Moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today as Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to explain the purpose and effect of the amendment to Bill C-282 adopted by the committee. The committee’s report also includes one observation.

Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), was referred to the committee on April 16, 2024, after being introduced in the Senate on June 21, 2023. The committee began its study on September 25.

Over the course of eight meetings with witnesses — 52 of them, in fact — the committee heard from members of Parliament, including the sponsor of the bill, Luc Thériault; officials from Global Affairs Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; representatives of both supply-managed agricultural industries and export-focused non-supply managed industries; experts on trade, including former trade negotiators; and academics, including constitutional experts.

During clause-by-clause consideration on November 6, Senator Harder proposed the amendment in question, which passed with 10 votes in favour, 3 against and 1 abstention. The purpose of the amendment is, as Senator Harder put it at the meeting, to “de‑risk” this legislation given the potentially negative impact of this bill passing, especially in its original form, on Canada’s crucial trading relationships.

Essentially, the effect of the amendment would be to limit the Bill’s application to trade agreements not yet in force when the Bill enters into force. The amendment would also limit the Bill’s application to negotiations and re-negotiations of trade agreements not already underway when the Bill enters into force.

Committee members in favour of the amendment felt it was important particularly in the context of the upcoming review, in 2026, of CUSMA – the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement – which will be that much more complex under a second Trump administration.

It sounds better as CUSMA in English.

I also wish to highlight the important observation appended to this report. It makes clear that, because Bill C-282 is a bill on Canada’s trade policy and not on the policy of supply management – because it specifically amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act – the Committee took no view on supply management in Canada.

Despite hearing from many strong supporters of supply management, the Committee focused on the purpose of the Bill and its impact on Canada’s crucial trade relationships as an export-oriented nation reliant on trade.

Will Senator Boehm take a question?

With pleasure.

Senator Boehm, you know that I support supply-managed farmers because I think that supply management is an important measure to keep farming alive in our regions.

My question is this. With the passage of Bill C-282, a government that wants to break the Canadian tradition of defending supply management would simply have to transparently and explicitly obtain authorization from Parliament before authorizing new import quotas. Does that proposal seem unreasonable to you?

Thank you. I just want to remind my dear colleague that I’m here as the chair of the committee, so I’m speaking to the report and not presenting my own views. At least, I’m going to try not to in this case.

If you look back at the history of the last three big agreements — the renegotiation of the CUSMA; the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP; and the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA — there was a small portion given up in terms of the tariff rate quota, TRQ for short, for dairy and poultry. There was also compensation offered by the government.

The government can, of course, engage with Parliament and say that we are negotiating a free trade agreement, get that permission, and then afterwards we can have the debate on the free trade agreement, as we have done in this chamber and as it has happened in the House itself. That’s my understanding of the procedure.

With that procedure and with the negotiations that took place in those three agreements, the negotiators had free range to push very hard — and they did — for maintaining as much in terms of supply management as they could. They would, no doubt, do that again. We did hear at least from one or two witnesses that the reason for the break in negotiations or the suspension with the United Kingdom has been precisely for that reason.

Will Senator Boehm take another question?

With pleasure, senator.

I want to thank you and your colleagues for the work you’ve done in committee. I’m the son of a farmer, and I support supply management. Of course, I realize that the environment has changed since the bill was passed. That’s why I publicly said that I was following the committee’s work closely and that I was open to amendments.

I was in Washington last week for a meeting with economists, one that I attend every year. We’re hearing more and more about a new scenario for a bilateral agreement between Canada and the United States under the new administration. This agreement would exclude Mexico, for all kinds of reasons.

If that were to happen, it’s my understanding that your amendments wouldn’t apply and that the provisions of Bill C-282 would automatically apply, since this would be considered a new free trade agreement.

Your amendments would apply to existing or renewed free trade agreements. Is it your interpretation that your amendments wouldn’t apply to a new free trade agreement between Canada and the U.S.?

Thank you, Senator Gignac. I didn’t really want to get into those items; I have been quoted in the media on them. There has been a bit of a debate — even in 1994, when NAFTA was first negotiated and brought into place — as to why have it as a trilateral agreement. Since then, there has been much development in supply chains. Yes, our relationship with Mexico is not as great as it is with the United States, but Mexico is still our third merchandise trade partner, slightly ahead of the European Union.

If you look at the election campaign, both presidential candidates said that they would not just review CUSMA in 2026 but renegotiate it. So it will be interesting to see how that goes because the last time around, Mr. Trump said it was a really great deal for the United States. Maybe now he thinks differently.

This is me now, not as chair of the committee, saying that in any negotiation you go into, you have to be prepared for everything. Fencing something off and saying it would be illegal to touch that, in my view, would not necessarily be the best approach to take forward.

Perhaps I was misunderstood. I will do my best in English.

I did not ask you about the best-case scenario because I agree that Mexico is a significant partner to us, but at the end of the day, it’s Washington that will decide, and Trump in that particular case. If he decides he wants to negotiate a bilateral agreement with Canada, we have to deal with that.

My question is simple. I’m not sure you answered my question. If it’s the case that we will have a proposal of a new bilateral agreement between Canada and the U.S., I think none of your amendments will apply to that and we will be back to Bill C-282’s original version.

I think that’s very speculative, and that’s why I didn’t answer it. I understood the question the first time. I would be hesitant to speculate on that. It would mean that we would all have to do our homework as we move ahead.

