That unelected senators should not overrule the will of the House of Commons has always struck me as a rule most Canadians could agree on, whatever they think ought to happen with Canada’s upper chamber. Senators can propose amendments to bad bills, rake ministers over the coals at committee, call witnesses the House wasn’t interested in for whatever reason, raise red flags that haven’t yet been raised, all to the good. But gutting a bill, as the Senate has done with proposed legislation that would protect supply management in Canadian dairy, poultry and eggs even more than it’s already protected, is not kosher.
Not all violations of this policy are equally appalling, however. When the House of Commons is clearly not operating for the benefit of Canadians, when its focus demonstrably isn’t the public good but rather coddling and currying favour with special interests, it behooves the Senate to intervene as strenuously as possible while still at the end of the day respecting the lower chamber’s democratic legitimacy.
Coddling and currying favour is exactly what C-282, a private member’s bill from Bloc Québécois Luc Thériault, does: It proposes to make it illegal for a future government to lower the tariff rate for foreign products in supply-managed industries. You could call it the “no to cheaper groceries act.” Some senators wish to neuter it, such that it wouldn’t apply to any existing trade deals or deals already in negotiation. Bloc Leader Yves-François Blanchet had originally demanded the bill passed as one condition of keeping the Liberals afloat (although his deadline to do so has passed).
Fifty-one MPs of 338 opposed the pricey-groceries act at third reading. I would have said “only 51” except that’s a shocking number: 49 Conservatives and two Liberals, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith and Chandra Arya. It’s almost reason for hope … except of course that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre voted for it, and has vowed to protect Big Dairy just like every other party leader. It goes without saying that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau not only supported it, but has come out against the Senate’s amendments.
“We will not accept any bill that minimizes or eliminates the House’s obligation to protect supply management in any future trade agreement,” Trudeau reassured Blanchet in the House on Wednesday. “ No matter what the Senate does, the will of the House is clear.”
it’s a perfectly absurd thing for a bitterly divided House of Commons to agree on, but this is all par for the course. The timing, though, is remarkable: It’s all happening just as the second Trump administration seems prepared to go to war on trade. If there were ever a time for Canadians to let the scales fall from their eyes and consider the benefits of a somewhat more open market, this is surely the time. (Independent Senator Clément Gignac has said he supports supply management, but worries about Bill C-282 poking Washington in the eye.)
Martha Hall Finlay, the former Liberal MP who’s now chair of the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, published the seminal work on supply management and Canadian politics in 2012. She compellingly demonstrated that while Big Dairy’s lobbyists may be the most fearsome and successful on Parliament Hill, at the end of the day few Canadians are going to vote on this issue. Those that will are concentrated in a few ridings in Quebec and Ontario, and even there they don’t have a huge amount of clout relative to people who don’t work in supply-managed agriculture.
It’s received wisdom in Ottawa that you can’t fight Lactosa Nostra, but received wisdom in Ottawa is very often wrong.
Since 2012, the case for being terrified of the dairy vote has only weakened. In August 2012 there were 12,557 dairy farms in Canada, according to government statistics. Now there are just 9,256. In 2012 there were 22,055 “dairy farm operators,” described as “persons responsible for the management decisions in (the farm).” Just 10 years later there were 25-per-cent fewer.. The total number of dairy-farm jobs has remained fairly stable over the past few years, but it’s only about 32,000 people — constituting 11 per cent among all agriculture industries, most of which don’t enjoy this kind of trade protection.
And again, no one in politics has even tried to sell Canadians on cheaper, better and more variety in milk, butter, cheese, poultry and eggs. It really shouldn’t be difficult. The mechanization, automation and consolidation that explain these declining numbers should lead to cheaper agricultural products — and they have, in the United States. The overall inflation rate over the last 20 years in the U.S. means what cost $1 in 2004 costs roughly $1.61 today. But over that time price of American dairy products went up by less than half, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In Canada, though, the price of dairy products has increased higher than the overall inflation rate, by 56 per cent over the last 20 years. You don’t win any prizes for guessing where all the extra money goes: anywhere but into your wallet. There’s a reason the Saputo family is one of the very wealthiest in Canada, and it’s certainly not because they make world-beating cheese. Will the House of Commons never set us free?
National Post
[email protected]
Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.