Debates of March 9th, 2021

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Measures to Support Canadian Workers

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Huron—Bruce.

Oscar Wilde said that a cynic is someone who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing, and that perfectly encapsulates this government. The Liberals knows the price, the very high price, that they have made Canadians pay, but they confuse that high price with value. Instead of judging our performance in government during COVID based on the mortality rates, the unemployment rates or the vaccination rates of our country, all of which are among the worst, they think that they should be rewarded just because their programs are the most expensive. Today they were literally bragging that their programs are big and fat—not smart and effective, but big and fat, and not as a means to an end but as ends in and of themselves.

One would think that we would judge the value of the government's actions by, for example, the percentage of people who have been vaccinated, but if the Liberals did that, of course, we would find that Canada is the worst in the G7. They might want to judge the performance of the government on jobs on the basis of the unemployment rate, but of course if they judged the value of their actions on that basis, they would again find Canada worst in the G7, so instead the Liberals tell us not to worry about the value of their performance but to congratulate them simply because they have delivered this bad performance at the highest possible price. They are literally like a used car salesman's dream. They show up and they say, “Give me the most expensive car on the lot. The make, model and condition do not matter. I want whichever one will add the biggest bill to my credit card, because that must be the best one.”

What if other countries thought like this? Taiwan, for example, has a COVID mortality rate of 0.04 per hundred thousand. We have a mortality rate of 59 per hundred thousand. In other words, our mortality rate here in Canada is more than 1,400 times higher than in Taiwan, but that does not matter, because Taiwan has a smaller deficit. Taiwan's deficit is 4% of GDP, whereas ours is about 17% of GDP. The Liberals would say that their plan and their performance is three times greater because it is three times more expensive. Can members imagine the Taiwanese people holding a protest and saying, “Sure, you kept our mortality rate down, and sure, fewer people died, but you were not as expensive as the Canadian Liberals, so you obviously do not care as much as they do.” That would be how the Taiwanese people would look at their success in managing COVID if they were judging simply on the basis of how expensive their government could be. However, this is the approach the Liberals have taken on everything.

Let us take infrastructure. The Parliamentary Budget Officer found, when he looked, that the $180-billion infrastructure program that the Liberals have been bragging about has no associated plan. Now, we know it is the best, because it is the most expensive. The government brags all the time that it is twice as expensive as the previous government's infrastructure plan, and therefore it must be twice as good. When I asked how we could spend $180 billion without a plan, the then infrastructure minister stood up and said something to the effect that “Well, we got 20 buses in Halifax”, to which I replied, “How much does that work out to per bus? Are they all made out of solid gold?”

Then we went over to the finance committee, and I asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer if he had seen a list of the projects that had been funded through this $180-billion plan. He told me that, yes, they had a list, but it only accounted for half the money spent. I said to him that if I came home after spending a lot of money for groceries and said, “Honey, I want you to congratulate me; I have spent more money on groceries than anyone in the history of the world”, and if she asked what I had bought and I said that I only had receipts to account for half of what I had spent, I can tell members that I would be sleeping in the doghouse that night.

The reality is in most human existence, people do not judge their performance by how expensive they can be. They judge it by what they get for their money. They judge their success by the value they obtain, not just the price they pay. Only in government would we advertise ourselves as the most expensive product around and expect to get more business. Imagine a restaurant operating that way. Come dine with us: the service is terrible and the food is not very good, but we charge more than anyone else, therefore we must be the best.

It is not just in infrastructure. In housing, for example, the Liberal member for Spadina—Fort York stood in the House and said, “We have a $70 billion housing plan,” as though we were supposed to congratulate the Liberals because it was really expensive, not because of what it does. What has it actually delivered? Vancouver is now the second most expensive place on earth to buy a house, if we compare average income to average house price. Toronto is number six. We are one of the most sparsely populated nations on the planet. We should be the most affordable place to buy a home but somehow, under the government, housing right here in Canada has become one of the most expensive things to buy anywhere in the world.

Think of this. Singapore has a life expectancy over a year longer than Canada. It ranks better than us on the United Nations Human Development Index. Its government costs 14¢ for every $1 of GDP. In Canada, it is 41¢. Ireland, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Australia, the U.K. and New Zealand all outranked Canada on the United Nations Human Development Index even though the cost of their governments, as a share of GDP, is less than here in Canada.