I want to thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. You have said on several occasions, including in your speech at second reading, that the Senate committee would pay more attention to the negotiations and that it would call different witnesses than the House of Commons. You invited government negotiators who worked to secure agreements, past and present. My question is this: Above all, will the amendments that the committee is proposing better serve the interests of Canada and facilitate the work of negotiators?

That would probably be a good question for our colleague Senator Harder, who put forward the amendment, but the question is to me. I did not speak to the bill at second reading, but I agree — and 10 members of the committee agreed as well — that by amending it, it would “de-risk” it. Those who are critical will say that by amending it in this way, we’re sending it back to the House where it might not meet a wonderful end.

On the other hand, in the current environment — this is where I would distinguish what we did in our examination of the bill as opposed to the other place — we had negotiators, and experts as well, speaking and providing, I would say, a more balanced view in terms of the pros and the cons. By trying to “de-risk” it, we are saying that we are looking at this very soberly and seriously.

Senator Boehm, will you take another question?

Of course.

You just added a nuance in your comments. I just want to make sure that I understood it correctly. You said that Bill C-282 has to do with how Canada conducts its international trade negotiations, given that it amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, and that it doesn’t target the supply management policy. Could you explain that nuance to me?

Thank you. The original bill proposed to amend the foundational act called the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. In the testimony that we heard, there was no indication that any other country had done that with a foundational law.

The argument that was made and the conclusion of the committee was that if you want to have something that pertains strictly to supply management, supply management should not be in the foundational act. That’s where the committee came up. I don’t know if that helps you or whether I’m further muddying it.

Would Senator Boehm take another question?

Of course.

Given the importance of trade and the work the committee did on this proposal — which directly impacts our trade, particularly with the United States — and given what happened in the American election and what the candidates said about trade, is your committee considering a study on the access that American senators and congresspeople have to their trade negotiations versus what happens in Canada? In Canada, the document comes to Parliament and it’s a yes-or-no vote. In the United States, any senator or congressperson can go in, sign the secrecy oath, be involved in the discussions, see what’s being negotiated and have input at that level.

Would your committee consider that as an avenue for Canadian parliamentarians to have more input into trade deals before they’re finalized by the government?

Senator Boehm, we’re out of time. Are you asking for more time to answer this question?

If it’s the will of the Senate.

Honourable senators, do you agree that we have time to answer the question?

Thank you, Senator Downe. I think it’s a great topic to look at. The U.S. system is very different from ours. They also have a fast-track provision, which we don’t have.

In our negotiations, we have many people at the table and in the room, and that includes the subnational entities such as provinces and other interested actors like labour unions and producers. We have a very different approach, which comes from the system of government that we enjoy. I’ll take it under advisement, take it to steering and the committee and see where we go.

Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on Bill C-282.

First of all, I’d like to commend the committee’s chair, Senator Boehm, and all the members for their work in thoroughly studying the bill. We heard from many witnesses who, in most cases, provided valuable clarifications about the ins and outs of Bill C-282. I’d also like to thank Senator Harder, who worked hard to prepare an amendment based on one of the opinions heard in committee.

Colleagues, it will come as no surprise to you that I vigorously oppose this amendment, which strips the bill of most of its strength and intent. What exactly is the purpose of Bill C-282? It is straightforward and unambiguous. The goal is to remove supply management completely from the negotiating table when any new, existing or soon-to-be-renewed free trade agreement is concluded.

What is the impact of the amendment adopted by the committee? It excludes the following from the scope of the bill:

(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;

(c) international trade treaty or agreement that was in the course of being negotiated upon the coming into force of that subsection.

The way the amendment is worded makes it clear that the exclusions it allows would make the bill, at best, symbolic, and at worst, completely ineffective. This amendment means the bill would not apply to existing or future trade agreements with our principal partners. If this chamber were to adopt the amendment, supply management would always be a potential target for our major trading partners and would always be used as a bargaining chip, just as it was in our most recent agreements, the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA.

To be clear, Bill C-282 is not just any private member’s bill. It was passed by all party leaders in the House of Commons with a solid 262-51 majority. Moreover, the bill builds on four unanimous motions to protect supply management in its entirety, two of them in 2005 and 2017 during NAFTA renegotiations, and two in 2018 during CPTPP negotiations.

Colleagues, I believe this amendment arises from concerns that aren’t based on objective facts at all.

These concerns include one that was likely mentioned the most, namely, that the bill will damage our negotiators’ ability to conclude trade agreements on Canada’s behalf. First, bear in mind that this implies that an agreement can’t be reached without concessions on supply management. In other words, supply management has to be sacrificed in order to secure good agreements.

On September 25, when Doug Forsyth, Director General of the Market Access and Trade Controls Bureau with Global Affairs Canada, appeared before the committee, he confirmed that our country managed to enter into 12 beneficial free trade agreements in the past without making concessions on supply management. This irrefutable reality shows that protecting supply management while achieving excellent agreements for Canadians in other export-oriented sectors is entirely possible, which is not the case for supply-managed products, which are basically intended for the domestic market.

Mr. Forsyth also told us that when free trade agreements are negotiated, the number of chapters devoted to agriculture is generally only one out of a total of 30, and that supply-managed agricultural sectors occupy only part of this single chapter. Colleagues, it cannot seriously be argued that supply management alone is likely to derail the conclusion of trade agreements.

