It is moved by the Honourable Senator Housakos, seconded by the Honourable Senator Plett, that the Senate do now adjourn. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I see two senators rising. Any agreement on the length of the bill?

One hour? There is no agreement on the length of the bell; therefore, the bells will ring and the vote will take place at 10:46 p.m.

Call in the senators.

Resuming debate on the fifteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Honourable senators, I rise today to lend support to the report from the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management). I will get to why I believe the amendment proposed and adopted by our committee was necessary and obvious, but before I get there, I want to speak to division.

Before we even began the study of this bill at committee and before we began second reading in this chamber, I had received mail on both sides of this bill from the agricultural community. As a senator from Orillia, Ontario, I know agriculture helps to drive our region, and I suspect that is why I received the correspondence I did.

We heard clear lines of division at second reading as well. Senators spoke passionately both in favour and against this bill. One thing was clear to me early on in those debates: I was not sure which side I would land on. There were two lines of debate at the time, and these persisted at our committee. The first line dealt with supply management itself, its benefits to farmers and its assurances to our food security. The second line dealt with the bill’s effect on negotiations — that it would impede our negotiators’ ability to get the best deal for Canada writ large. As we all know, Canada’s negotiators are some of the best in the business. This was certainly acknowledged at the committee. They normally don’t have the same levers available to them as many of our trading partners have, particularly the United States, our largest trading partner.

Let me give you some examples of the language used by export-oriented sectors when they appeared before our committee.

Michael Harvey, Executive Director of the Canadian Agri‑Food Trade Alliance, or CAFTA, said, “. . . CAFTA is asking this committee to protect our country’s economic interests and recommends that Bill C-282 not be passed.”

The second quote comes from Troy Sherman, Senior Director at the Canola Council of Canada:

We urge the Senate to reject Bill C-282, given the harm it will do to Canada’s trade policy and the risks it will create for those industries that rely upon trade, including Canadian canola. . . .

The third quote reads as follows:

. . . Tree of Life respectfully urges senators to consider the unintended consequences of this bill and to vote against Bill C-282.

That was from Patrick Heffernan, Chief Operating Officer at Tree of Life, dealing in natural food products.

The fourth quote comes from Cereals Canada:

Given the detrimental impacts to the economy resulting from this bill, Cereals Canada would ask the committee to not allow Bill C-282 to move forward. . . .

That was from Mark Walker, Vice-President of Cereals Canada.

Finally, Cathy Jo Noble, Vice-President of the National Cattle Feeders’ Association, said:

We are strongly opposed to Bill C-282 due to the incredibly negative impact it will have on Canada’s economy and international reputation.

Colleagues, this is simply a snippet from the non-supply-managed sectors on this bill. There were more voices I will quote: “not be passed,” “reject,” “vote against,” “not allow to move forward” and “strongly opposed.” These organizations didn’t want us to amend the bill. They wanted it gone.

They would have preferred a report which stated that the committee recommend to not proceed with the bill. And, of course, we didn’t go that far, but we did agree to report back with a nuanced and important amendment.

If senators have read the committee testimony, they will have noticed a theme in my questioning around the divisions this bill has created in the agriculture community. I would say “created” because most of the export-oriented sectors have said they have no issue with supply management itself; they have an issue with this bill.

In our second day of witness testimony, I asked the question to a panel of organizations representing the supply-managed sector on where this bill brings clear divisions and what we can do to help bridge that divide.

In response to this question, Tim Klompmaker, Chair of the Chicken Farmers of Canada, said, “I certainly think it does cause a bit of tension.” But he continued with, “I’m not sure the division is as big at what some are led to believe.”

Again, in response to my question, Phil Mount, Vice-President with the National Farmers Union, replied, “Quite often, these divisions are nonsensical, in my mind.”

I do not know if it is willful blindness, perhaps a lack of consultation or something else. We’ve known about these divisions since the previous iteration of this bill in Bill C-216 from the last Parliament.

Mr. Mount perhaps also said the quiet part out loud in his response by answering, “In many cases, we feel like this divide is manufactured by folks who have ideological reasons for creating division. . . .”

To me, this speaks more to the supply-managed sectors wanting to have their cake and eat it too, rather than worry about Canada’s position in trade negotiations for betterment of all of Canada, not just certain sectors.

Of course, it works in their favour. In fact, as a response to a question from Senator Coyle, Phil Boyd, Executive Director of the Turkey Farmers of Canada, admitted as much when he stated, “Yes, we want to have our cake and eat it too . . . .” He wanted Canada to protect supply management in trade negotiations and get the best deals for our export sectors as well.

Unfortunately, it does not work that way, as stated by all trade experts who appeared. It didn’t appear that any consultation occurred with export-reliant sectors from the bill’s drafters; otherwise, I submit they would have known this already.

When questioned, the trade-dependent witnesses said they had spoken with trade experts to help inform their views, and, in my opinion, they were better prepared for it. This is why it was critical for our committee to invite experts in trade and international relations to our committee to give their opinions, including former chief trade negotiators.

This was an obvious oversight from the House of Commons study on this bill and the previous iteration of it. It didn’t take long to conclude that this was in its entirety a bill on Canada’s trade policy, not a bill on supply management. Considering this is a trade bill, the lack of witness testimony in the fields of negotiations and international relations at the House committee worried me and others around our committee table.

