Honourable senators, I’m certain everyone in this chamber has noticed that the sponsor of the bill, Senator Gerba, and the main critic, Senator Harder — who agreed during second reading to replace Senator Plett in this capacity — are both members of the same parliamentary group but are acting as the main spokespersons for opposing positions on the same bill. I don’t believe that has ever happened in the Senate. Indeed, until 2015, that would not have been possible in a Senate that has, since 1867, essentially been a duopoly between the Liberal and Conservative parties, which have alternated between the government and opposition positions, depending on election results. Not only has the current Senate broken this duopoly by having four parliamentary groups, but three of these groups are unaffiliated with any recognized political party. Like its original model, the House of Lords, our institution is evolving.

As leader of the Progressive Senate Group, I would like to thank Senator Gerba and Senator Harder for all their efforts to explain their reasons for taking opposing positions. They were able to put forward their respective beliefs in a spirit of mutual respect, which is such an important value. We all benefited from hearing different arguments that enriched the debate. I would also like to point out that the fact that the sponsor and the critic are members of the same group demonstrates the high degree of independence of each of the senators in the Progressive Senate Group, a characteristic of which I am proud. I would add that this has never affected our group’s ability to run smoothly or to have quality discussions.

I would also like to thank Senator Boehm for leading an in-depth study for the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Liberalizing market access and preserving a strong Canadian agricultural sector are complex issues that deserve serious consideration.

I will now turn to my reasons for voting against the report, not as leader, but as an independent senator from Quebec.

First, the fact that the Bloc Québécois has introduced a bill to protect supply management is not in itself a reason to reject it or delay its consideration. In other words, contrary to some of the comments I’ve heard, the separatist convictions of Bloc Québécois members should play no part in the careful scrutiny we give this bill in this place.

For the record, Bloc Québécois members are not the first to have introduced bills to protect supply management. In fact, the first attempt dates back to November 4, 2004, during the Thirty-eighth Parliament, with the introduction of Bill C-264, entitled “An Act for the recognition and promotion of agricultural supply management.” It was introduced by the Liberal MP for Kitchener—Conestoga, Lynn Myers. This same bill was reintroduced in 2006, during the Thirty-ninth Parliament, by the Honourable Wayne Easter, a Liberal MP from Prince Edward Island.

In short, Bill C-282, like all other private members’ bills, must be assessed on the basis of its purpose, content and impact, not on the basis of its author’s constitutional views.

It is imperative that, as senators, we assume our constitutional responsibility of scrutinizing bills and, for those who, like me, support the current role of the Senate, that we do this independently from political parties and elected members. This is especially true for bills drafted by members who were unable to benefit from the expertise of the public service and have a draft drawn up by legal experts at the Department of Justice and an analysis done by the departments, the Privy Council Office and cabinet. On that, I agree with Senator Woo’s comments. For this type of bill, the Senate must not hesitate to propose amendments that seek to sincerely correct material mistakes, to clarify any real ambiguities or to truly improve the attainment of the objective of the bill. The members in the other place must understand and respect that role.

Second, I am mindful of the level of support this bill received in the other place. I would remind senators that the Bloc Québécois members hold a small number of seats in the House of Commons, 33 out of 337 to be exact, or barely 10%. This means that no bill introduced by any Bloc member can reach the Senate without receiving support from at least 136 other members. At third reading, Bill C-282 received the support of 262 of the 313 MPs who participated in the vote, including the leaders of the Liberal Party of Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party and the Green Party.

The fact that this bill received such broad support shows that it is seen to be in the interests of the entire country. I am also taking into account the fact that the bill had and still has cabinet’s support.

In an October 4 letter to all members of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and all the Senate group leaders, the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, the Honourable Mary Ng, said that this bill “was rigorously reviewed and debated by cabinet.”

I also want to point out that, on November 20, the Prime Minister stated the following in the other place:

The reality is that the Senate is doing its job and is looking at the bill. We will not accept any bill that minimizes or eliminates the House’s obligation to protect supply management in any future trade agreement. We have been very clear on that. No matter what the Senate does, the will of the House is clear.

The Prime Minister went on to say the following:

Mr. Speaker, I have often met with senators and will continue to do so. I want to be absolutely unequivocal and very clear about this: We will always protect supply management, whatever the opinion of the august senators.

Lastly, I take note of a letter dated November 26, sent to all of us and signed jointly by the ministers and members of every recognized party in the House of Commons, except the Conservative Party of Canada, which reaffirmed the need to pass the original version of this bill.

Third, I will vote no to this report because adopting it will send a message that this Parliament is strongly divided on the need to protect our supply management system.