The committee was told that supply management would once again be targeted by our main partner, the United States, with the return of President Trump. This is precisely why we need to take a clear stand to protect supply management now and forever. Conversely, I think that dithering on our red lines is an admission of weakness when it comes to negotiations.

Witnesses told us that all countries are entitled to red lines, and the committee heard that Canada wouldn’t be alone in protecting certain essential sectors. For instance, Tom Rosser, Assistant Deputy Minister for the Market and Industry Services Branch at the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, confirmed at the September 25 meeting that the United States imposes strict quotas on cotton and sugar. Japan does the same with its rice.

The vehicle chosen by these two close partners of Canada may not be the same as the one proposed in Bill C-282, but its effects are identical: to protect essential sectors of their economy through legislation. That is the case in the United States, where a law called Farm Bill protects and massively subsidizes American farmers. This legislation also establishes tariff quotas that limit the amount of foreign sugar that can enter the American market. You will agree with me, honourable colleagues, that these restrictions and protections don’t make the United States and Japan less trade-oriented nations. They are very capable of reaching excellent free trade agreements.

Supply management has been closely linked to Canada’s trade policy for over 50 years. Supply management was established in 1972 by Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s Liberal government. It rests on three pillars: controlling production, regulating producer prices and controlling imports at the border through tariff quotas. If no control is exerted over the amount of products imported under supply management, then it is impossible to effectively plan production, which would mean that supply management would no longer be able to fulfill its mission of balancing supply and demand.

Beyond tariff quotas and international negotiations, I’d like to remind you what Bill C-282 means and entails for tens of thousands of family farms who create nearly 350,000 jobs in our country.

Bill C-282 allows farmers to have predictability over their income and to continue producing essential food on Canadian soil for Canadians, while avoiding the erosion of supply management. For example, according to the Canadian Dairy Commission, the number of dairy farmers who have ceded a total of 18% of their domestic market has fallen drastically, from around 12,500 farms in 2012 to roughly 9,500 in 2023, which is considerable. We heard in committee that the decline in the number of family farms is leading to the decline of our rural areas and the depopulation of our villages. That’s what we’re talking about.

Bill C-282 is a unique way for our negotiators to uphold the clearly expressed will of our Parliament: to fully protect supply management in future negotiations.

If the Senate votes in favour of this amendment, it will go against the will of the government, of the elected house and an overwhelming majority of Canadians. According to an Abacus Data poll published in 2023, more than 90% of Canadians support supply management.

That is why, honourable senators, I am urging you to reject the committee report so that this chamber can study Bill C-282 in its original form.

Thank you for your attention.

Honourable senators, I rise today on the unceded lands of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg to contribute to the report-stage debate on Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management).

The amendment to the act, as described in the original bill, aims to permanently protect our supply-managed dairy, poultry and egg sectors in any future trade negotiations. Today, as we consider the report of the committee studying private member Bill C-282, we do so with respect for the concerns of Canada’s supply-managed sectors, which gave rise to the original bill. These farmers are our neighbours, and they provide us with dependable, good-quality, healthy food.

We also do so with respect for other agricultural sectors. Those farmers and their associated businesses are also our neighbours, and they provide us and people around the world with good-quality food.

We also consider the report of the bill with respect for Canada’s non-agricultural businesses, as they, too, are our neighbours. They provide jobs and valued goods to us and to those around the world.

Colleagues, I feel it is critical at the outset to underline the fact that our Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee studied this bill with the rigour, balance and independence that is characteristic of our Senate chamber, with a view to the potential impact of this bill on multiple sectors of our economy and Canada’s overall prosperity as well as the long-term implications of the bill for our international trade policies and negotiation practices.

As we heard at second reading from our colleague Senator Harder and from several expert witnesses, the core of this bill is not about supply management. It’s about how Canada conducts itself on the global trade stage. By introducing legislative restrictions on our trade negotiators, we are looking at an approach that experts have flagged as a potential limitation to Canada’s flexibility in negotiations, a flexibility that has been essential to Canada’s success in the past.

Our Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee held eight committee meetings and heard testimony from 52 witnesses from a broad range of voices: former trade negotiators, trade experts, departmental officials and representatives from both supply-managed and non-supply-managed agricultural sectors, many of whom run family farms.

Through their testimony, one fact became abundantly clear: While the bill may have the intention of bringing stability and the desired certainty to supply-managed sectors, it comes with real risks to Canada’s negotiating power, to our economy, and it exacerbates the already growing uncertainty in our other industries, agricultural and non-agricultural. Our committee responded to these concerns by recommending a vital amendment, one that I believe will help Canada retain its flexibility to act in the national interest across all sectors.

Let’s first consider Bill C-282 in the broader international context. In countries around the world, we see governments protecting certain vital sectors as a policy choice, but they do so without the rigidity of a legislative mandate. Look at Brazil’s sugar cane or Japan’s rice, both deeply rooted in national identity and fiercely defended in trade talks. Yet, neither country has codified these protections in law. Instead, their negotiators are empowered to protect these sectors while keeping their options open to make decisions that best suit their countries’ needs in each negotiation. This is, in fact, our current situation, with Canadian negotiators instructed to protect our supply-managed sectors.

