Thank you for the question. It is important to understand the situation surrounding Article XXVIII which originates in part with the WTO. This mechanism is part of our rules. Canada follows the WTO rules.
I'll switch to English for countervail. The distinction is that we're using a facility of the WTO to protect our milk industry--section 28 safeguards--as part of our right to use, versus countervail, which is everybody else's right and ours to use in situations where sectors are unfairly subsidized.
In the case of countervail and provincial risk management programs, the risk is very high. We've had several countervails against the hog sector, against cattle, and against wheat, hogs most recently in 2004. ASRA was under a countervail threat from 1985-99 and only came out from under that burden because most of its products, most of the Quebec products that were being subsidized, were not being exported in large quantities.
So many in the industry implore the minister not to put their industry at risk. Remember that it's the individual producer who ends up paying for a countervail. For example, if we were to subsidize the risk management program in Ontario that covers grains and oilseeds, included in the countervail action would be all of the western producers and all the producers in Quebec who deal with grains and oilseeds, so they would in effect be paying for the subsidy in Ontario.
The rules for the WTO actually do work. Section 28 is a good example. The recent work in COOL has some fairly positive results so far. The trade dispute panel on COOL, our taking Korea to the WTO for a dispute settlement panel over beef, and the recent market access we gained with the EU with 20,000 tonnes of quota beef are all examples of where the WTO is working. Unfortunately, it also works in reverse with countervail. The risk is very high and the minister has indicated that he won't go in that direction.