In other words, adopting this report will send the signal to the U.S. negotiators, those other countries like the U.K. or Europe that the Canadian Parliament is not committed to protecting our supply management system, and that these countries could successfully insist on further concessions on access to the Canadian market for their dairy products, eggs, chicken and turkey.

In fact, adopting this report would put our country and our able negotiators in a weaker position than if no bill had been introduced in the House of Commons.

Fourth, I will vote no to this report because I believe that it is legitimate for a country — indeed, even a duty for every country — to adopt measures that protect, as far as possible, its ability to produce food locally for its citizens instead of becoming increasingly reliant on foreign sources.

As stated by the National Farmers Union, food sovereignty is a matter of national importance. By refusing to further open access to our market for dairy products, eggs, chicken and turkey, Canada protects its ability to produce high quality sources of protein at home to feed Canadians instead of relying on foreign supply. As we saw during the pandemic, it is not desirable to depend on foreign imports for vital products.

As you know, further to the last negotiated trade agreements, about 18% of dairy products and 11% of chickens are now imported. Make no mistake, if new concessions are granted, the entire supply management system for dairy products will be at serious risk of collapsing. We will then lose an important sector of our food security.

Now moving to the fifth reason why I will vote no to the report, I see no difference, from a legal perspective, between adopting a stand-alone bill providing that the Government of Canada must not grant further access to foreign dairy products, eggs, chicken and turkey and amending the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, as proposed in this bill. The purpose is exactly the same: To protect domestic sources of food and, thus, preserve a higher degree of food sovereignty. We need to restrict further foreign access to the Canadian market for these products — dairy products, eggs, chicken and turkey. This is what Bill C-282 proposes.

Incidentally, this doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be improvements to the way the supply management system works within our borders. For one, I was shocked to see huge quantities of milk being thrown away every year. I am also concerned by restrictions that prevent innovation. But these issues must be dealt with via improvements to the supply management system in place within our borders. Further opening our borders to foreign products is not the solution to address these concerns. It is, however, a way to jeopardize our food autonomy.

Sixth, I will vote against the report, considering that my primary constitutional role when studying federal legislation is to represent my province. I cannot vote without taking Quebec’s perspective into account when such perspective has broad consensus consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our Constitution.

Supply-managed production accounts for 35% of agricultural revenues in Quebec. The largest agricultural group in Quebec, the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA, whose president I recently met, insists that the bill be passed without amendment. So too do the various processing company representatives who purchase supply-managed products and who told me how much they appreciate the reliability of high-quality, supply-managed products and their predictable prices.

I also note that the Government of Quebec considers supply management a pillar of Quebec’s farm economy and of rural Quebec’s vitality. Successive Quebec governments have underscored the need to protect supply management from outside pressures, especially during trade negotiations.

I would also like to point out that the National Assembly has adopted no fewer than six resolutions in favour of protecting supply management in international trade negotiations. I will quote the one from March 10, 2021, which was unanimously adopted by the National Assembly, where there are several political parties with different agendas. The resolution reads as follows:

THAT the National Assembly recall that the agriculture sector plays a key role in Québec’s economy and regional development;

THAT it reaffirm its support for the protection of the supply management system for egg, milk and poultry producers;

THAT it ask the Government of Canada to fully protect the supply management model under future international agreements.

Finally, I note that, according to an Abacus poll conducted in November 2023, 92% of Quebecers believe that local production by farmers operating under supply management is either a very good thing or a good thing.

In fact, the only Quebec political leader opposed to protecting supply management is Maxime Bernier of the People’s Party of Canada.

For me, as a senator from Quebec, the choice is easy. I will vote against this report. Colleagues, I invite you to do the same exercise with regard to your province or the territory that you represent. For example, Ontario is the second-largest beneficiary of supply management. Indeed, in 2023, according to Statistics Canada, 22% of the total revenue in the entire agricultural sector in Ontario was generated through the supply management system.

In the Atlantic provinces, according to Statistics Canada, income from supply-managed products accounts for 76% of total revenues in the agricultural sector in Newfoundland and Labrador, 52% in Nova Scotia, 25% in New Brunswick and 16% in P.E.I. Supply management is considered vital for sustaining small-scale family farms in these provinces. The system ensures that these farmers receive fair compensation and that provincial consumers receive high-quality food for products locally produced. Protecting these farmers and consumers from the pressures of imported products fosters local economic resilience.

In British Columbia, in 2023, still according to Statistics Canada, 34% of farm cash receipts came from supply-managed products. It ensures that the substantial portion of B.C. farmers receive fair compensation for their products and continue to produce dairy products, eggs, chicken and turkey.

In addition, supply management aligns seamlessly with the ecological imperatives of our time, fostering shorter supply chains.

