Thank you for the question. It's a timely one.
We have done quite a bit of work with respect to country-of-origin labelling, as I'm sure the committee is aware. Leading up to the announcement of the United States Department of Agriculture final rule, we had been engaged at a number of levels in the U.S., with the department, with U.S. trade, as well as with congressional representatives, to make the case on behalf of Canadian agriculture and Canadian producers that traditional flexibility was required in the final rule so as not to disrupt the integrated North American market and to continue to provide an outlet for Canadian livestock exports, hogs and cattle, moving into U.S. processing plants.
Incidentally, a number of those same animals go into U.S. feedlots and are needed by U.S. processing plants too, so it's an argument that resonates in the U.S. in those constituencies as well.
We saw the final rule come forward, with additional flexibility, in January, with an implementation date of March 16. It came as no surprise that just as the new administration took its place it announced a blanket review of all recently promulgated regulations, including the country-of-origin labelling final rule. That final rule wasn't singled out, wasn't targeted in any way. It was part of the blanket review.
As I believe the minister remarked, he's had a recent conversation with the newly appointed USDA Secretary Vilsack on the subject, and we await the outcome of Secretary Vilsack's decision. We hope it will be positive. We are encouraged by public remarks made recently by the House agriculture committee chair, Chairman Peterson, who has commented that it would be best all around if the final rule were to be implemented, moved into place, and were to be allowed to function for a period of several months to allow both Canada and the U.S., and other trading partners, to look at the implementation of that rule for any unintended consequences.