I don't think you can square that circle. During these negotiations, when dairy was brought up—because dairy's the biggest part of the supply-managed sector—we always looked at the New Zealand model. In 1984 New Zealand went broke. The International Monetary Fund forced New Zealand to abandon supply management. In Australia, it was the same thing—they abandoned supply management. In both those countries, when they abandoned supply management, prices for local consumers went up. They have been forced to subsidize. New Zealand is a big contributor to the world's oversupply of milk, and yet they continually build new farms, eliminating sheep production in favour of producing more milk that's not needed on the world market.
The popular concept out there is that supply management causes high-priced food. That's actually not true. The difference between Canada and the U.S. is that in Canada you're paying full value for your food and in the U.S. you're not. The government is paying well over 50% of the value of the food. The only argument, for me, against supply management that holds any water is the fact that the disadvantaged in our communities, those who are struggling to get by and can't put food on the table, are still paying full price, whereas in the U.S. they aren't paying full price but neither are those who have no problem paying full price. Our cost of production is, in most cases, lower here. The difference is that you're paying the actual value, and it's really hard to square the circle to undercut supply management. There are only five supply-managed sectors because they're the only five sectors that can, 12 months of the year, supply 100% of the needs of Canada.