It is my opinion that the previous studies in the House only offered minimal value to the bill before us and that they perpetuated the apparent divisions being seen in our agri-food community and elsewhere.

The House committee would have benefited from appropriate witnesses with respect to trade and international relations. If that had been the case, perhaps our chamber wouldn’t have found itself in this position. Perhaps it wouldn’t have come this far if the House committee had heard the evidence that Bill C-282 is a fundamental risk to negotiations and chosen not to proceed with it themselves.

We’ve been put in a difficult decision in having to remedy the severe consequences this bill will have for our export economy.

I want to take a moment to thank our Foreign Affairs Committee steering committee for including trade professionals as part of our process to better understand the impacts that Bill C-282 would have. Colleagues, for a bill receiving so much attention, our steering committee did an incredible job creating a balance and should be commended. I thank Senator Boehm for his leadership.

Turning our attention to the amendment proposed by Senator Harder, this amendment, as we know, ensures that any trade agreements already in place, to be renegotiated or in the process of negotiations will not be affected by Bill C-282. The evidence from export-reliant industry and trade experts was strong and made supporting this amendment necessary.

No witness that we heard from said that the recent free trade agreements that gave concessions into Canada’s supply-managed industry were bad for Canada, but we do know that these deals can be renegotiated.

Dave Carey, Vice-President of Government & Industry Relations with the Canadian Canola Growers Association, reminded us:

. . . that all FTAs are subject to review, whether they be CUSMA, CPTPP or bilaterals, and many FTAs can be cancelled by any signatory with six months’ notice.

This was a big part of the reason why I supported Senator Harder’s amendment at committee. Like you, I am particularly worried about the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, renegotiation. As the U.S. is Canada’s largest trading partner, this agreement has existential effects on our export industries. It must be negotiated well and with every tool available to our negotiators.

For those who believe that legislative protection is necessary for supply management and that it would send a clear signal to our negotiators and those they negotiate with that we shouldn’t negotiate in this area, we actually heard the opposite from the experts who appeared — those who have been at the table negotiating trade agreements. They say that, one, this waves a red flag at our negotiating partners, who won’t take us seriously; and two, this will actually make our trading partners go after supply management harder. Those in the supply-managed sector feel this provides clarity, but I’m not sure they understand the repercussions at the trade table itself. Why would they? The whole purpose of supply management is to provide domestically, not internationally.

The CUSMA renegotiation under the upcoming administration, no matter how you dissect it, will be tough for Canada. Why the additional risk of this legislation? Why tie the hands of the trade negotiators in this fashion? We should keep our cards in our pocket as we’ve always done.

Senators, this bill isn’t necessary to protect supply management from negotiations. We heard time and again that a policy directive from the executive does the same thing, and the government has used this directive in recent negotiations between Canada and the United Kingdom. We don’t have a deal, in large part, because of this policy directive, but no concessions have been made on supply management because of it.

Why this bill, and why now?

The evidence has been overwhelmingly against what this means in trade talks and overwhelmingly in favour for supply-managed sectors. But I remind you again, senators, that this isn’t a bill about supply management, and supply management doesn’t need this tool for protection; it’s redundant and counterintuitive to Canada’s interests, and it’s been the policy direction of successive governments to preserve supply management for some time.

With an unamended Bill C-282, supply management can be protected. However, more important, without this bill, supply management can be protected, too.

Senator Harder’s amendment bridges this divide that worried many of us from the beginning. It reduces the very real risks of Bill C-282 at the negotiating table.

This bill has become far more political than we realized it would, but we still have a job to do. The amendment is a sensible approach to dealing with this bill and considers the ongoing conversation between our chamber and the House of Commons.

To remind senators, this amendment passed at committee by a vote of 10 to 3, with 1 abstention. Committee members who sat around the table and heard the evidence voted overwhelmingly in favour of the amendment, which is telling. I ask you to value the committee’s thorough process and, more important, the evidence it heard. Please heed the committee’s advice and adopt the report as recommended.

I remind you again, colleagues, this isn’t a bill about supply management. We need to look past that label to understand what’s really at stake, which is our export economy. Our export economy contributes immensely to our GDP — approximately 33% — and we must make sure it flourishes for the sustainable growth of Canada as a whole.

Greg McLellan, CEO of the Saskatchewan Cattlemen’s Association, said this to committee members during his appearance:

Bill C-282 is not about supply management. We’re not here to talk about supply management, because Bill C-282, at its core, is bad trade policy. It’s, frankly, a shame that this piece of legislation is being used as a wedge to divide an agricultural sector that is so interconnected. . . . As we head toward the 2026 review of the agreement, we have already heard how Bill C-282 is going to create unnecessary tensions before even beginning negotiations. State-level officials and stakeholders across North America have raised significant concerns about what Bill C-282 will do to our trading relationships.

In another answer, Mr. McLellan said of CUSMA, “If we’re talking about that whole document falling apart, we’re looking at billions and billions of dollars.”

This is just one of many examples —

Senator Boniface, your time has expired. Are you asking for more time to finish?

Yes.

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Honourable colleagues, please vote for the report as written. Thank you.