Bill C-282 as it was originally drafted would impose a fixed-in-law, unyielding restriction on Canada’s negotiators, preventing even the possibility of discussing dairy, poultry and eggs. We did not find evidence of any example globally of a country legislating similar exclusions.

During our study, Jonathan Fried, Canada’s former ambassador to the World Trade Organization, described the bill as a legislative straitjacket, warning that such a rigid mandate would limit Canada’s strategic options by ruling out certain discussions before negotiations even began. Mr. Fried underscored that successful trade negotiations are dynamic, requiring flexibility to align our national interests across various sectors. By legislating an exclusion, Canada would be setting a precedent.

Another key witness, Ian Burney, a former Canadian chief trade negotiator, expressed similar concerns. He cautioned that this bill would send a concerning signal to our trading partners that Canada is willing to limit its own negotiating options, a choice no other nation makes. Our negotiators work tirelessly to defend sensitive sectors, but they need room to adapt as situations evolve. Rigid legislative barriers, he argued, would weaken Canada’s ability to make informed trade-offs when and if needed.

Looking ahead, the need for adaptability and flexibility becomes even clearer. We’re facing increased trade tensions globally and with our closest trading partner, the United States, signalling more protectionist stances. With Donald Trump’s recent election, we may see further challenges in our trade relations. We really don’t know. Given that 78% of Canada’s exports are U.S.-bound, the stakes for many Canadian sectors are substantial.

This is particularly concerning as we approach the 2026 renegotiation of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA. CUSMA’s trilateral merchandise trade totalled $1.93 trillion in 2023. Our committee heard extensively from representatives of the supply-managed sector about their fears of further concessions and related erosion of their industry, and that is a concern we have to all listen to.

Our committee heard testimony from other sectors, and we received a letter on October 31, from which I will quote briefly:

If enacted in its unamended state, Bill C-282 would legislatively handcuff Canada and its trade negotiators. This would lead to our trading partners refusing to engage on key topics of vital interest to Canada. Specifically, CUSMA contains key provisions that can be put at risk if Canada’s trade negotiators are handcuffed. Some of the clearest examples are the dispute settlement chapter, rules of origin provisions, labour standards provisions, environmental commitments, provisions governing trade and energy, government procurement and intellectual property. These key strategic interests that Canada has protected through CUSMA are fundamental to the future success of the agreement. No special interest group is worth the onslaught of economic harm that Bill C-282 in its original form would bring to Canadian businesses and workers. We ask senators to put the collective interests of all Canadian industries first by rejecting Bill C-282 and to protect our future economic prosperity.

It was signed by Alberta Beef Producers, Alberta Canola Producers Commission, Alberta Cattle Feeders’ Association, Alberta Chambers of Commerce, Alberta Grains, Alberta Pulse Growers, BC Association of Cattle Feeders, BC Grain Producers Association, Beef Farmers of Ontario, BC Cattlemen’s Association, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, Canadian Canola Growers Association, Canadian Cattle Association, Canadian Oilseed Processors Association, Canadian Pork Council, Canadian Sugar Institute, Canola Council of Canada, Cereals Canada, CropLife Canada, Fertilizer Canada, Grain Farmers of Ontario, Grain Growers of Canada, Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, Pulse Canada, Manitoba Beef Producers, Manitoba Canola Growers, Manitoba Crop Alliance, Manitoba Pulse and Soybean Growers, National Cattle Feeders’ Association, New Brunswick Cattle Producers, Nova Scotia Cattle Producers, Ontario Bean Growers, Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers, Prairie Oat Growers Association, Prince Edward Island Cattle Producers, Saskatchewan Cattlemen’s Association, Saskatchewan Heavy Construction Association, Saskatchewan Pulse Growers, Saskatchewan Trucking Association, SaskOilseeds, Sask Wheat, Soy Canada and Wheat Growers Association.

Okay, so that’s quite a number of people who have written to us about their concern.

Following on that, Ambassador Fried, who spoke to our committee, also reminded us that trade is reciprocal. If we signal a protectionist stance by legislating an exclusion, other nations could respond with similar restrictions on Canadian exports, raising costs for consumers and restricting our access to global markets. The timing could not be more pressing, as we see a worldwide shift towards protectionism.

Roland Paris, a professor of international relations at the University of Ottawa, warned us that this bill comes at a critical and challenging moment as the global trade environment grows more uncertain.

As Ian Burney pointed out, we risk limiting Canada’s negotiating power precisely when it is most needed. The original language of Bill C-282 would impose unique constraints, tying our hands in ways the other countries avoid. We heard at committee that passing this bill in its unamended form now, amid heightened protectionist sentiment in the U.S., presents a strategic and tactical error.

Former deputy prime minister and former minister of foreign affairs John Manley, along with others, intimated that the unamended bill is like putting a bull’s eye on the supply-managed sectors or waving a red flag, signalling to our trading counterparts that this is where Canada is sensitive and perhaps inadvertently bringing them into the spotlight during negotiations.

In light of these risks, our committee proposed and passed an amendment to the bill. This amendment specifies that Bill C-282’s restrictions will not apply to agreements already in force or under renegotiation, nor to any ongoing negotiations. This amendment is crucial to preserving Canada’s ability to respond strategically to new trade scenarios as they arise. Without it, we risk limiting our capacity to pursue trade agreements that balance the interests of all sectors across the Canadian economy.