Incidentally, the same Abacus survey I referred to earlier shows that 94% of Canadians also consider it a good thing that food is produced by farmers within Canada’s supply management system. This is a percentage even higher than in Quebec, at 92%.

To conclude, I end as I began: by affirming the need for continued respect and independence in this chamber. The time has come to vote on this report, and let us acknowledge our freedom to vote as we judge best for our province, territory or region.

Thank you very much. Meegwetch.

Senator Miville-Dechêne has a question. Would you take a question, Senator Dalphond?

Yes, I’ll take a few brief questions and try to give some brief answers.

Throughout your speech, you tried to make us believe that those who are against the bill or those who have reservations about it are against supply management. However, you know full well that those are two different things.

People can agree with the idea of supply management but not feel that the bill is the best tool to protect supply management, given the risks that come with it. I can see a certain weakness in your argument.

Second, you refer to the 2021 resolutions protecting supply management, but the bill wasn’t in play then. There have been other bills, and they are all part of the backstory.

Of course, supply management is a system liked by the vast majority of Quebecers, including me, because it has all kinds of advantages, but you are talking about everyone who is in favour of supply management. The Quebec government has not taken a position on Bill C-282, if I’m not mistaken. In fact, I have not heard anything of the sort. Therefore, you can’t say there is unanimity in Quebec. There are different opinions, and you are perfectly entitled to your own, but I don’t think you can claim that those who don’t support this bill are against supply management.

Thank you for the question and comments.

Supply management relies on three things. The first is the control of production, which prevents surpluses that will cause prices to drop; the second is pricing; and the third is the control of imports.

Controlling imports is key to the supply management system. If you lose control over imports, that is the end of the system. This bill addresses one thing: additional concessions on imports. It protects the third element that makes up the supply management system. Without that third element, there is no more supply management; let’s not kid ourselves about that. Logically, all those in favour of maintaining the supply management system also have to be in favour of maintaining importation limits, because without that we would destroy supply management, our food autonomy and our food sovereignty.

Up to 18% of Canada’s dairy market production is now open to external markets. We know full well that there is a huge surplus of milk in the United States. Millions of litres of milk — gallons, as they call it — are destroyed in the United States. Wisconsin has excess milk production, so they want to have access to the Canadian market to send that excess milk here.

At what point will our system be weakened to the point of collapse? We are there now. All the farmers and all the organizations I met with say that 18% puts us in the critical zone. If we open up the borders even more, the system is finished. We can’t say we support the supply management system but we have to open up the borders. The two are incompatible. We have reached that point. The last time that the borders were opened, we paid compensation to the tune of billions of dollars to the dairy industry and other sectors. We have to draw the line, and this legislation does that: no more concessions on imports.

I have a supplementary question. During the last free trade negotiations — I attended a briefing about those negotiations with Chrystia Freeland — the negotiators did everything they could to protect supply management. You’re right that concessions were made, for which there was compensation. We don’t control 100% of the market. We control 82%. That doesn’t mean the end of supply management.

People can decide that they don’t like this. I know that it’s hard for dairy farmers to live with this lack of assurance. However, that is how many other farmers and producers live. Canada has many different types of agricultural production, including grains. It seems to me that supply management is essential, but it exists in a Canadian context where it is not the only lobby. I think it is really important to try to strike a balance. However, I don’t think that we can do that by saying that this bill is the only way to protect supply management, because the negotiators at the table have a mandate to protect supply management and they do everything they can. If all of this were to collapse because of different political factors, we will not be any further ahead, as you know.

I don’t know if you had a question or if it was more of a comment, but I can tell you one thing. The House of Commons adopted several resolutions calling on negotiators to not make any concessions. Despite the resolutions unanimously adopted in the House of Commons, concessions were made. This time, we’ve gone one step further and passed legislation to prevent the motions adopted in the House of Commons from being seen as nothing more than wishful thinking. In other words, yes, we are drawing a line in the sand, and the issue of market access in these four sectors will be off the table. Negotiators will have to talk about other things.

Last week, the President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture said it was too bad that certain groups within the federation, notably certain cattle producers associations, opposed the bill, but that the federation as a whole still supports it.

Honourable senators, I will be brief. I wasn’t planning to intervene in this debate, but I will briefly. I find myself in the unusual situation of being on the same page as Senator Dalphond, I have to say. I will be voting against the report and the amendments.

I just want to highlight the following: I know there are a lot of difficulties with supply management. It’s far from a perfect system, but it’s far and away the only system we have that has given food security to our country. It has supported an industry that has been facing a lot of competition from a highly subsidized U.S. agricultural sector. We can’t forget that. The Europeans, in a disproportionate way, subsidize their farming industry. The Americans do it as well. I think here in Canada, we have taken a different approach over many years. Yes, there have been some challenges from the perspective of the interests of the consumer, but by the same token, there has been, I think, a balance put in place.

