That is your privilege, Mr. Chair. When I am chairing a meeting, I do the same thing.
I would like to welcome our witnesses and thank them for their presentations.
Mr. Pellerin, this is the first time you have appeared before the committee since your election as President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you once again, this time in public. I am sure this is not the last time we will be seeing you. We certainly saw your predecessor regularly at this committee.
Each of you talked about the problems but also the challenges facing the agri-food industry and farmers generally. Since I have been on this committee, we regularly come back to the issue of competitiveness. I can tell you—and my intention is not to hurt your feelings—that we often hear the same things. That means that not all the problems have been solved. This may not always be attributable to bad faith, but it is clear that there are some areas in which we are not making any progress.
As members of Parliament, our role is to collect the information you provide to us. I always tell producers that they are the specialists in their field, while, for our part, we can get things moving through legislation, motions or regulations. Our job is to make things easier for our producers and our agri-food industry, to help them out, to support them, and to ensure they can export their products successfully. The government's role is to support farmers. Mr. Pellerin referred to the very high subsidies paid by the U.S. government; he also referred to the European Union. We can never reach that level, but the procedures we have developed will enable us to be competitive on both the domestic and foreign markets.
As a member of Parliament, I am particularly upset when the government makes things difficult for us. At times like that, I really wonder how good the government is listening. All the political parties say that they listen to you, that they want to hold consultations and to do what you advise. However, when legislation or regulations come into force, the government actually sets up some obstacles.
Each of you mentioned some blatant examples of this. The "Product of Canada" issue is one. Both Mr. Légaré and Mr. Pellerin spoke about it. The SRMs, or specified risk materials, is another example. We could also mention again the AgriFlexibility Program, which was announced with great fanfare before the budget was tabled. The government was suppose to finally have listened to producers' demands and make programs in the provinces flexible and adaptable to local conditions. It was all smoke and mirrors. Things turned out very differently.
We are in a good position to talk about the "Product of Canada" issue. You are right, Mr. Légaré, it was this very committee that studied this matter. We made our study as comprehensive as possible with the resources we had available. We heard from many witnesses. Never, absolutely never, did we hear in the course of our study that the standard to target was 98%. Even government members did not tell us that. For whatever reason, that is the conclusion the government reached.
Are you able today to tell us how much your members lost as a result of this decision? Whether we like it or not, consumers can no longer see the difference. You can no longer use the words "Product of Canada". That was an added-value for consumers, but it is now over.
Changing all the labels cost money, but in addition, not being able to add the words "Product of Canada" is a loss, because consumers will now choose any product at all. In the past, they could identify which products were Canadian, and decide to support them.
Have you already checked with your members to find out what their losses have been as a result of this, or are you in the process of doing so?