moved that Bill C-216, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that we have heard about supply management in the House. Every time that a motion is introduced on the issue, there is a unanimous vote and it seems that the matter is settled.
In fact, the House has already unanimously adopted three motions calling on the federal government to fully protect supply management. By all accounts, however, Liberal and Conservative governments were not bound by their commitment when they signed the last three free trade agreements, those with the European union, Asia-Pacific and the United States and Mexico. These agreements and the concessions that were made to reach them were catastrophic for supply-managed agricultural producers. Their revenues dropped by more than 8.4%.
Supply management has always been a key issue for the Bloc Québécois. This system was established in 1970 to stabilize the price of agricultural products and, at the same time, ensure a decent and predictable income for dairy farmers, table and hatching egg producers and poultry producers, including turkey and of course chicken.
During the time that the Bloc enjoyed a greater presence in the House of Commons and was strongly pushing for full respect for supply management, all free trade agreements with 16 different countries fully protected the supply management system. The strong pressure and numerous interventions by the Bloc made a difference.
The World Trade Organization, or WTO, was established with the goal of eliminating all tariff barriers, and the WTO considered supply management to be one of them. Protecting supply management became an even greater priority for the Bloc Québécois after the federal election that followed the system's creation in June 1977, as any occasion the WTO had to talk about it turned into a direct attack.
The Bloc Québécois was the first party to demand that the three pillars of supply management be maintained, in a motion moved by the former member for Richmond—Arthabaska, André Bellavance, in November 2005. I remind members that the House unanimously passed this motion. All parties in the House adopted André Bellavance's motion, which read as follows:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should give its negotiators a mandate during the negotiations at the World Trade Organization so that, at the end of the current round of negotiations, Canada obtains results that ensure that the supply management sectors are subject to no reduction in over-quota tariffs and no increase in tariff quotas, so that these sectors can continue to provide producers with a fair and equitable income.
This motion did not have unanimous support when it was moved, but it passed unanimously at the end of the day, after different groups of producers put pressure on their members of Parliament throughout the day.
Today the Bloc wants to go further than a motion and insert protection of supply management into legislation. We want to go further because the major Canadian parties in power do not seem to feel bound by the commitment that a motion represents. I suppose they think of it as more of a wish. We want protection of supply management inserted in a statute so that it is given force of law.
Then the governments, whether Liberal or Conservative, could no longer ignore their commitments to agriculture and the producers could see who really has their interest at heart. It is important to remember that in Quebec alone, dairy, egg and poultry producers represent 6,000 farms and 86,000 jobs.
With the exception of Ontario and Alberta, all of the other provinces have supply-managed producers so it would be disastrous if supply management disappeared.
I would like to talk about the bill that I am introducing on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. It is very simple. It amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to make the protection of the supply management system a responsibility of the minister. It adds supply management to the list of directives that the minister must take into account when conducting Canadian external affairs, particularly in the area of international trade.
Once the bill is fully implemented, the minister responsible for international trade will have to stand up to our trade partners and protect supply-managed farmers. The bill will make it part of the minister's mandate to negotiate without chipping away at the system, as he did when the three biggest international trade agreements of the past decade were signed. Of course, I am talking about the agreements with Europe, Asia-Pacific and the United States and Mexico.
Supply management is a Canada-wide risk management tool that is designed to protect agricultural markets from price fluctuations. By doing so, it guarantees a fair and stable income for farmers in exchange for their work and their products.
In Canada, only the markets for dairy, table eggs, hatching eggs, and poultry, meaning chicken and turkey, are under supply management. The system is based on three basic principles, often known as the three pillars. Dairy farmers used to give their elected representatives a little three-legged stool like the ones used for milking cows years ago. If an MP displayed that symbol on their desk, it meant they supported supply management.
The first pillar is production control via a quota system. Based on research about consumption, meaning consumer demand for dairy products, the Canadian Dairy Commission distributes quotas to each province, whose marketing boards or what are known as producer associations sell quotas to their own farmers. That ensures production is aligned with domestic demand.
The second pillar is price regulation through the establishment of a minimum price and a maximum price, so that each link in the supply chain gets its fair share.
The third pillar is border control. Obviously, if we do not skew the global market, we cannot allow other countries to skew our market. That is why we use border controls to set very high tariffs and purchasing quotas to prevent foreign products or by-products from flooding our market.
For instance, there might be times when our chicken or egg farmers do not produce enough, and that is when chicken and eggs are allowed in to meet this country's needs and avoid overproduction. The principle of border control is very important and is always the one that comes under attack in international negotiations.
It is this aspect that has been weakened considerably by international agreements. Canada is opening an ever-widening door in our markets for foreign companies to sell their products here. On top of that, international trade standards are constantly seeking to reduce the tariff levels. Our largest trading partners would like to see these tariffs disappear completely, and thus abolish supply management.
For example, without supply management, an American egg producer that produces one million eggs a day could overrun the Canadian market, cut prices and ultimately take control. Border controls are very important, and that is where the government always folds. It caves, often using supply management as a bargaining chip. Since the government is supposed to represent all Canadians and since supply management is a federal program, the Bloc Québécois simply wants the Prime Minister and the Liberal party to keep the promise they have made more than once to stop making concessions at the expense of supply-managed producers.
On at least 20 occasions over the past 15 years, I have heard a prime minister or an agriculture minister commit to fully defending supply management in future negotiations of a treaty. That is not what happened in the last three agreements. The concessions made in these negotiations instead resulted in income losses for producers in the order of 8.4% to 10%. Some will say that Canada is very vast. That is the argument we are given from time to time. We are told that it is impossible to create effective Canada-wide policies that benefit all the provinces. What is more, some experts believe that applying one standardized program nationwide in agriculture or in other sectors will not stand the test of time and will make it more difficult to resolve regional problems that crop up. That was the main argument we were given for conceding part of supply management.
The second argument is that supply management does not make a substantial contribution to Canada's gross domestic product. It represents approximately 2%, so that is a good excuse for sacrificing a little bit in every negotiation. This argument fails to consider that this is a very important economic sector for Quebec and Ontario. Supply-managed goods account for about 40% of Quebec's agricultural revenues, or $3.4 billion out of $8.9 billion. Quebec's dairy sector has revenues of $2.4 billion. That is twice the amount of agricultural revenue from the pork sector, which is an excellent export sector and contributes $1.2 billion a year.
These are different agricultural markets, but the agricultural sector as a whole is very important. The problem also stems from the fact that most supply-managed production occurs in Ontario and Quebec, representing 70%. Crops such as beef, grains and oilseeds are grown for export. The government is always looking to expand markets, but supply management must not be given up in exchange for these markets. That is the problem.
Supply management has survived 16 agreements. It needs to survive any future agreements as well. This system accounts for $8.7 billion of our GDP and $2 billion in economic spinoffs. Without this policy, the agricultural sector could lose 58,000 to 80,000 jobs. On top of that, half of this country's dairy exports would be compromised.
In closing, I want to remind members that Canada is currently negotiating with five countries that are part of Mercosur, which also includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Venezuela and Bolivia. This bill must be passed before these agreements are concluded. I urge all members to unanimously support this bill, as we did with the previous motions.