Colleagues, studying Bill C-282 enabled us to reflect on how we balance the protection of key sectors with the flexibility needed for our broader economic well-being. While we understand the importance of supporting supply-managed sectors, the committee’s amendment ensures that we do not attempt to do so by compromising our position in current trade negotiations or future renegotiation of existing trade agreements. The most significant and urgent is the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, with the U.S. and Mexico. The amendment safeguards Canada’s long-term economic resilience in a rapidly changing world. It allows us to pursue our strengths as we and the world transition to a net-zero emissions future.

Honourable colleagues, I am proud to be a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and I am particularly proud of the fair, respectful, thorough, independent and even-handed way we conducted our review of this highly politicized bill. Colleagues, I encourage you to support the committee’s report and the amended version of Bill C-282, understanding that this amendment is essential to ensuring Canada’s trade flexibility remains intact. It is a prudent and balanced choice designed to support the vitality of Canada’s economy, the future prosperity of Canadians and to protect our reputation as a free and fair trading partner. Thank you. Wela’lioq.

Honourable senators, I’m pleased to speak to the fifteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade dealing with Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act.

Before I get to the substance of my remarks, I would like to further address the issue which was raised earlier today of the government’s representative role in the Senate with regard to expressing government policy on non-government bills. This is a practice that is not unprecedented, frankly, nor is it uncommon over successive parliaments.

Senators, over the years there have been a wide range of bills that the government has vocally supported in the Senate including Bill C-210, legislation to make our national anthem more inclusive, sponsored by our former colleague Senator Lankin, and legislation to restrict junk food advertising to children. More recently, I spoke in favour of Bill C-291, sponsored by Senator Batters, which I was glad to see receive Royal Assent.

In other cases, the government has opposed certain bills like Bill C-34 earlier in this session. In the forty-third Parliament, I also outlined the government policy concerns on other private members’ bills including Bill C-204 dealing with the final disposition of plastic waste and Bill C-208 regarding transfers for small businesses and farms.

Colleagues, in some cases, government support was so strong that where the legislation failed, it was reintroduced as government legislation, including Bill C-337 on sexual assault training for judges and Bill C-262 on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Back in the forty-second Parliament, my predecessor worked with former senator Vernon White for the government to take up Bill S-225 dealing with fentanyl through the regulatory process so this important measure could be properly implemented.

The government, through the Government Representative Office, or GRO, here in the Senate, has consistently taken proactive interest in all legislation and has often worked with Senate sponsors to secure government support. Indeed, I believe Senator Manning worked with Minister Ien and officials on amendments to legislation on intimate partner violence, which has now been adopted — happily so — at report state, an issue that my office and I pushed for the government to consider in a serious way.

Let me also quote from Senator Harder’s paper entitled Towards an Independent Senate: A progress report to Canadians published at the tail end of his tenure as government representative:

 . . . some groundbreaking legislation initiated by Senators, known as Senate public bills, did become law this session with support from the House of Commons. In many cases, the Government worked collaboratively with Senators to develop the legislation into its final form. These bills included legislation to end the captivity of whales, dolphins and porpoises for entertainment purposes; to impose liability for foreign human rights abuses (known as the Magnitsky law); and to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation. Furthermore, a Senate public bill to ban the chemical precursors to fentanyl spurred regulatory changes.

Colleagues, it is my role to represent the government in this chamber. When I speak on a private members’ bill, it is safe to assume that is because the minister and cabinet have been briefed up and the ministry has made a policy decision on that bill. The process is not always quick, but we try to get positions as quickly as possible in terms of where the government stands and how to cast our GRO votes.

It is not abnormal for the government, accountable to the House and Canadians, to have an interest in the laws of Canada. The government is not a disinterested actor when it comes to our laws. What would be peculiar would be the opposite: For the GRO, a team which has an accountability linkage to the government and through that to the voting public, to withhold from the Senate the position of the government on significant policy changes to Canadian laws. For the government to be agnostic or disinterested would be, as we say back East, passing strange indeed. Senators ought to know where the government stands on important matters.

You will note, senators, that we always cast a vote on behalf of the government when called upon. We don’t exit the chamber or withhold the government’s view if a view has formed. In some cases, we will do more and we will explain the policy perspective of the government in greater detail through a speech, which I will be doing today.

Finally, I would say I am more active these days on these matters because there are more private members’ bills at the tail end of their time through a very lengthy passage through Parliament, and it is because we are so near the end of this session that the government may feel more strongly about private members’ bills that it supports getting to Royal Assent and not back to the other place, which, frankly, has not been terribly functional for some months now.

For some of the private members’ bills that the government supports as drafted, regardless of which political party or partisan affiliation present it, the time to act is now because otherwise they will die on the Order Paper.

It is in that spirit, colleagues — and thank you for your indulgence for my long introduction — that I address the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

The report recommends amending the bill in a way that the government cannot and does not support. Therefore, respectfully, I will be urging my colleagues to oppose this report so that the bill can proceed to third reading in its original form.

To be clear: Bill C-282 supports the vital goal of ensuring the ongoing strength, stability and sustainability of Canada’s supply management system.

This bill is not a technical amendment. It represents a fundamental commitment to preserving a system that has served our country’s agricultural sector, rural communities and consumers for more than 50 years. It’s about preserving the livelihoods of our farmers, protecting the long-term viability of our agricultural industry, and ensuring that Canadian families continue to have access to safe, affordable, high-quality food produced by local farmers. At its core, this bill is about the economic stability and well-being of Canadian families, who depend on a stable food system that provides them with nutritious, locally produced food. These values transcend political or partisan affiliations, economic theories and regional considerations.

