Thank you, Chair.
Mexico has also agreed to include older animals for export, and they have since lifted the temporary restrictions on breeding stock imports from Alberta. We continue to work on outstanding issues to restore full access for beef and to take advantage of market opportunities for other products. We are also firmly defending Canadian cattle producers regarding the U.S. country-of-origin labelling rule, or COOL. In early December we initiated official consultations with the United States at the WTO's dispute settlement body, further showing our determination in defending Canadian producers, and we have recently announced that Canada is taking the next step in our COOL challenge by launching a WTO panel.
The Prime Minister, Chair, and this government have made it very clear to the Americans that if no settlement could be reached, we would take this issue to the WTO. This trade challenge speaks loudly that this government is serious about protecting our producers and protecting their interests, and that is why we pulled out all the stops to fight the COOL in the United States. COOL threatened our industry, particularly our cattle and hog producers and our meat processors. It threatened to throw red tape and needless costs into a highly integrated system, which last year facilitated almost $4 billion worth of sales to the United States in livestock, beef, and pork.
Canada's hard work over the past year resulted in a positive outcome for Canadian producers, and producers are with us, Chair. Let me quote from Brad Wildeman of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, “The negative impact” of the COOL legislation “will only increase”, and we appreciate the government “requesting the Dispute Settlement Panel at the WTO.” Jurgen Preugschas, of the Canadian Pork Council said, “Our government understands the impact COOL is having on our producers and that they will continue to work with the livestock sector to defend our WTO trade rights.”
It is not just our producers. It is also our provincial and territorial partners. Bob Bjornerud, Saskatchewan's agriculture minister, says this: “These blatantly protectionist measures are placing an unwarranted burden on Canadian livestock producers”, and ”we are pleased the federal government has made the WTO request to address this”.
Indeed, Chair, we will continue to stand up for our producers whenever and wherever their access to markets is in jeopardy.
Turning to the domestic front, there are lots of examples of this government's support for the dairy sector and for supply management, beginning with our action to clarify and harmonize compositional standards for cheese. These regulations ensure that the expectations of Canadian consumers are met with high-quality products. The Federal Court recently sided with us and ruled that our protection of supply management through cheese compositional standards is constitutional and the right thing to do.
The bottom line is this government is supporting our dairy sector through actions internationally and domestically, and it is supporting supply management. We are supporting them in what they do best, and that is providing safe, wholesome, nutritious products for all of us to enjoy.
However, don't take my word for it. Perhaps the best advocates of what we have done for supply management come from the dairy, chicken, turkey, and egg producers themselves. Jacques Laforge, president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, said, “The Canadian government, over the past two years, has repeatedly indicated its strong commitment to support” trade agreements on agriculture that would maintain supply management.
Gyslain Loyer, chair of the Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency, says, “We are encouraged to see that the government is unwavering in its determination to deliver on its position for dairy, poultry and egg farmers...”.
Laurent Souligny, chair of the Egg Farmers of Canada, who lives in my riding, Chair, said, “The Government has committed not to compromise the sound foundations of the Canadian agricultural economy, including supply management...”.
Chair, I just want to highlight for Canadians, for our farmers, for our producers, for the people here at committee, it is obvious our government supports supply management.
What I find unfortunate about the wording of Mr. Atamanenko's motion is that it does not capture our full support for supply management. The motion simply asks us to change text at the WTO and no more than that, and everyone here knows this is not the way to proceed. We need to be proactive in our support for supply management, and if the committee so desires, we should send a strong message to the negotiator and not just focus on this little piece of text. He should be getting some strong guidance from this committee. We simply can't just show up and ask for text to be changed, and if that doesn't happen say we'll move on. It's not only that the members opposite treat the issue of supply management lightly; it's that they need to acknowledge our support for export industries like beef and pork, industries I spoke about earlier, and the positive steps we are taking through the WTO process.
So, Chair, what I'm proposing here is an amendment that I discussed with some opposition members yesterday, and certainly Mr. Atamanenko, to amend the latter's motion. I'm going to put forward an amendment here, Chair, that I think better enunciates the message this committee wants to send to our negotiator regarding our support for supply management, but also for our other producers. We want to support all producers regardless of the commodities they happen to deal in.