That's what I was trying to explain.
In Quebec, to stick with what I know, we mainly have small and medium-sized operations. There aren't any big farms like there are in the United States, for example. I'd say that producers have 80, 100 or 200 cows. Their herds are modest. Therefore, if the attacks and breaches continue to pile up, it will be much more difficult for them to overcome.
Even if, by some miracle, they manage to evolve within the system, I think that the issue today isn't simply how they're being affected, but rather whether we can leave them alone and ensure that they can eventually enjoy some predictability and grow. Otherwise, the breaches and successive concessions will lead to these farms shutting down. When a farm disappears, more often than not, a village disappears shortly afterward. In Quebec, the entire organization and use of the land depend on agriculture, which also drives up economic development.
I didn't provide any numbers today because I wanted to talk about the principle of the bill, but it's clear that these people won't be able to continue to face current pressures, stress and anxiety. There's a lot of folks who suffer from this instability in Quebec's farming communities. The system is working. As far as we're concerned, we think it's a concept that should be promoted, possibly exported abroad.
We've seen the effectiveness of supply management when it comes to food security, particularly during the pandemic. There are benefits to this system. We could decide to adopt the American model, but I would point out that the American producers themselves, who dropped the system in the 1990s, would like to go back to supply management.
That's my answer. I think that because of the way Quebec agriculture is organized, we would suffer even more from negotiations that have the effect of sacrificing our sectors.