As has been mentioned before, this bill already received the overwhelming support of 262 elected members of Parliament in the other place, representing all political parties and regions of the country. This included the leaders of the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and the Green Party.

This is not a small achievement. This broad support reflects a national consensus across all regions of Canada, from members of Parliament in urban centres to those representing rural and agricultural communities. Members of Parliament from every political party have come together because they recognize the vital role that supply management plays in maintaining the stability and prosperity of Canada’s agricultural sector, and I would suggest this is even more important than ever before.

This is a policy that has been proven to work. It is a policy that sustains family farms, generates tens of thousands of jobs and is a critical source of food supply, both domestically and internationally.

To understand the importance of Bill C-282, we can reflect on the success of Canada’s supply management system and why it has been such a critical element of our agricultural landscape for more than 50 years.

Supply management was set up to guarantee Canadian dairy, poultry and egg farmers a fair price for their products. Under this system, farmers are paid on the basis of production costs, rather than fluctuating market prices. This ensures they get a fair, stable income. In return, it creates a stable food supply for consumers, reduces volatility in food prices and guarantees that Canadian products meet some of the highest food safety and animal welfare standards in the world.

In 2021, the Canadian dairy, poultry and egg sectors generated nearly $13 billion in farm-gate sales, which helped create more than 100,000 direct jobs across the country. That is no mean feat. When we consider the scope of these numbers, we can see how essential supply management is to the Canadian economy and to the livelihoods of tens of thousands of Canadian families. It is an industry that supports local communities, strengthens the rural economy and guarantees Canadians access to nutritious, high-quality food at fair prices.

This system has worked for over five decades, creating a stable environment in which farmers can plan for the future without the constant threat of market volatility or unfair competition from foreign producers who do not operate under the same standards. The success of supply management is a testament to the resilience and adaptability of our agricultural system.

We, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility to listen to the people of this country who have made their views on supply management heard loud and clear.

According to Abacus Data, a staggering 94% of Canadians believe that it is important for food products to be produced by farmers who operate under Canada’s system of supply management. Let me repeat that: 94% of Canadians support supply management.

This overwhelming public support speaks volumes. Canadians understand that supply management means that the food they eat is produced to the highest safety standards, that it comes from farms committed to the ethical treatment of animals, and that it is priced fairly for both producers and consumers.

Canadians also appreciate the stability that supply management provides. When you ask Canadians what they want from their food system, they consistently answer that they want food that is produced locally, by farms that are part of their community, and they want assurances that it meets the highest standards of quality, safety and animal welfare. Supply management guarantees this, which is why it garners such widespread public support. This level of public support should serve as a strong signal to us all.

Colleagues, the benefits of supply management are national in scope. They are not confined to a single region of Canada. From Quebec to the Maritimes, from Ontario to the Prairies, every province in Canada has a stake in maintaining and strengthening this system.

Let us consider, for example, the province of Quebec — the province that I call home — which is home to some of Canada’s most successful and sustainable dairy, poultry and egg farms. In Quebec, the dairy industry alone contributes over $7 billion to the provincial economy and supports tens of thousands of jobs. These farms, many of which are family-owned, are a crucial part of the provincial economy and the foundation of rural prosperity. In Quebec, supply management is more than just a policy; it is a lifeline. It enables farmers to earn a fair price for their hard work and provides stability to local communities. Without it, many Quebec farmers would be unable to sustain their operations, and the economic fallout would be felt across the province.

But Quebec is not alone in benefiting from supply management. Across this country, supply management has been instrumental in sustaining local jobs, maintaining food quality and ensuring the viability of family farms. In Nova Scotia, small family farms benefit from stable prices. In Ontario, poultry processors rely on a system that guarantees a stable supply of high-quality products. In Alberta and the Prairies, supply management helps ensure that farmers can continue to compete in an increasingly globalized market.

All regions of this country, whether large or small, urban or rural, benefit from the stability and predictability that supply management offers. By keeping local markets strong, we are investing in the long-term health of Canada’s agricultural sector.

You may be wondering why we need Bill C-282 if supply management is already entrenched in Canada’s agricultural policy.

The answer is simple: Bill C-282 protects what we have now by clearly enshrining it in law.

While successive governments have defended supply management in trade negotiations, including during the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, and have committed not to expand market access for supply-managed products in future trade deals, Bill C-282 takes this a crucial step further. By formally amending the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, this bill ensures that supply management remains a cornerstone of Canada’s agricultural policy well into the future.

This is not merely a matter of political rhetoric. It is a matter of concrete legislative action. By passing Bill C-282 into law, we are putting into law the commitment to defend and protect supply management to ensure its stability in the face of global market pressures, international trade negotiations and the challenges posed by changing market conditions.

I am sharing all this because the context surrounding supply management is an important backdrop to the bill and indeed to the report we are currently studying.

This bill was sent to committee on April 16 of this year, and the committee began its study on September 25. The committee held nine meetings. I attended all of these meetings and listened as the witnesses gave their opinions on the issue.

What seemed clear to me throughout the study is that the bill will help protect our cherished supply management system.

