I serve as the government's liaison with the Korean community here in Canada. This summer there was a group of Korean legislators who came to Ottawa for a visit to talk about issues. It was interesting. I knew they had arrived the day before, and I said, “I understand you were at the ambassador's residence last night. His chef is the best Korean cook in town and I'm sure you had a wonderful meal of bulgogi.” They said yes. I said, “That's great. You've already eaten Canadian beef since you arrived here and obviously you're feeling fine today.” Somewhat in jest, I pointed to the ambassador and said, “And your ambassador eats Canadian beef regularly and look at him. He's the picture of health.”
It was just for a moment, but I thought we'd actually penetrated what I call the absurdity of some of these rules. Even those who are travelling to other countries, supposedly defending the food safety of their own country, if you offer them a nice porterhouse steak here somewhere in town, they'd be more than happy to eat it, right? So it belies the notion that the risk that was posed was such that it required this kind of a response.
I take what you say at face value. I guess I have more of a comment than a question, which is that I really think that on both sides of the border we need to figure out a way to deal with things in a more reasonable and proportionate way.
One of my colleagues—I can't remember who it was—made the reference to R-CALF and other groups in the United States clearly taking a political opportunity to make, what I would call, mischief, which had an enormous cost to so many Canadian producers. I hope that in the United States and in the government there's a recognition of that, and it is clearly a situation we hope never recurs.