In other words, they delivered some combination of longer life expectancies, more schooling and/or higher GDP per capita for their populations at a lower cost. That is because they judge success based on value, not on price. They do not go around bragging that they have the most expensive programs around. They work to make their programs successful in delivering results for people.

Here in Canada, we could do the same if we would stop bragging about the billions we can push out the door, saying, “My program has more billions than your program”, for example, and start talking about the good the programs could do. We should unleash the power of our free enterprise system to deliver more for less and make life more affordable for people, including for taxpayers. That would be a new and different approach by which we could judge success in this place. Perhaps when we judge things by the right metric, which is to say value, rather than the wrong method of price, then we would get better results and a higher standard of living for people.

For a house to be affordable, it cannot take up more than one-third of a family's income. The average house takes up 50% of the average family's income in Canada. In other words, the average house is two-thirds more expensive than the average family can afford here in Canada, one of the most sparsely populated places on earth. We have more spaces where there is no one than we have places where there is anyone.

According to a leading poverty group, in the home town of the member bragging about the $70 billion worth of spending the Liberals have done on housing, there is 98% occupancy in homeless shelters, and 330,000 people are on waiting lists for affordable housing. Ten thousand homeless people are in that member's home town. Where did the $70 billion go? Maybe if he doubled that budget, there would be twice as many homeless people. That is what happens when success is judged not based on what is done, but on what it costs other people to do it. If we think it is impossible to get more for less, look at other countries that do exactly that.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I enjoy the interventions by this member. They are quite entertaining. I am just glad he does not charge admission, because I would probably keep coming back and paying more and more to see this all day.

His problem with talking about the mortality rate is that he had to dig all the way down to Taiwan to find an example that would fit his narrative. However, when he talks about the unemployment rate and everything else, he always compares us with the G7.

My question is as follows. Why will the member not compare the mortality rate in his example with the countries in the G7? It is obvious that it is because we have the second-lowest mortality rate in the G7.

Would the member at least recognize that through the great work of Canadians across the country, and through the work this Parliament has done by working together to provide programs for Canadians, through unanimous consent quite often, we have achieved so much for Canadians, and indeed helped the quality of life during this pandemic?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will remark that the member said he would keep paying more and more for my speech. That was exactly the point of my speech: Liberals will pay more and more for anything. Luckily, I believe in free speech, and that is why my speech was free today.

On the question of the stats, the member talked about mortality rates. New Zealand, South Korea, Australia, Japan, Iceland, India, Norway, the UAE, Denmark and Finland all have lower unemployment and lower COVID mortality rates. They did a better job of protecting lives and livelihoods. That, and not how expensive we can make it for present and future generations, is how we should judge success.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

We have not had a federal budget since the spring of 2019. Quebec, the provinces and the territories all tabled a budget in 2020. What is more, Quebec has decided to table another one soon, in March. All of the G7 countries except Canada have presented a budget.

As my colleague quite eloquently pointed out, the Liberals went on a spending spree and now they are congratulating themselves for it. However, that is not necessarily the way to help people. In regions like mine, there are still people and businesses that are falling through the cracks, which is why sector-specific help is important. That is what I like about the Conservatives' motion, because needs differ from one sector to another.

I would like the member to tell us why sector-specific help is important.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her good question.

First, the government did away with balanced budgets. Second, it decided to do away with all budgets, not just balanced budgets. Why does the government not want to table a budget?

Usually governments love budgets because they present an opportunity to publish all the results, all the promises and all the work they are doing for Canadians. Usually, surveys show that there is a major increase in support for governments that table a budget, but this government does not want Canadians to see how it is ruining our public finances and what kind of trouble our country is in. That is why the government does not want to table a budget.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was particularly interested in the section of the member's speech about affordable housing and how Vancouver had become one of the most expensive places to live in Canada.

I would note that it was during the Conservative government's time that tax loopholes, and the use of real estate as a tax haven and as a place to launder money, drove up real estate prices in Vancouver. We are feeling it here in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. We also have predatory investors who are investing in affordable housing: real estate investment trusts that pay a very low tax rate.

