Mr. Speaker, I have felt personally touched many times today. Agricultural issues are often discussed here and they are close to my heart. It is therefore a pleasure for me to rise in support of this motion and of the proposed amendment.
The amendment seems a bit redundant. Right from the start, I consider that the rules governing supply management do not in any way infringe on trade. Justice and fairness are an inherent part of this system.
Contrary to what others sometimes say, the rules governing supply management do not infringe on trade. First, they apply to the domestic market, the Canadian market only, and not to the exports, at least not those that have been produced according to the rules. Second, there are no subsidies offered and so, no one can claim that they are distorting the market. That is a second element of fairness. Of course this whole system was defined under the GATT, particularly article 11.
To me, it is obvious that this amendment is not redundant since fairness is already inherent in the text. However, if this can reassure some people, that is great. However, the rules governing supply management already contain this element of fairness.
We have witnessed, over the last several years, the evolution of the supply management system in Canada. Let us recall that these measures were adopted under a Liberal government, several years ago. Let us recall as well the strenuous efforts of the hon. Eugene Whelan, the agriculture minister, who managed so well to defend his interests against a group that was then called the Consumers' Association of Canada. This group derived pleasure from constantly badmouthing the supply management system. It contended that it was damaging to free markets and all kinds of other things. In a nutshell, if a scapegoat could be found somewhere. according to those and other people, supply management was always the culprit.
However, it should be pointed out that producers who were governed by the system supported it. Of course, several parliamentarians showed their mettle, in the beginning, to support this system, as it otherwise would not have survived for so many decades.
In the riding I represent, there are maybe 600 or 700 milk producers, which is a lot fewer than before. When I was first elected, there were maybe 1,100. But that does not mean production is decreasing. In reality, there has been the phenomenon of consolidation, as we well know. There are now, in my riding, very large farms having a lot more quota and more livestock. These days, the farms are bigger. But, in my area, they still are family farms, even though they may describe themselves differently now.
We only have to ask ourselves what would have happened to farming and milk production had these rules not existed. Would we have seen the phenomenon that appeared in the northern United States? For example, in the State of New York, there is one dairy farm that spreads over thousands of acres and is not subject to any quota system. Some of its employees have probably rarely or never seen the owner of the farm. That is the kind of farming they are doing. There was some consolidation in our area, but on a much smaller scale. We were able to preserve this lifestyle because of supply management.
Our farmers have always benefited greatly from this system, and we must continue to defend it in this House.
When I sat as an opposition member, I was one of two agricultural critics for several years, and I fought for this for a long time. Incidentally, I was just telling some of my employees that during the election campaign I drew up a 10-point priority list for my constituents, and protection of supply management was on that list.
I would like to go back to the issue raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland—Quinte West and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. He was talking about a resolution his riding association and mine co-sponsored at the Liberal convention. It provided for the continued support and enhancement of supply management. The debate on the motion was minimal. If my memory serves me right, all speakers at the convention were supportive of the points I just raised. That tells us how much Canadian farmers have benefited from this system.
This may be a bit controversial for some, but I think we should consider setting up a similar system for beef production in this country. I notice some members opposite do not agree. If it had been done 10, 15 or 20 years ago, our producers would be far better off today. They would not have all the problems and hardships they are having today. I see a Conservative member shaking his head. He is quite free to disagree, but I think we did something very good for the poultry industry, where it applies. Almost all species except ducks and geese are included in the system.
Farmers in my riding make a good living or at least a better living than those who do not have a supply management system, such as the producers of beef, field crops, grains, oilseeds, and so on. They are really struggling. Those who are in supply-managed products are better off.
We have more proof of this. Even where quotas offer some protection, for example in the case of dairy products, there is an unprotected area, which is that of cull cows. Unprotected areas do not fare well. We have demonstrated that the system protects some areas, but that where the system does not apply, there are problems.
I do not think that beef producers would want to establish a similar system. I hear what is being said in the west and even in my own province, except in my riding, where I believe beef producers would agree to such a system. Even elsewhere in my province, I can see that there is little interest in a system of quotas for beef production. Nonetheless, I believe that such a system would have avoided many of the problems we have today.
All of this to say that I support the motion before us today. Earlier today, I raised the issue in the House with the Minister of International Trade. I called on him to use section 28 of the GATT to establish some protection in areas where we were hurt recently by the Court of International Trade. Therefore, I will support wholeheartedly the motion and its amendment, as they were presented to us today, although I think that the motion was good enough as it was and did not need to be amended. Nevertheless, I support both and I recommend their adoption to the House.