating in international economies. We must all be concerned about acting in bad faith to our reliable trading partners who continue to engage with Canada’s vast resource capacities.

With the volatility of global markets, and the new and complex challenges to international political economies, Canada’s ability to produce and supply for the world is only growing in demand. I think of not only agriculture, but also steel, critical minerals for green innovation, lumber, pharmaceuticals and many other products that hang in the balance if we begin tying the hands of our dedicated negotiators.

Another issue I’ve encountered regarding trade is an increase in non-tariff barriers. We’ve become so hyper-focused on free trade versus being supply managed that the government has missed the essential parts of our current agreements in maintaining supply chains.

The Canola Council of Canada notes that:

Once an FTA goes into effect, a strategy is required and dedicated resources are needed to ensure full implementation and compliance with the negotiated agreements and concessions, particularly in the areas of sanitary and phytosanitary measures and technical barriers to trade.

Despite continued global action to reduce tariffs and barriers, countries seem to be taking protectionist measures through non‑tariff barriers. Why do we think this is, fellow senators? Is it because they look at countries like Canada continuing to prevent open negotiation? Is it because we don’t continue to manage properly the free trade agreements we’ve already agreed to?

It is important that we — in the chamber of sober second thought — continue to scrutinize bills and address possible misalignments that they may have at the expense of partisanship and political ambition. This may be simply putting the cart before the horse, colleagues.

In the past, all parties in successive governments in the other place have shown support for our supply-managed sectors over many years. However, showcasing a narrow-minded approach to global commerce by developing wedge issue legislation only demonstrates an unwillingness and limit to our international cooperation.

Supply management is a long-championed aspect of Canadian agriculture. We have long benefited from this program in times of global economic volatility. However, a display of unwillingness to enter negotiations in good faith may equally sway our trading partners from engaging fairly in the free trade negotiations that support Canada’s diverse and productive economy.

In an Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada press release from Friday, September 29, 2023, Minister Lawrence MacAulay stated:

The Government of Canada will continue to preserve, protect and defend Canada’s supply management system and is committed to not making any additional market access concessions for supply-managed products in future trade agreements.

Colleagues, with that from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, do we have anything to worry about?

I would like to conclude by leaving you with a few questions to consider: How can we achieve global food security without free and open trade? If we’re going to isolate Canadian supply chains, what happens when a local disruption occurs and Canadian producers are unable to meet Canada’s demand for poultry or dairy? As the world’s fifth-largest food producer, and with a responsibility to feed the world, is closing access to markets not akin to closing access to food? Is this bill not a direct contradiction to Canada’s commitments in recently signed declarations on food security at G7; G20; the World Trade Organization, or WTO; and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, or APEC? Should we not be worried about bills — like the one before us — leading to a loss of foreign investment, and the impact that this would have on Canada as a whole? If we pass this bill, how might this affect all of the SM-5 sector down the road?

I hope these questions and many others can be answered to my and your satisfaction at the committee stage. As you know, I generally support bills that positively impact agriculture. With this one, while I have concerns, as noted by the questions just posed, I will support this bill at second reading so it can be referred to committee. And it is the hope of the industry that this bill be sent to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, as the title of this bill is “An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act.” It is a trade bill; it is not an agriculture bill.

Since this bill went to the Standing Committee on International Trade in the other place, it is my hope, and that of the industry, that our chamber will refer Bill C-282 to the appropriate committee, where members will have the similar expertise to review the proposed changes for future trade negotiations.

I thank my honourable colleagues for the time I’ve been given to speak. I hope we can continue to approach this debate with level heads, and give careful thought and consideration to all aspects, perspectives and outcomes of this bold and contentious bill.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Absolutely.

Thank you, colleague. Let me be very clear. I did not say I would not support this bill. I said I would support this bill at second reading so it would go to committee and get further study. It will be up to all of us at third reading to decide how we support it. I did not say I would not support it at third reading.

With respect to bills coming from the other place that have been supported by the majority, or solely, over there, I think this place is a chamber of sober second thought. You referenced Bill C-234. It was discussed at length in committee and came back here, and we had further discussions. My hope for this bill is that it will be discussed here, debated at second reading and then referred to the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee for their valued consideration. They are the experts on trade bills.

I’ll look forward to that discussion. I will hope to sit in on some of that discussion to hear it from an ag perspective, but it’s more than agriculture. Thank you.