Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I'll just note that I have a lot of respect for Mr. Baldinelli—I'll say that clearly and publicly. I note it's with a lot of consistency that we hear, pretty much at every meeting, strong affirmations about Conservative support for the supply management sector, yet in the same meetings, including right now, we have efforts to amend the bill to make it weaker and less supportive of that very same sector the Conservatives purport to support.
I would strongly indicate that if you inject discretionary language into lines 8 and 9 of clause 1, as Mr. Baldinelli's amendment does, it would effectively make supply management optional. It would give the ability to any government going forward, of any political stripe, to effectively sacrifice our supply-managed sectors.
That is not what we are seeking to do with this bill. I don't think that is what any party was seeking to do when it voted in favour of this bill at second reading. I frankly find it a bit surprising that the Conservative Party, or at least Mr. Baldinelli, is attempting to do that very thing with this amendment.
Now, I would just point out for clarification for the record, and for anyone at home who's watching House of Commons committees, that the notion of hearing at an additional meeting from further trade experts was mooted by Monsieur Savard-Tremblay in a motion he formally presented at the last meeting, which I proposed to amend so that it would be crystal clear that we could spend one of the two meetings Monsieur Savard-Tremblay proposed on hearing from further trade experts—exactly what Mr. Baldinelli just mentioned. The Conservative Party then filibustered the vote on that motion. I find it a little less than ideal that they're raising that same issue they obstructed at the last meeting.
I'll end my comments there. The Liberals will be voting against CPC-1.
Thank you.