Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. He and I see things in exactly the same way.
We are obviously speaking about supply management. Since the beginning, there have not been any solid, satisfactory answers from the government, that is to say from the ministers involved or the Prime Minister, to the concerns voiced by farmers and members of the opposition parties.
In my view, the hour of truth is here. The more the negotiations continue, the greater the pressure will be. Our partners have to know how far we are prepared to make concessions and at what point we will stop.
In regard to the two things needed to save the foundations of supply management, we must be very clear and say to the world that there will be no concessions in these respects. We are prepared, however, to negotiate other things.
Unfortunately, the member is completely right: Canada is a pee wee when it comes to international negotiations. It is true at the WTO in the case of supply management, as in everything else, including bicycles.
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal recommended a tax on the import of bicycles, especially from southeast Asia, of about 30% this year, 20% the next year, and finally 10% to help this sector, which creates hundred of jobs, get through this difficult transition period.
The tribunal sent its recommendation to the Minister of Finance more than two months ago, but nothing has happened. Whom are they afraid of frightening? The Vietnamese? They are important partners of ours, but what kind of reprisals could they take?
If they are afraid of using the tools that the international rules make available to us in this case—because Vietnam is a large exporter of bicycles to Canada—imagine how they would react to the Americans. There is softwood lumber, but I spoke about it earlier and do not want to repeat myself.
In the case of milk, though, Australia, New Zealand and the Americans attack us constantly before the WTO tribunals, the WTO panels.
Canada has never used the means available to it to demonstrate that there are tremendous subsidies in the United States, as everyone knows. Why? They are afraid of offending the Americans. So what do we look like all this time?
Since everyone else challenges our supply management system and we never challenge the Americans' subsidies for their exports or just their internal supports for their farmers, we are considered the international “bad guys”. It is a losers' strategy, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs would say. Oh yes. The Liberal government has a losers' strategy in international trade, and I could talk about clothing and textiles or about furniture.
We manage to be afraid of being afraid. So what happens ultimately? There are job losses and doubt is cast on the social choices we make. It is totally unacceptable.