The Bloc’s supply management trade bill is getting a rough ride in Senate – MASHAHER

As the House of Commons debated the Bloc Québécois’ demand for an increase to pensions for younger seniors this week, the dysfunction driving the second condition in Bloc Leader Yves-François Blanchet’s ultimatum was hiding in plain sight.

During question period Wednesday, Blanchet reminded the House that Bill C-282 — a Bloc private member’s bill that would prevent Canadian trade negotiators from giving up any more concessions on Canada’s highly protected dairy, egg and poultry sectors — has been in the Senate for “a year and a half,” and accused the “illegitimate” Red Chamber of “leading the prime minister around by the nose.”

“It is his senators, the ones he appointed, who are standing in the way,” the Bloc leader said, reminding Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that his job is on the line. “Will he instruct them to respect democracy and our choices as elected representatives?”

“The Senate is independent and it is doing its job,” Trudeau replied, referring to his decision as Liberal leader to remove senators from his caucus, and the non-partisan process he initiated for appointing senators. “We are going to allow democracy to function without interference. However, we have always been clear. We will defend supply management.”

Ever since Blanchet added this bill to his list of conditions for supporting the government on a future confidence vote, International Trade Minister Mary Ng has been insisting the Liberals aren’t stonewalling. 

The facts back her up. When C-282 cleared the Commons easily in late June, 2023, only two Liberal MPs joined 49 Conservatives in opposing this bill.

The Bloc presented its legislation as a logical extension of the mandate the government already has set for trade negotiations — to protect supply-managed agriculture sectors (dairy, eggs, chicken and turkey) from losing any more of their domestic market share to foreign competition.

The party is framing the bill (particularly in rural Quebec, where the Bloc will duke it out with Conservatives in the next election) as a proxy referendum on the sacred cow of Canada’s marketing boards.

But private member’s bills passed by the House are not prioritized on the Senate’s agenda — which helps explain why it’s so rare for non-government legislation to become law.

Taking a year even to refer this bill to a Senate committee for study may seem like slow-walking. But it’s not unusual — senators are entitled to pursue an eclectic array of their own priorities so long as they expedite government bills.  

When a private member’s bill lands before a Senate committee, there’s little the Liberal government can do to ease its passage without — as Trudeau put it — interfering. Trudeau’s representative in the Senate, Marc Gold, is an ex-officio member of Senate committees and participates in deliberations, but he can’t dictate how they roll.

The early ride for C-282 has been pretty rough.

Ex-diplomats at the wheel

“I oppose the bill,” said Ontario Sen. Peter Boehm, a former diplomat, as the Senate foreign affairs and international trade committee heard from its first witnesses on C-282 on Sept. 25.

“I do not think it is in the national interest to pass it, as it divides the agricultural community across the country and will have implications for future trade negotiations, particularly in the context of the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) in 2026.”

As chair of the committee, Boehm isn’t participating in debates. He’s also declining media interviews. But he’s been very clear about where a private member’s bill stands on the priority list for a committee that’s also in the middle of two major studies on sanctions and the future of the foreign service, and recently started a third on Africa.

“If people haven’t noticed, there are a few wars going on,” Boehm said, after the Bloc MPs appearing as witnesses accused the Senate of stalling. “We’re doing our best to have these hearings now. They will be full and complete.”

Boehm’s vice-chair is a former deputy minister at Global Affairs Canada (GAC). Sen. Peter Harder served as a senior official under both Liberal and Conservative governments and was also appointed as an Independent.

Harder’s grilling of C-282 witnesses made his disdain for the bill obvious.

“Are you saying that our negotiators haven’t done Canada well?” Harder asked its Bloc proponents, questioning why other economically significant industries — like automotive or steel — wouldn’t also be worthy of special protection.

“I’m very concerned about this bill,” he added.

When farmer representatives appeared as witnesses at the next meeting, Harder asked why this bill would use a “sledgehammer… to protect [their] interests at the expense of others.”

In question period Thursday, Bloc agriculture critic Yves Perron called Boehm and Harder “unelected wannabe kings” and accused them of deliberately blocking a bill supported by a majority in the House.

“We cannot allow two unelected senators — emphasis on ‘unelected’ — to decide, between naps, to threaten Quebec agriculture,” he said.

Tying trade negotiators’ hands

Boehm and Harder aren’t the only ones raising red flags.

“The speed and popularity of this bill, depending on the region, depending on the House, certainly has raised alarm bells for me,” said Ontario Sen. Marty Deacon. “It raises concern that this bill is good politics but not good policy.” 

Senior officials at GAC offered similar warnings in their testimony before the Senate committee.