Does the hon. member think we need more regulation in the housing market? Does he think we should have rent and vacancy—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to give the hon. member an opportunity to answer.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would simply point out that far left politicians at all three levels of government have been driving up housing costs in all our big cities for a very long time to the advantage of the very rich and at the expense of the very poor. The last thing we need is for those very same far left politicians to do any more of that.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have limited time and debate will come to an end pretty quickly, but I have a few key points to summarize the debate. Maybe the riding I represent best exemplifies some of the realities. It really has been the best of times and it has been the worst of times.

The riding of Huron—Bruce, the entire western shore, borders on Lake Huron. During the COVID pandemic we have had a tremendous uptick in tourism. People have come from all over the place to rent cottages, buy cottages, develop real estate and stay at hotels. It has been one of the biggest booms of all times, with four wheelers, boats and RVs, a very prosperous times.

On the other side, some restaurants are forever damaged financially as well as banquet halls and subsidiaries such as rental shops that support weddings. Also, different companies provide shuttle services to the airport in my area and tour bus operators, all of which have been damaged permanently. Years and years of toil and hard work have been obliterated in the matter of a year.

In northern Ontario, tour operators who maybe have a resort or a fishing lodge have been decimated. I talked to a tour operator today, who said that they would be able to make it through this year, but that it would be game over at the end of 2021 for many if they did not receive support. We need to be mindful that for some it has been very good times and for others it has been absolute desperation. This is why we will need further supports.

There has been a lot of talk today about airlines and support. We need to look no further than what is going on at Air Canada to see all the moves it has made to try to stay alive. The money from the wage subsidy is called survival. Air Canada did a stock issue, debt, did all sorts of different things with airplane deliveries, but the airlines will need some financing to re-establish routes and rebuild the 10 years worth of networks or their business models will be forever changed. For example, we heard earlier today about two airports in Saskatchewan, one in Saskatoon and one in Regina, and about all the flights that had left.

The CEO of Porter Airlines made something very clear, and it really highlights one of the huge failures of the Liberal government. The United States vaccinates more people every day than have been vaccinated in our entire country. That is absolutely unacceptable. That will forever be a mark on the government going forward and when the next election comes, there definitely will be a focus on what happened. Another thing he mentioned was the head-scratcher going on at our major airports regarding quarantine, but being able to cross at land border crossings.

Porter was going to start flying March 29, but because of this, it will may be the middle to the end of May because of the actions of the government, not ours, and these were his words and not mine. Anybody who has been to Toronto can see those airplanes taking off from the island airport what seems like every two minutes, but it has not turned a propeller in almost a year. These are the things we are talking about today.

Air Canada has let go 20,000 people. There is not one town in my riding that has 20,000 people. That is 20,000 people who do not have a job and would love to get back to work.

The other issue is around financing. If we go back, we will remember that the government left out credit unions. It is as if it had not even heard about credit unions. The credit unions and the opposition parties had to fight to ensure they were able to also offer CEBA loans to their customers. They had calls from all sorts of colleagues, from chambers and business improvement areas, wondering why the big charter banks were able to offer these loans but credit unions were not. Going forward, we have to ensure we fight for credit unions.

The other thing I wanted to mention was Community Futures. It is a government-backed organization and there are two offices in my riding, Bruce and Huron, and just over in Grey, there is Saugeen. They provide tremendous loans to small businesses and quite likely to those who need it the most and they are the fastest and most effective.

If we think of the motion we have presented today, I do not really look at it as a political motion. It is not meant to drive a wedge between one another. To me, it is a summation of things that we need to do to help not all businesses, but those that need it the most. We cannot do that if we do not have a budget. The businesses know, the associations know, the chambers know what needs to be done.

Last, on charities, I would suggest, and a lot of people would support this, that we look at the deductibility for people giving to charities. A lot of people across the country have a charity they love. They want to support them and maybe even give them some lifetime savings or inheritance. Maybe if there were a little extra enticement to give, they would do it. The great thing is that the money stays local. It stays in their community. Instead of having a large government decide, it would allow them to direct it to their food banks, to women's shelters or to wherever they feel it would do the best.

We all need to work hard in the House to support and defend those people who put their finances on the line each and every day. We need to do something to ensure they are supported, not just for survival but for the revival of their businesses.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forth every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 10, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m. so we can start Private Members' Business.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Notice of Closure Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth]

Madam Speaker, I unfortunately need to give notice that with respect to the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), at the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 24, 2020, consideration of the motion that Bill C-216, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has moved six motions in the House since 2005. Those six motions were not adopted on division; they were adopted unanimously. That means that everyone was in favour of those motions, which had to do with protecting supply management. However, there have still been breaches in the system.