I want to note, colleagues, that during the committee’s study, it was mentioned by some around the table that the bill did not receive proper, thorough study in the other place. Allow me to note that, in fact, it was studied far more extensively than the impression that has been given by some. This bill is nearly identical to the former Bill C-216 from the previous Parliament. Bill C-216 was supported by the government at second reading. Bill C-216 was then studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade, which heard from a variety of witnesses, including officials from Global Affairs Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and a constitutional law expert. They also 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 other place without amendment. It then, however, died on the Order Paper due to the timing of the federal election.

The bill in front of us today — Bill C-282 — was then introduced in June 2022 by the Member of Parliament for Montcalm, and it was studied at the same House committee as its previous version, Bill C-216. The committee heard from 45 witnesses, again including those from both the supply-managed agricultural sector and the export-oriented agricultural sector, as well as others including academics. Amendments were considered and ultimately rejected by the House committee at that time.

The bill as drafted was clear in its intent to both reflect and effectively entrench the government’s policy commitments around supply management, 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 country that has a major interest in our supply management market. To support this amendment would be to support gutting this bill’s aim.

As all of us have noted, this bill has garnered a lot of attention. Just yesterday, in the other place, the government stated once again that it supports the bill in its original form because it will protect supply management, as well as our dairy farmers, poultry farmers and other Canadian farmers, and ensure their economic well-being.

Colleagues, we know that all trading nations use trade agreements to strongly protect certain sectors. Legislation is a more effective way to safeguard key national priorities from international influence. For example, the Investment Canada Act allows Canada to block foreign direct investment when we consider it to be in our national interest or when we consider a certain resource to be important to the domestic supply. Supply management was not designed to protect an “economic sector,” but, as a national food security priority, it should be protected from being traded away by any future government. In addition, the Export and Import Permits Act contains provisions that control the export or import of specific goods and services that may be necessary to protect Canada’s economic interests.

In closing, please, let us remind ourselves of what Bill C-282 is really about. This is a bill that protects family farms, ensures food sovereignty, supports local food production and guarantees fair pricing for consumers. It strengthens Canada’s agricultural sector while shielding farmers from unfair international competition. It secures high-quality, locally produced food for all Canadians and guarantees that our farmers remain competitive in an increasingly globalized world.

This bill is a statement that Canada’s food system is not a commodity to be traded away in international agreements, but is rather a vital part of our nation’s identity and future. It is a commitment to the future of our farmers, rural communities and food security.

Colleagues, for all the reasons I’ve articulated, I will be voting against the committee’s report. Bill C-282, in its original form, is a bill that not only protects supply management, but also secures the long-term future of Canadian agriculture. Let us ensure that the next generation of Canadians continues to benefit from the stability, fairness and prosperity that supply management provides.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Senator Gold, will you take a question?

Yes, of course.

Thank you. Senator Gold, I want to ask you this to correct the record on something that you said today and also on the last day we sat. You stated on both occasions that you delivered a speech in support of Bill C-291, the private member’s bill I sponsored in the Senate.

Senator Gold, I certainly appreciated you expressing the government’s support of Bill C-291, but that didn’t actually happen through you giving a speech in support of it. You may recall, if I remind you about this, what actually happened in October 2023 was that you gave a speech on a government bill, Bill S-12, regarding sexual offender registration. In your speech, you referenced a coordinating amendment in that bill that dealt with Bill C-291 and briefly spoke about that. Following your speech that day, I asked you about that reference to the Bill C-291 coordinating amendment in Bill S-12, and you took the opportunity in answering my question to clearly express the government’s support for Bill C-291.

Does that context refresh your memory about what happened in October 2023 in that your speech was actually about a government bill, not about this private member’s bill, Bill C-291? In October 2023, Bill C-291 was still waiting to be dealt with at the Senate Legal Committee.

Thank you for prodding my memory. I wish I could tell you that it brought back everything to clarity, but I stand corrected if I gave the wrong impression.

What I said most recently, Senator Batters — and this is the best my memory can do — was that I spoke in favour of Bill C-291. My recollection is simply this, and I say it again for the record: I was pleased to see that that bill proceed through our process. I was very pleased to see that it received Royal Assent, and I stand by that. Thank you for clarifying this old guy’s poor memory.

Yes, of course.

I am not happy to hear that you feel uncomfortable. I will try to make you feel better. First, I spoke at second reading to support the bill and I suggested, or rather I promoted the idea that I would like the bill to go to committee for review, so I was clear about the government’s opinion and position on this bill. It was pretty obvious, given that the Prime Minister, all cabinet members and nearly all Liberal Party members voted in favour of the bill in the other place.

With all due respect, I do not deal in rumours or gossip for any reason. You spoke about the government’s point of view, when I don’t know anything about that. It’s obvious that the deadline for the so-called ultimatum has passed, and the government remains convinced and still continues to support this bill.

I don’t know whether answering your question like a doctor trying to make you feel better was the right approach, but honestly, the government has always supported this bill. I rose to speak at second reading. I attended the committee meetings to make sure I understood all the issues, and now, I’m representing the government by putting forward its position on this bill as amended.

I was a little surprised to hear Senator Miville-Dechêne use the word “pressure.” We weren’t supposed to be put under any pressure, but it seems that the government is applying pressure now, considering that the Prime Minister recently said: “We are in the process of making sure it passes in the Senate.”