“The passage of the bill would certainly narrow the range of concessions that could be made to reach an agreement,” said Doug Forsyth, GAC director general for market access and trade controls.

“I think it would be reasonable to expect future negotiating partners to adjust their own approach to negotiations with Canada, which would very well limit our opportunity to maximize the overall commercial significance of new trade agreements.”

Forsyth said he made the same point when the House studied this bill.

“Honestly, all of our trading partners are watching,” Forsyth said. “I don’t know how the U.S. will react to it, but I can’t imagine that would be positive.”

Newfoundland and Labrador Sen. Mohamed Ravalia asked whether a protectionist bill like this could undermine Canada’s ability to negotiate future deals to open markets for Canadian exports.

“It could,” Forsythe replied. “It’s a risk that this would happen.

“If you were to start removing things from the table, they may take things off the table that are of interest to you.”

Government officials told senators on the committee that agriculture accounts for about two per cent of Canada’s gross domestic product. Most of that is export-oriented crops and livestock, not supply managed products for domestic consumption.

Farmers resent being ‘trade currency’

Nova Scotia Sen. Mary Coyle said asking hard questions about the merits of this bill doesn’t indicate a lack of support for supply management.

Other witnesses who testified on Sept. 26, including longtime critics of supply management, said the conversation about C-282’s merits should be kept separate from the long-running debate over dismantling dairy, egg and poultry quotas.

But B.C. Sen. Yuen Pau Woo also questioned whether supply managed agriculture is really vulnerable. He noted that even though the dairy sector lost market share to foreign competitors in recent deals, cash receipts and operating income went up over the last decade.

“It seems to me they are doing quite well, even under the so-called concessions,” he said.

Tim Klompmaker of the Chicken Farmers of Canada appeared before the committee to support the bill. He said his sector wants assurances it won’t ever again be “trade currency to get something across the line.”

Klompmaker agreed “there is a bit of tension” in the agriculture sector over C-282 but suggested the division isn’t “as big as some are led to believe.”

“I think you are getting different mail than I am,” Ontario Sen. Gwen Boniface said.

Phil Mount of the National Farmers Union said this division in the agriculture sector is being “manufactured by folks who have ideological reasons for creating division.”

In the second half of that committee hearing, export-oriented farm groups from the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance (CAFTA) warned that passing this bill would signal Canada isn’t sitting down to bargain in a serious way.

“This bill is already bringing negative U.S. attention to our trade policy at a time when we should be working to reduce irritants, not deepen them,” CAFTA executive director Michael Harvey said.

“Canada should never be at the vanguard of enshrining protectionism. It never ends well for us,” said CAFTA president Greg Northey. “We can see what’s happening right now with the [canola] issue, with what we have done with [Chinese] EVs.”

Would C-282 really threaten future deals?

Proponents of the bill have latched on to reports that Steve Verheul — the now-retired chief trade negotiator who led Canada through the NAFTA renegotiation process — said future trade negotiations won’t be affected by this bill.

In fact, Verheul’s remarks at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture’s meeting last winter were more nuanced.

The question put to Verheul was whether C-282 was an effective way to defend supply management.

“From a negotiator’s perspective, you never want to go to the table and immediately take things off if you can avoid it, because the other side, of course, has an opening to take things off on their side,” he replied. “But when you start those negotiations, each side always has its red lines. They’re usually not a surprise.”

Verheul said he sees the bill more as “a political signal of support.” He noted that Canada already has deals with the world’s major dairy exporters — the U.S., New Zealand, Australia — and there’s “no imminent threat” to Canada’s market.

“I think the era of the big negotiations is probably over for the foreseeable future,” Verheul said. “I don’t expect it’s going to have a huge impact on what limited negotiations we have going forward.”

At the conclusion of the committee’s second meeting, Sen. Boehm, the chair, said he’d noted several senators wishing they had more time with witnesses. He said the committee would be continuing its hearings on the bill.

Its meetings this week, however, have focused on its Africa study. Private lobbying may continue, but it’s not evident this committee is responding to Blanchet’s Oct. 29 deadline with any sense of urgency.

“The Senate has its own particular dynamics,” Employment Minister Randy Boissonnault, who represents an Alberta riding, told reporters Tuesday. “If every single senator wanted to speak on a particular legislation, they could have up to an hour to talk about it, and you add that many hours … it really drags out the process.” 

That’s why, Boissonault said, it can take a year or more for a bill to become law. So do the Liberals now regret the changes they made to the Senate?

“Not at all,” Boissonault said, adding the independent Senate has been productive. “[It’s] the most collaborative relationship we’ve had with the Senate in a long time.”