Hello and thank you for inviting us here today.
The Union des producteurs agricoles represents all agricultural producers in Quebec. It is made up of affiliated organizations, including the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec and the Fédération des producteurs acéricoles du Québec. I will not repeat what my colleagues have already said. Instead, I will make more general comments on international trade agreements, including the TPP.
For a number of years, I have participated in Canada's negotiations, both with the WTO and with respect to the TPP. It should be noted that each country has its own objectives in these negotiations: opening foreign markets and protecting their own market. In the case of the TPP, it was primarily the United States and Japan that sought to achieve these objectives. Canada also had market access objectives, specifically in the meat and maple products sectors. We also wanted to protect our supply-managed sectors, including culture and health services.
Despite the losses, the pressures exerted on Canada and the concessions made in supply-managed sectors, I would say that the 18-year agreement was viable for Canada and its supply-managed sectors. It will be viable, however, if Canada effectively controls its imports and if it behaves like the United States and the other countries. Canada will have to exercise the strictest control, while also protecting and encouraging the development of its industry.
Consider for example the issue of diafiltered milk and duty relief, which is causing very serious problems for the poultry industry. The Canadian industry is losing hundreds of millions of dollars because the federal government is lax in controlling imports, which is not the case for the United States or Japan. Since we have access to these markets, we know very well how these countries behave.
With respect to market access, research and development are important. According to Statistics Canada, $32 million less was invested in research in the agriculture sector between 2008 and 2015, and $60 million less was invested in the food processing sector. According to the OECD, investments in R and D relative to GDP dropped from 1.99% to 1.61% during that same period, while those investments for the agri-food sector for all OECD countries rose from 2.16% to 2.37%.
The Union des producteurs agricoles and the Conseil de la transformation alimentaire du Québec showed recently that, to keep up with the average of OECD countries, Quebec alone would have to invest $85 million more per year in research and development. We can open up new markets, but if we are not competitive owing to insufficient R and D, it will be to no avail. In the meat sector, for example, where efforts are being made to open markets, Canadian pork production dropped from 31.3 million to 25.7 million head from 2007 to 2013.
In other words, while new markets are being opened, production is decreasing, except in Quebec where it is steady. In the beef sector, production dropped from 5.2 million to 4.1 million head from 2007 to 2013. Opening markets, signing agreements and boasting that we are active in international markets, that is all well and good, but our producers will not be in those markets if our country is not competitive.
I would like to raise another matter: the decrease in the amounts invested in risk management in the agriculture sector. Between 2012 and 2013, when we moved from Growing Forward 1 to Growing Forward 2, Canada reduced its investments in the AgriInvest and AgriStability programs by $290 million.
In other words, risks to producers rose while R and D investment fell. Ultimately, opening markets will not benefit our economy unless our government takes action on competitiveness.