Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question, because it really cuts to the chase of what we're discussing today. The most sensitive products in the world are meat, grains, and grain products. Those are our two largest exports. That's where we're getting hurt most in international markets. Mr. Friesen is quite correct in saying most countries have sensitive products. The reality is most Canadian farmers want to export into those markets. So what's a successful round? We make some progress on sensitive products. We have a tariff reduction formula that actually bites and allows access to the markets and goes after those trade-distorting supports.
We've talked a bit about trade-distorting support in the context of what the Americans are doing, and it's a huge issue for Canadian farmers. Last year the Americans spent over $10 billion to support their corn farmers, absolutely devastating all feed grain markets in the world, including Canadian barley and corn producers. We have to go after that.
We advocate having a product-specific cap to contain the American spending on each product. Last year, as I said, they spent over $10 billion. The Americans have put a proposal on the table, and I don't have the exact number, but it's between $1 billion and $2 billion for their cap, cutting by 90% what they spent on corn subsidies last year.
These are huge issues, and you've cut to the chase. What you've put on the table, and what we should be discussing very clearly and openly, is the fact that Canadian exporters are exporting products that other countries consider sensitive. It's hurting us when we, Canada, go to the wall to stop any progress on sensitive products. It hurts our credibility in the negotiations when 148 countries say we are going to make some progress on sensitive products and one country, Canada, says no. It hurts our credibility in all negotiations. How can people look us in the eye and say, you guys are serious, when we want to go after export subsidies, when as a country we don't use very many?