All of the agreements that have been signed recently have created breaches: the agreement with Europe, the Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and CUSMA. Every time, the government tells farmers that this is the last time and that this will not happen again, but then the next agreement creates more breaches.

Every time, the government promises farmers that it will properly compensate them for their losses. However, every time, farmers either do not receive any compensation, they are late in being compensated or they receive only partial compensation, and all that after they have already spent several years fighting for it. That is unacceptable and it has to stop.

Today, every single party here is solemnly swearing to protect supply management. One simple way to prove that is to vote in favour of Bill C-216. There are members and political parties in the House that promise to defend supply management, but then they go and say things like, “This does not mean we have to support a bill that would close the door on any future opportunity for growth”. In other words, they are promising to protect supply management, but they are still keeping it handy as a wild card they might choose to play in future negotiations. That is not cutting it any more. People are sick of these promises.

Farmers are asking us to look beyond the political party that introduced the bill and focus on whether it is good for people. I, too, am asking for a non-partisan approach. That is what folks in the agricultural sector want us to do.

Last week, we toured the regions of Quebec and met with farmers from each region. They spoke to us passionately, from the heart, and told us that they needed this kind of legislation. At the same time, we released a video featuring representatives of all the federations under supply management: Mr. Gobeil of the Producteurs de lait du Québec; Mr. Loyer and Mr. Bilkes of the Canadian Hatching Egg Producers; Mr. Chalifoux of the Conseil des Industriels laitiers du Québec; Mr. Fontaine of the Chicken Farmers of Canada; Mr. Leblanc of the Éleveurs de volailles du Québec; Mr. Bouchard of the Fédération des producteurs d'œufs du Québec; Mr. Ference of the Turkey Farmers of Canada; Mr. Pelissero of the Egg Farmers of Canada; and Ms. Cloutier of the Conseil de la transformation alimentaire du Québec. It was fairly unanimous.

Also last week, Mr. Groleau of the UPA wrote a letter to every party leader in the House of Commons, pleading with them to pass Bill C-216, which is fundamental and very necessary.

I am making this humble request on behalf of regular folks who are not here to speak for themselves. I am speaking for them. They are at the end of their rope. They are sick of promises, of having to fight, of having to push, of struggling to keep their head above water for years just to get a small cheque that will not cover all the losses they have suffered.

Farmers are proud, strong and reliable. They want to do decent, honourable work feeding people. They have no use for compensation cheques. What they really want is to keep working under the wonderful system that they set up and that is working very well.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill C-216, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act on supply management. I am speaking from the traditional territory of the Kwanlin Dün First Nation and the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. minister is rising on a point of order.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth]

Madam Speaker, I apologize to the member for Yukon, a dear friend and an amazing, hard-working MP.

I wish to inform the House that Thursday shall not be an allotted day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-216, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, this bill proposes to amend section 10 of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, which sets out the powers, functions and duties of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. More specifically, the bill proposes the addition of a provision that would prevent the Minister of Foreign Affairs from making any commitment in an international treaty that would have the effect of:

(a) increasing the tariff rate quota, within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Customs Tariff, applicable to dairy products, poultry or eggs; or

(b) reducing the tariff applicable to those goods when they are imported in excess of the applicable tariff rate quota.

For those watching at home, basically what that means is that we would not grant any further market access to dairy products, poultry or eggs in future trade negotiations.

I appreciate the opportunity the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel has provided me to reaffirm the government's support for supply management. Supply management is the pillar of Canada's rural and economic prosperity that our dairy, poultry and egg producers rely on. We have heard them clearly, and we want to keep our supply management strong and sustainable well into the future.

Faced with the difficult economic situation created by price instability and fluctuation in their incomes nearly 50 years ago, a Liberal government established with farmers this system that now sustains farming families and rural communities across the country. Canada's supply management system has since ensured fair prices for farmers, stability for processors and high-quality products for consumers at reasonable prices. The system contributes significantly to rural prosperity.

The dairy, poultry and egg sectors generated almost $12 billion in farm-gate sales in 2019 and accounted for over 75,000 well-paying jobs in production and processing activities. For these reasons, our government continues to vigorously support Canada's supply management system. Looking forward, our government has made it abundantly clear that Canada will not provide any new market access for supply-managed products in future trade agreements.

