Good morning and thank you very much for being here today.
I have a couple of specific questions. The first is addressed to you, Mr. Rouillard.
You mentioned that, in Quebec, approximately 4,700 tons of lamb are produced and that this represents only 50 per cent of total consumption. That means that 50 p. 100 is imported. It seems to me that there are some market expansion opportunities in Quebec. However, in the report, it says that 60 per cent of farms have suffered losses of about $20,000. I do not understand that and would like to know why that has happened. We are talking about market expansion potential, and yet there are these losses occurring. So, that is my first question.
I will go through all of my questions quickly. The second one relates to the importation of food products that meet the same standards as those that apply in Canada. I believe you addressed that question, Mr. Dessureault. Quite a few people in Canada are wondering why we allow food products to enter Canada that do not meet the same standards as regards pesticide use.
Should those products be blocked from entry until they meet the same standards as our own?
I think Ron and others have probably read the NFU report on the cattle sector. There are a couple of questions there and some recommendations, and I guess before even asking specifically about those recommendations--you mentioned COOL and what we should be doing: document the losses, negotiate, do all those things aggressively, trade challenges, which our government is trying to do on behalf of producers.... What if we do everything, and the Americans say they're not going to change? Ultimately, when we trial this, is there an alternative?
The other question is, you mentioned the EU, and they're rejecting our cattle because of growth hormones and other standards they have. I'm just looking at a couple of recommendations in the report. Number eight says that one way of getting around this is if we were to test all cows for BSE and ban artificial hormones, this eventually would be cheaper than all the SRM removal. This would open up our market. We wouldn't be trapped in a North American market. It would diversify markets, give us more negotiating power with packers--in other words, allow more chance to export if we had those same standards.
The other one they talk about here is dramatically reducing antibiotic use, because this would spur more decentralization of livestock finishing, slow the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, and probably open up more markets in countries that have stronger rules than we have.
Those are just three questions. Hopefully we have enough time to answer some of them.