Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: 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 would 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.