Can you explain the connection between “making sure it passes in the Senate” — words spoken by the Prime Minister — and the “pressure” apparently being put on senators?

I have not put any pressure on anyone here. It is normal for a minister who sponsors a bill or the government representative to share his opinion, either in the Senate or by talking directly with senators. It is normal and healthy in a democracy.

That is all I can say about this. I have no way of insisting, forcing a quicker passage or even choosing the result. It is up to the chamber to decide. My role is very simple. It is to present the government’s point of view. This bill has the support of not only the government, but also the leaders of all the political parties and the vast majority of elected members.

I said “you,” but I was not necessarily talking about you personally. Are there other people in cabinet, such as ministers or the Prime Minister, making calls, pressuring people, as the Prime Minister has indicated? He did say, “We are in the process of making sure it passes in the Senate.” I assume there must be some rather active and positive pressure tactics, right?

With respect, we are all adults here. If a minister decides to call or speak to an MP or one of our colleagues, it’s not about applying pressure. It’s about sharing opinions.

With all due respect, if you are saying that this is inappropriate for an elected official who sponsors a bill, or for a minister who wants to see a bill pass, or that an elected official has to keep quiet because we, as lawmakers, are so fragile that we can’t discuss different points of view, then, as a lawmaker in this noble chamber, I would feel a little disheartened.

I had the same question as Senator Miville-Dechêne, about feeling uneasy. The senator answered it.

I just want some information. You gave your support to this bill, on behalf of the government, at second reading. That was before April, and we completed second reading on April 6.

Since then, a number of things have happened, including the election of a new president who will be back in office in January. In addition, the American ambassador here in Ottawa gave a speech in which he strongly criticized this bill.

Am I to understand that your speech today represents the government’s position, despite the upcoming change of administration and despite the warning from the U.S. ambassador?

You’re right. The government continues to support this bill as it was received here in the Senate prior to being amended.

As I have said before and will say again, I won’t comment on what the government might do in the months to come. All I can say — and I’ll try to do this in my own way in my speech — is that this bill represents an important policy, supply management for our farmers. Here in Canada, we’re proud of this system, and the government is ready to defend our interests, which are very important.

I don’t think we are doing this to be macho or selfish. We are doing it because we have no intention of capitulating if and when American negotiators and others take an aggressive stance against our farmers, our producers.

Again, I don’t want to exaggerate, but the Government of Canada is proud of our supply management system and wants to enshrine that protection and that policy in a bill. The bill was studied and adopted by a significant majority of elected representatives. Our committee did a great job with its study. The government still disagrees with the amendment, which would render the bill useless. The government does not wish to make supply management that vulnerable.

Senator Gold, if this bill goes through unamended and then, down the line, there is an accord to negotiate away part of supply management, wouldn’t someone be able to do that using a notwithstanding approach and say, “Notwithstanding this particular bill, we’re negotiating this away”? Would that bill not still come back to Parliament for final approval?

I think of all the rules we have here — where we have all sorts of rules — and people are constantly saying, “Notwithstanding Rule X or Y, we’re going to do this.”

Senator Cardozo, not to invoke the great poet Percy Shelley, but in “Ozymandias,” nothing lasts forever. Bills can be passed, amended, repealed and changed.

I cannot speculate on what will happen in the future or what a particular government would do if a negotiation took place that gave rise to a reconsideration of whether supply management should continue to be protected.

It is the position of this government at this particular time — and one shared by many others, though I don’t want to overstate that and certainly want to make my comments in a respectful way to those who disagree — that this is the appropriate measure to take to protect supply management, and the future will unfold as it does. This government or a future government, if it decides to reconsider, would have the ability to come back to Parliament with a proposal to alter or amend the law as it sees fit.

For the moment, the position of this government is that this bill should be enacted into law without amendment.

Senator Gold, Bill C-282 is An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. It’s not specifically about whether we support supply management.

You’ve identified the various witnesses that did a thorough review in the House of this bill and the previous one. Did they ever talk with trade experts, given that this is a trade matter, and trade negotiators in particular?

I didn’t participate in the studies of the other bills in the other place, but I did attend all the sessions of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, and it heard many views. It heard from many negotiators and many others, including academics and experts, those for and those against the bill as it was. As a result, I think it was a thorough study.

I expressed this in committee, so perhaps I’ll say it in the chamber: It is simply not the case, colleagues — despite rhetoric to the contrary — that this is only a bill about trade and not a bill about supply management.

With respect to every witness who started their testimony by saying, “Of course, we all love supply management; however . . .” I’m not totally persuaded that fully reflected their views. Toward the end of the session, witnesses were a little bit more forthcoming and said things like, “We think supply management is a terrible thing,” “We pay too much for milk,” “We pay too much for eggs,” “We’re not competitive” and “What about Saputo?”

We heard a lot of that, and I respect those opinions, though I don’t share them.

I think this is a bill about whether or not in our trade negotiations we should be protecting this particularly vulnerable sector and a system unique to Canada that has served us well.

Honourable senators, it is now seven o’clock. Pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I am obliged to leave the chair until eight o’clock, when we will resume, unless it is your wish, honourable senators, to not see the clock.

Is it agreed to not see the clock?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Hon. the Speaker: I hear a “no.”

Honourable senators, leave was not granted. The sitting is, therefore, suspended, and I will leave the chair until eight o’clock.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)