In fact, we demonstrated this commitment recently when the government announced the conclusion of the negotiations on the trade continuity agreement with the United Kingdom. This agreement would ensure continuity of access to Canada's third-largest export market, but would provide no new access for imported dairy, poultry or egg products.

Moreover, we believe that protection for supply management is strengthened through enhanced transparency in the conduct of trade negotiations. We welcome the involvement of the public, stakeholders and parliamentarians in Canada's trade agenda provided by the updated policy on tabling of treaties in Parliament. The updated policy enhances reporting obligations to Parliament for new trade agreements and provides additional opportunities for members of Parliament to review the objectives and economic merits of new trade agreements.

With respect to the impact of recent agreements, in the Speech from the Throne this government renewed its commitment to fully and fairly compensate producers and processors of supply-managed commodities, including dairy, poultry and egg farmers. We are delivering on this as well.

Over the past two years, our government has invested $2 billion in support of Canadian dairy producers. Of this, $1.75 billion has been made available to compensate supply-managed dairy farmers across Canada and $250 million to help producers prepare for market challenges through the dairy farm investment program, including modernization of their installations and improvement of animal welfare. Because dairy producers depend on strong dairy processors to market their milk, we also invested $100 million to help processors invest in new technology and stay on the cutting edge and increase their capacity. We have also allocated $691 million for 10-year programs for Canada's 4,800 chicken, egg, broiler-hatching egg, and turkey farmers. Responding to sector demands, these programs will drive innovation and growth for farmers.

With the ratification of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, we will take the same approach. We are committed to working in partnership with supply-managed stakeholders to address the impacts of the new NAFTA on their industry.

During the negotiations of CUSMA, Canada faced strong American calls to completely dismantle the supply management system. They applied intense pressure, but we succeeded in preserving the system. I congratulate our negotiators and ministers for succeeding in preserving the system with its three pillars, namely, production control, pricing mechanisms and import controls, and in concluding the agreement.

This success is further evidenced by our government's commitment to preserving the integrity of the supply management system so it can continue serving future generations of hard-working Canadian farmers.

The government knows the value of supply management. We were the party that put in place supply management in Canada 50 years ago, and we are defending it from those who want to see it dismantled. Supply management supports Canada's dairy, poultry and egg sectors. We will keep delivering for agriculture, while also continuing to pursue our ambitious, inclusive trade agenda.

Prior to the pandemic, trade accounted for nearly two-thirds of Canada's economy and supported more than 3.4 million jobs. Trade can help our economy rebound from the pandemic. Indeed, Canada is the only G7 country with a free trade agreement with every other G7 country. Every day Canadian companies benefit from the trade and investment opportunities created by 14 trade agreements that cover 51 countries. As a result of these agreements, Canadian businesses and exporters have access to 1.5 billion customers worldwide. In particular, I am excited by the work we are doing on egg quotas for Yukon and other provisions to ensure our egg export ability.

These comprehensive and inclusive deals protect our interests while levelling the playing field internationally, helping Canadian businesses in all provinces and territories compete and succeed in global markets. For example, the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement provides continued market access security for $58.9 billion in annual exports from Quebec to the United States. In addition, it provides stability for workers who rely on well-paying export-dependent jobs, including in the aerospace, heavy trucking, agricultural and apparel industries.

Similarly, by eliminating tariffs on nearly all of Quebec's exports to the European Union and key markets in the Asia-Pacific region, including Japan and Vietnam, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, CPTPP, have created new opportunities for key sectors, including metals and minerals, which is so important for my riding; agriculture and agri-food; and forestry.

This is in addition to other trade agreements with Latin America, Europe and Asia-Pacific that give our farmers and businesses tariff-free access to 1.5 billion consumers in some of the world's fastest growing economies.

To conclude, the government continues to ensure that our businesses and import supply chains remain resilient by diversifying who trades, where people trade and how they trade while preserving Canada's supply management system, including its three pillars.

The Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade have repeatedly assured Canadians that the federal government will not provide any new market access for supply-managed products in future trade agreements.

Let me finish by reiterating the government's unequivocal commitment to maintain supply management as a pillar of strong and sustainable rural prosperity into the future.