Why was I compelled to say a few words? It is based on the questions that were being launched over by Senator Miville-Dechêne. I think we have to be very careful here. On a number of opportunities, the Americans have been trying to chisel down supply management. It’s been a point of contention for them in a bunch of negotiations.

The review of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, is right around the corner. We’re going to be opening up a review of CUSMA with a Prime Minister who is in a deficient position right now vis-à-vis a president who is in a position of strength and a very savvy negotiator. He and the Americans are looking for any opportunity to find a crack in the Canadian side. We all know there’s some political gamesmanship being played with Bill C-282, but at the end of the equation, if we show the Americans that we’re ready to bend before we even start the negotiations, and if we show that we’re ready to open up that crack because Parliament isn’t homogeneously and unanimously behind a strong defence of our agricultural sector at the start of the negotiations, then we’re dead before we get to the table. You always negotiate from a position of strength, not from a position of weakness.

I think we’re doing a great disservice to those who will be reviewing CUSMA next year. In the past, Canada has shown ample capacity to negotiate against the best American negotiators, but never before have we, at the outset of a negotiation, shown a Parliament that’s divided on this particular issue. That is what has happened. The House wasn’t divided because they understand the political complexity. The Senate has been divided because, with all due respect, we have not been in compliance with the political complexity and we have not had an understanding of the political complexity.

I just wanted to share that point of view. That’s why I will be voting against these amendments. Thank you very much.

We just realized Senator Housakos had proposed the adjournment of the debate on this report.

You had lost your right to debate, and I just wanted to mention this. However, I realized it a little bit too late.

Will Senator Plett take a question?

It is the witching hour, and we’re into entertainment, so we might as well be entertained.

I was trying to follow your logic in your speech, and somewhere along the way you lost me; I have to be honest. I want to return to some of the things you said in regard to the renegotiation of NAFTA, which is now CUSMA.

I was involved in that process. At the time, I thought it was amazing to watch the country come together from coast to coast: premiers; the business community; the labour movement; the government, including the opposition in the House of Commons. There was no division in the country about what was at stake for the country and what was at stake for working people, the agricultural sector and the industrial sector across this country.

Correct me — and people can look at the record in regard to what was said once the negotiations were finished — but almost every newspaper, every sector of society thought it was an amazing outcome, given we were dealing with a president who basically said he was going to rip up the agreement. We succeeded in renegotiating to improve things, which people did not think was possible.

As I understand negotiations, it is a two-way street. It is not a one-way street. I am at a loss to understand some of the criticism you have of the renegotiated last agreement in terms of the success I believe we achieved as a country, not just from where I sit, representing workers and being on the NAFTA Council — and, by the way, working with some of your colleagues whom I consider good friends: Rona Ambrose, Mr. Moore and a number of others who were involved in that process.

What I recognize is here we are: When president-elect Donald Trump takes office, he is going to again reopen the agreement, and we will be involved in the process.

The fundamental question I wish to ask you is this: I do not know what the failure was that you were speaking about, but, equally, I think it is fundamentally important for us to come together as a country, both in this chamber and in the other place, to recognize the danger, because so much of our exports are dependent upon Canada being successful and continuing to have access to that market. I would be honoured to hear you enlighten me about what the criticism was of the success of the last agreement.

And a Prime Minister he calls a governor.

With all due respect, I don’t think The Globe and Mail is left-wing media, unless you and I are confused about the role of The Globe and Mail.

In fairness to the last agreement that was negotiated — I speak on behalf of all Canadians — I think that, fundamentally, we did a good job given what we were facing. We did not ask for the renegotiations. President Donald Trump asked for those negotiations.

We had to defend our access to the United States market, and, fundamentally, we did a good job. I don’t think that that is worth criticizing. We got there because we had unity in our country to ensure we were speaking with one voice and working together to achieve the greater objective.

Would you not say that is the same approach that will ensure that we have success whatever the president decides he wants to negotiate when we get to the table should he decide he wants to negotiate?

We actually had tariffs imposed on our steel and aluminum industries, which, at the end of the day, never traded badly with the United States. We didn’t subsidize our industry, yet we had tariffs imposed by the president of the United States on those industries. We successfully used those tariffs. Our aluminum and steel industries are the most modern in our country and employ thousands of men and women across the country.

I do believe sometimes that as much as we have to engage, it is only fair to recommend and to suggest that we did good negotiations for our country. We succeeded at it. Every premier in the country would agree that we were successful in the last negotiation, despite the fact that you don’t agree.