Colleagues, I know before the dinner break, out of respect for the rest of the work and other speakers, I was not going to take any further questions. I’m going to hold to that. But with your indulgence, I would like to correct the record because I misspoke on a couple of matters.

First, to clarify — and this shows how my memory can fail me twice — let me confirm that I did speak at second reading on Senator Batters’ bill, Bill C-291, in May of 2023.

However, I did not speak at second reading on Bill C-282, as I suggested that I did. Indeed, we in the Government Representative Office often wait until the later stages to weigh in. That said, the government’s position has not been ambiguous. The voting record speaks for itself.

With your indulgence, colleagues, for a second —

Senator Plett, on a point of order?

On the point of order, it is 6-5(3) of the Rules of the Senate:

A Senator recognized to speak may yield the floor to any other Senator for a question. The Senator asking the question retains the right to speak in debate at a later time, unless the Senator has already spoken. The time taken for any questions and answers shall count as part of the time of the Senator originally recognized. After the questions and answers, the Senator originally recognized may resume the floor for any time remaining.

Senator Gold, you have unlimited time. You may finish your intervention.

Thank you, Your Honour. I appreciate that.

In order to be clear, colleagues, as I feel a responsibility to be with you, I wish to speak frankly about some other aspects of answers I gave to some questions.

It was suggested in a question — again, I don’t want to put words in the mouths of my colleagues — but questions were raised about the political context of this bill.

It would be disingenuous to consider or pretend — if I gave that impression, I did not mean to — that the termination of the Supply and Confidence Agreement has had no effect on our collective behaviour in both chambers of Parliament and in all parties. That agreement, as we know, was designed to last until far into 2025, more than enough time for Bill C-282 to complete its journey through our processes.

The stability of Parliament was shaken, and so have expectations about the runway that is left. Behaviour has changed all the way around.

Parliamentarians are seeking — if not, indeed, scrambling — to bring their projects and initiatives to a conclusion; this is true of the government, but it is also true of the Bloc Québécois. It is also true about the other opposition parties who are fighting for swift passage of their own private members’ bills in this place. It is true of us in the Senate as we seek to complete a range of initiatives that senators care about.

Recently, colleagues, as some of you may know, I was pressed by Senate colleagues — and legitimately so — to ensure that Royal Assent on a handful of private members’ bills a few weeks ago could be achieved because there was a nervousness that good policy initiatives may falter were the session to end earlier than hoped.

To the extent we care about our work, it would be negligent not to push harder and faster as a result of the current increase in the volatility of this Parliament.

Our work is independent, colleagues. I cherish and value the independence of this institution. But it is not conducted in a silo. An independent Senate is not a Senate in exile from the other place.

Yes, there is more urgency on Bill C-282, but it is because the government supports it and wants it passed so that supply management can be maximally protected regardless of the outcome of the next election. The Bloc’s ultimatum is neither here nor there. That date passed and it is behind us.

What is not different now is that the government remains determined to pass Bill C-282 before the next election, whenever that may come. Again, if I gave a different impression, or I would like to say an incomplete answer, thank you for the opportunity to correct the record.

Colleagues, I won’t mince my words in denouncing the content of this report, which makes unacceptable amendments to a bill designed to protect supply management, an essential element in any trade negotiation with other countries. Our agricultural sector deserves to be protected with conviction and strength. Agriculture is a vital force in our country’s economy. I am extremely proud of it, which is why I cannot support any action, document or law that would create a trade imbalance.

Passing Bill C-282 as amended today would be tantamount to capitulating to the U.S. before we even began negotiating. This is not very cogent as a political position.

These amendments introduce flawed negotiating rules that could bankrupt Canadian producers and processors who have built their businesses over generations, much like what happened in Australia in 2000, when that country abandoned its supply management policy.

No matter how many times I read and reread the amendments to Bill C-282, I can’t figure out who we are trying to protect. Who will benefit at the expense of our dairy, egg and poultry producers? I’m looking for a logical business reason to justify why certain senators have done this, instead of accepting Bill C-282 as drafted.

I believe I previously heard, here in the Senate no less, when we set partisanship aside, that our role as senators was not to prevent a government from governing and that we did not have the legitimacy to change the will of elected members. At the time, that political statement spoke to me. Some seem to have forgotten.

To me, this report is all the worse because Bill C-282, as passed in the other place, represents not only the will of the elected government, but also the clear will of all political parties at the other place. Let’s admit that that is much more powerful than the simple legitimacy of governing.

I hope that you are all able to appreciate what we are going through. If you are anything like me, you will probably long wonder how and why this bill could be gutted and stripped of virtually all its meaning and its scope through a simple document.

We would be better off without a bill to protect supply management than we would be adopting Bill C-282 as amended. Bill C-282 as amended is much worse for our producers and farmers than no bill at all. It takes away negotiation options that nobody even asked for. Do you know what? My only hope is that we aren’t being manipulated for political reasons that the members of the other place didn’t want to express in public, probably for electoral reasons. I’ve learned that hypocrisy is often part of politics, but I’ll set those troubling ideas aside and continue with my arguments for why you should reject this report.

Let’s take another look at these amendments that completely undermine Bill C-282. First of all, the timing couldn’t be worse. With Donald Trump back in the White House, it’s clear that protectionism will be in the picture in 2026 when the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement is back up for negotiation. For those with short memories, let me remind you that our American neighbours have never let clear agreements prevent them from closing the border or taxing Canadian products to protect their own industries and workers.

Protectionism is not exclusive to the U.S.: Japan, China, France and the U.K. all protect certain sectors of their economies. Why can’t we be firm in showing them that we, too, are capable of implementing protectionist measures? Let’s not jeopardize one of our industries to fulfill some of their political promises. Demonstrating such courage starts today by rejecting the report in question, and especially by supporting the original text of Bill C-282.

I have negotiated a lot of contracts in my life, and I have never gone to the table with my tail between my legs. Those who know me a little better know that this is true. We have two former ministers here who might remember that. For me, that is the only way to avoid being taken advantage of. That is why, in my view, the proposed amendments to Bill C-282, as they stand, are an acknowledgement of our weakness. I will never accept that.

I’m not just opposed to these amendments because I’m from Quebec. I say this because some people have a nasty tendency to see supply management in Canada as a policy that was put in place to favour Quebec. Let’s be careful. Quebec is not the only province that is home to dairy, egg and poultry farmers. There are also dairy, egg and poultry farmers in Ontario, the Maritimes and Alberta, and they, too, care about supply management.

This agricultural sector is just as important to the Canadian economy as the wheat, automotive and aerospace industries. Supply management is what guarantees the continuous supply of quality products offered to consumers. It also guarantees well‑paid jobs in the processing industry. The changes proposed to Bill C-282 are dangerous, reductive and, in my opinion, anti‑Canadian. They must therefore be rejected without any hesitation. Thank you.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to, on division.)