Colleagues, I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), and to speak against the report of the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee and the amendment they have put forward.

Our dairy, poultry and egg industries have asked us to pass this bill in its original, unamended form. With the amendment proposed by the committee in place, this bill will not apply to any trade deals currently in force and any renegotiations or deals in the course of being negotiated. It would make the bill ineffective.

I wish to take this time to share a few views of Canadians who support this bill.

Listen to Steve Verheul, our chief trade negotiator from 2017-21 who said:

I really see this more as a political signal of support to the dairy sector and to supply management more broadly. . . .

I don’t expect this to have a huge impact on negotiations going forward.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture said:

In practice, Bill C-282 elevates the decision-making threshold to trade away Canadian food security by requiring an explicit decision from Parliament to do so. Were a future government to seek such a concession from Parliament, it is worth noting that such a concession, while adding an additional complexity to the process, could carry even greater weight in the negotiations.

The Fédération des producteurs d’œufs du Québec said:

In the case of eggs, the past 50 years of supply management have proven that there has been no shortage of eggs in Canada. They are of superior quality, since the various programs that producers must comply with ensure that Canadians receive a safe product that is traceable from farm to retailer, high in nutritional content, respects animal welfare and has a low environmental footprint.

As egg farmers in other provinces have explained to us in their brief to the committee:

Trade agreements are an important part of helping Canada’s agricultural sector achieve its full potential. However, pursuing these ambitious targets must not be at the expense of the stability of our food supply and rural communities . . . . Bill C-282 will prevent erosion of Canadian egg, poultry and dairy production and ensure we continue to produce staple foods within our borders.

In a brief submitted by Maurice Doyon, Professor of Agriculture at Laval; Bruce Muirhead, Professor of History at Waterloo; and Jodey Nurse, lecturer at the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada, these experts on supply management said:

International trade agreements have already worked to disrupt Canada’s dairy, eggs, and poultry industries, and any further negotiations could lead to the complete restructuring of these sectors and the communities that they serve. Supply management’s ability to provide stability in the countryside should not be undervalued. The Canadian model of supply management has protected supply-managed farmers from the worst excesses of the so-called free market while also providing consumers with a competitively priced and nutritious product.

Colleagues, this bill is about sending a signal to our trade partners. The bar for concessions in this area is high — not impossible, but high. It is high because this is a system that works well for us already.

This bill can only be said to weaken our hand if the objective is actually to give away supply-managed quota. There may be times when we need to do that as part of the overall deal, but it shouldn’t be our objective. The amendment as proposed takes away this benefit.

Colleagues, I encourage you to vote against the amendment and the committee’s report on Bill C-282 and, in so doing, vote in favour of protecting our agricultural industries, jobs and food supply.

Thank you.

I have a question, if Senator Cardozo would accept.

Yes.

Thank you, Senator Cardozo. I find myself, certainly, at least in part, agreeing, maybe not entirely. I believe this is more of a trade bill than a supply management bill.

Be that as it may, you started your speech by indicating that this is something the agricultural sector wanted pretty much across the board — at least the supply management part of it — and you implied that, for those reasons, we should support it. That, I find myself largely agreeing with.

My question, Senator Cardozo, is that we have three bills in a row, all dealing with agriculture. They may be called something else, but we have Bill C-275, Bill C-280 and Bill C-282.

Bill C-275 and C-280 have also been significantly amended and have the same risk of killing those bills if the amendments were to pass, as Bill C-282 does. I agree that this amendment pretty much destroys Bill C-282.

We know the other two were unanimously supported by the stakeholders. The farmers came and begged us, “Please do not put in any amendments.”

On Bill C-280, the producers and stakeholders, it was the same thing.

Both of them have been amended to the point that it would literally kill the bill.

Would you agree, Senator Cardozo, that those amendments should also be defeated, as you suggest this one should be?

Thank you very much for your question, Senator Plett. The discussion today is about Bill C-282. Regarding Bill C-280 — though I am not sure it is proper for me to go into that for too long at this time since it is a different subject — I listened to your speech, and my emotions were the same as your emotions today about my speech. I agreed with some parts of it and really disagreed with others. I think I agreed with some of the content. Perhaps aspects of the approach could have been different.

That said, I will ask you to, if you don’t mind, hold your breath to see how I vote on that bill. I am certainly listening with very open ears with respect to Bill C-280.

One brief supplementary, and thank you for that.

Some of us get emotional when we are really involved in something. Many times, I have found myself getting emotional. I will hold my breath. I may lose that breath after the vote; I hope I don’t. Nevertheless, Senator Cardozo, I sincerely hope that you, and everyone else in the chamber, will vote based on the content and not the delivery of my speech. Thank you.

Thank you, senator. A few weeks ago, there was a change in seating arrangements around this chamber, and I find it strange that as I sit closer to and on the same side as you, from time to time, I am in radical agreement on some points. It is causing me some sleepless nights, but I am trying to separate the emotion of a sleepless night from the content of the arguments.

My wife says the same thing.

I would rather not comment on that part.

Would Senator Cardozo take a question?

Sure.

Thank you for your remarks, Senator Cardozo. I have a question for you that has a couple of questions within it.

Would you agree that the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA; the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA; and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, negotiated over two governments are good deals for Canada? If so, would you agree that our negotiators did a very good job, and that the end result in the last three, where there was a little bit given up — particularly in the dairy sector — there was fair compensation by the government to the producers? If you agree with all of that, would you agree that this bill is unnecessary?

Let me requote Steve Verheul, chief trade negotiator from 2017-21. I would guess you know him quite well and have worked with him. He said, “I really see this more as a political signal of support to the dairy sector and to supply management more broadly.” He continued, saying, “I don’t expect this to have a huge impact on negotiations going forward.”

In legislation, we always do a combination of things. Sometimes our bills are strongly weighted in terms of sending signals and explaining values, and at times they are more focused on the minutia of administration. This bill does a bit of both, but perhaps it does more in terms of sending signals and providing a strong sense of support to the supply management of the dairy sector at this time.

Thank you, senator. Do you feel that in terms of sending signals, this bill sends an interesting one to the incoming U.S. administration?

That is a really interesting question. We are all thinking a lot about what the new Trump administration means for us. I often find myself torn on this, because we are an independent country and not a colony of the U.S. We are good friends with them. They are our strongest trade partner. At the end of the day, we have to balance where we keep our independence and where we behave like a colony of theirs.

With each issue, we make judgments. You and I might come to slightly different judgments on that issue. I’m not at all suggesting that you would be happy for Canada to be a colony, but we all make judgments of all these complex issues together.

Sure.

I wouldn’t call Steve Verheul just one trade negotiator. He was our chief trade negotiator for a number of key years, fairly recently. I would also listen to the voices of the agriculturalists I quoted, in addition to some experts I quoted as well. It is one of those issues where I do not think that you are wrong and I am right. I think we each hear a number of different views, listen carefully and are influenced by some. I do not think that there is a real right and real wrong on this issue. It is a matter of listening to the various views and taking a position, at the end of the day, on one side or the other.

Senator Cardozo, your time for debate has expired. Are you asking for more time?

I would like to hear Senator Cardozo say what he wants.

I would be happy to answer the senator’s question.

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Thank you. Indeed, 10 senators have voted in the way you mentioned. There are some 447 parliamentarians altogether, and in the first round in the House of Commons, the vast majority of the 338 there voted for it. In terms of numbers, it is, what, 200 versus 10? Again, some people may feel there is a right and wrong; I do not say that. I think that this is a complex issue. We have to make judgments about what we hear, think and believe and cast a vote at the end of the day.