Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, folks, for coming.
A number of us have recently come back from the U.S., and when you look at the U.S. and Europe, the first question their bureaucracies seem to ask on any agriculture policy issue is “What will it mean to farmers”? I really note in here your ten years, Laurent, that you mentioned you've been working on this issue. For whatever reason, in Canada, and we saw it the other day with lowering the tolerance of pesticide residue on crops coming in here, it's because we're afraid it might be a trade challenge. Always the first question out of this centre, nothing to do with our government or the previous one, seems to be worrying about the trade challenges rather than worrying about farmers. That seems to be a mindset in this town, and we have to get away from it.
I have two questions, really. The supplemental safeguards....We're mixing up two issues, the eggs and chickens. There are three problems: the 13% rule, the 8.4 tariff rate quota on chickens, and the increase in eggs as well. The supplemental safeguards are special provisions. Can they apply to deal with that problem, the 8.4 TRQ, or not? I don't think so, can they? Why I ask the question is I'm not sure what we should be asking for. Are there two solutions to this problem in terms of the three requests, or are there three?