Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome to our guests. It is a very interesting discussion here this morning.
I'm going to share my time with Mr. Holder.
I have a couple of questions on country of origin labelling. I don't know if we can avoid, to a degree, the parts of country of origin labelling that are actually positive: the ability to trace your animal back to the herd it came from or back to the feedlot it came from. I think those are positive marketing things.
If you look at what happened in softwood lumber during the original shakes and shingles fiasco back in the 1980s, at that time we had country of origin labelling on timber and logs. It kept Atlantic Canada from facing countervail and anti-dumping duties in the United States, because we could trace all our wood back to privately owned woodlots in a different regime than what the rest of the country had. Although we fought hard against it at the time, there was a benefit to it at the end of the day.
I just want some comments on the ability to trace that product and on the fact that we can compete with anyone in the world. You say that you would modernize Canada's trade negotiation strategies and philosophies. I'd like some examples of that. And you discussed greater flexibility in trade negotiations. What would you recommend?
First of all, especially with the food safety concerns out there today, how important is it to be able to trace that animal to the herd or the farm it came from when you're promoting a product that's safe and to be competitive with anyone else in the world?