Honourable senators, I rise today as a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to speak to the fifteenth report on Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management).

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Senator Boehm, the chair of our committee, for his steady and thoughtful leadership throughout the review process. Navigating the complexities of trade policy, particularly as it intersects with supply management, is no small feat.

I would also like to thank our colleague Senator Gerba for her advocacy as the sponsor of this bill.

I recognize that supply management is a cornerstone of Canada’s agricultural policy, which ensures stability for our dairy, poultry and egg farmers by regulating production, controlling imports and maintaining fair prices for consumers. For provinces like my own, where agricultural production may not match the scale of other regions, supply management plays a vital role. It supports rural communities, secures the livelihoods of small farmers and guarantees access to high-quality, locally produced products for Canadians. As our colleagues have thoroughly discussed, this is particularly important.

That said, colleagues, as the committee has aptly noted, Bill C-282 is not about supply management. Rather, it addresses how Canada approaches trade negotiations on the international stage. This distinction is critical.

While supply management protects our domestic agricultural sectors, this bill seeks to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. This distinction is highlighted in Senator Deacon’s observation, which clarifies that this is fundamentally a trade bill, not a direct endorsement or critique of supply management. This bill is not about revisiting or redefining Canada’s long-standing commitment to supply management. Instead, it restricts Canada’s ability to negotiate on the international stage.

The amendment introduced by Senator Harder is particularly critical considering the current global political climate. Trade negotiations are inherently complex and require a level of flexibility to adapt to unforeseen challenges and shifting priorities. As we have seen in recent years — and perhaps more so in recent days — trade can quickly become a political tool, with significant economic consequences for nations that lack the agility to respond effectively. Uncertain global trade dynamics, including the potential for new tariffs or protectionist measures by key trading partners, underline the importance of preserving Canada’s ability to negotiate effectively. As we have heard in committee, trade agreements are not static; they are dynamic instruments that must reflect both domestic priorities and global realities.

The amendment ensures that Canada is not unduly constrained by rigid rules that could inadvertently undermine our ability to protect broader national interests. By allowing exceptions for existing agreements, renegotiations and ongoing trade discussions, the amendment provides a necessary safeguard. This flexibility ensures that our negotiators can respond to new and emerging threats, whether it’s tariffs, global supply chain disruptions or evolving international trade norms, while still upholding the principles of supply management.

For Canada, maintaining credibility as a reliable trading partner is paramount. Sudden or inflexible changes to our commitments could erode trust with our allies and trading partners, particularly in critical markets like the United States, Europe, Mexico, the U.K. and Asia. At the same time, we must defend the protections that sustain our domestic industries, such as supply management, which is fundamental to the stability of Canadian agriculture.

This amendment strikes a delicate balance. It acknowledges the importance of supply management while ensuring that Canada has the diplomatic and strategic tools necessary to navigate an increasingly unpredictable global trade environment.

Honourable senators, in times of uncertainty, preserving our capacity to negotiate freely and responsibly is not just prudent; it is essential to safeguarding Canada’s economic and strategic interests on the world stage. Given the long arc of trade complexity, my hope is it will bend toward logic and common sense.

Thank you, colleagues, for your dedication to this important issue and for your continued efforts to maintain a strong and balanced legislative framework for Canada.

Thank you. Meegwetch.