Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the motion introduced by my colleague from Montcalm. In fact, I want to congratulate the sponsor of this motion, my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, for introducing the first Bloc Québécois motion since Parliament resumed. This shows how important the supply management system is to us.
Allow me to reread the motion, to our friends from the Conservative Party especially, to show the extent to which it responds to their concerns and to indicate why they should be able to vote in favour of it.
That, in the opinion of the House, in the current World Trade Organization negotiations, the government should not agree to any concession that would weaken collective marketing strategies or the supply management system.
It is very clear that this motion defends the supply management system, not to the detriment of other agricultural sectors, but as a complement to their needs, in particular the need for a reduction in the subsidies given by the U.S. and Europe to their agricultural exports. Our motion absolutely does not go against the needs of all the agricultural sectors in Canada and Quebec.
The supply management system covers five sectors: two in poultry, two in eggs, and one in dairy. It is a way of ensuring a fair income for farmers, and we know how much difficulty they have been through in recent years, in the cattle and grain sectors in particular. Supply management ensures a fair income, even though the Canadian Dairy Commission is asking for a substantial increase in the price of milk.
It also ensures a constant supply to processors. Therefore it is also in the interest of processors to have this system in place because it assures them a constant, dependable supply.
It ensures high-quality products at a very good price for consumers.
For a system to ensure fair income, quality products and consistent supply, it has to be supported by three pillars, which are, of course, interdependent. We cannot weaken one and hope to maintain the supply management system. These three pillars have to be solid.
The first pillar corresponds to production planning. Product supply has to correspond as closely as possible to the estimated domestic demand. That is the first pillar and it is extremely important.
The second pillar consists of a pricing mechanism that ensures a fair income without government subsidies. This is very important. I would remind our Conservative friends that the supply management system is in no way dependent upon government assistance. This is truly in line with the spirit of the World Trade Organization's agreements. This is, of course, a system that feeds the domestic market.
The third pillar deals with import control, now taken care of by tariffs. Relatively high tariffs will indeed be imposed to prevent the importation of products that would compete with our national products.
We all understand that if this pillar, corresponding to imports, is weakened, the whole system falls down because supply exceeds demand. This brings prices down, the revenues are not fair anymore and the whole system crumbles.
That is, unfortunately, what is happening now because of the Liberal government's lax attitude. I am not the one who says this: Mr. Groleau, the president of the Fédération Québecoise du lait, says:
This is huge. If we do not do anything, all Canadian milk production will disappear. There has to be an end to the federal government's lax attitude. Does it intend to abandon the dairy sector as it did the textile industry?
We can feel that people are very concerned and rightly so. We have let foreign competitors get around the WTO's rules and Canadian regulations as well.
As I mentioned earlier, this failure to control imports is jeopardizing the overall viability of the supply management system.
Butter oil is often used as an example—my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant referred to it during oral questions. This product is used essentially to make ice cream and, to a great extent, has replaced cream and fats. Apparently, 50% of all ice cream is now made using this butter oil.
The current Minister for International Trade, like his predecessor, is refusing to put this product, made mostly from milk by-products and essentially used to make ice cream, on the list of commodities subject to quota, which means that they are increasingly entering our market and competing with our dairy products.
For example, since 1996, butter oil imports have increased by 324%. This is not negligible; in fact, it is very significant. As a result, dairy producers have suffered losses totalling $52 million. Significant damage has already been done.
We are asking the minister, then, to add butter oil to the list of commodities subject to quota; it would be relatively easy for him to do this. However, we cannot stop there. New technologies are also creating products that separate milk into by-products, thereby creating new products that are not regulated or that are poorly regulated in Canada.
Milk contains lactose, proteins and fats. Now, new technologies separate milk into by-products—not covered by our regulations—for import to Canada. When we signed these agreements, these technologies did not exist.
Unfortunately, the federal government is pretending that this problem does not exist either. I want to quote Mr. Groleau again. He said:
We are asking [the federal government] to accept its responsibilities and stop the bleeding, in keeping with its commitments to producers. This situation is costing dairy producers millions of dollars and in no way benefits consumers.
By allowing these dairy products to enter separately, we are weakening, perhaps even permanently, the supply management system.
Members will recall that when the Marrakesh accord was being negotiated, as I mentioned, this problem did not exist at the technological level. Import controls were thus replaced by tariff rate quotas. We must now find a way to seal off this weak spot in supply management and to find ways to regulate things more adequately.
As you know, article 28 of the GATT allows the establishment of quota systems on certain tariff lines. What is requested by the industry is to use that section in order to be able to modify the tariff schedule so as to cover by tariff quotas all food preparaions having a milk content of at least 10%.
We would then be in a position to close the gap that has opened up over the last few years, which causes extremely large losses for milk producers especially—I am using the example of milk, essentially. We are looking at $170 million in losses in 2004 and, for Quebec alone, $70 million. The whole future of the supply management system is at stake.
As I mentioned, this is not to the detriment of the other agricultural sectors nor of our work against the subsidization of agricultural exports. In this context, if my colleague for Montcalm is agreed, I would like to amend our motion by adding after the word “system” the following:
“and should also seek an agreement establishing fair and equitable rules that foster the international competitiveness of agricultural exporters in Quebec and Canada.”
I think that, in this way, we can assuage the concerns raised by some speakers from the Conservative Party.
So, if my colleague is in agreement, I would amend the Bloc Québécois motion in the way I have just proposed.