|
John Masswohl is with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. He has led the Association's government relations and international trade activities in Ottawa since 2004. One issue he has been deeply involved with for the last several years is COOL - the Country of Origin Labeling system for beef, pork, and other products that was first authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill. It didn't really go into effect until 2009. Challenged in the WTO by Mexico and Canada, the system was found to violate the agreed rules of that body. In 2013 the COOL regulations were revised, only to have the revised rules judged even more harshly by the WTO than their predecessors.
Tomorrow, June 17, the issue will move to a different set of WTO proceedings, when the Dispute Settlement Body hears requests from Canada and Mexico for authority to retaliate against some $3.2 billion of U.S. exports. Canada's request will be for $2.4 billion in retaliation and Mexico's for $713 million.
Earlier today Mr. Masswohl participated in a panel discussion on COOL at the National Press Club. He was one of four speakers. The others were David Bond of White and Case, Ken Smith Ramos from the Embassy of Mexico, and Ken Monahan of the National Association of Manufacturers. They all urged repeal, and we are likely to highlight some of their comments in later TTALK entries. Mr. Masswohl's was perhaps the most pointed commentary, at least insofar as the character and likelihood of retaliation are concerned. This is was he said:
Transcript
(prepared by GBD and not reviewed by the speaker.
Emphasis added in all cases) MR. MASSWOHL
From my perspective, David and Ken have done the hard part, explaining why this matters, and the legal aspects, and how we got here. I'm looking a bit forward in terms of where are we going on this.
From our perspective, from the Canadian cattle producers, we're ready for this issue to be fixed, to put it mildly. But I think an important thing to keep in mind is, we're not desperate. We want the right fix. We're not looking for just any compromise, any kind of middle path.
If you think about it now, we're seven years into this issue. We've spent as an organization over $C3-and-a-quarter million dollars of our producers check-off money on legal fees and on advocacy to fight this thing. It's cost our producers, just from the cattle side-well, cattle and hogs-over $3C billion Canadian per year for the last couple of years, since May [20]13, when USDA made this worse instead of fixing it.
So we haven't come through all of this just to settle for half a loaf at this point. We very much support what was passed in the House last week, which is to repeal it. We're not proposing any compromise. We're not seeking a negotiation. There's not a whole lot of time.
As David [Bond], quite rightly, outlined, there is a process at the WTO which is leading towards retaliation. There's not a lot of time there. And you all know what it takes to generate ideas in this town, and pass them, and come up with good policies. And, you know, what people propose isn't always necessarily what ends up happening.
So, I would also agree with the comment that, if the Senate thinks that there's a middle path on this, that's a very risky strategy to move forward. That timeline that was outlined is what we are expecting. We're expecting that, before the end of this summer, ... we will be authorized to put tariffs on whatever number the WTO authorizes. We're looking for over $3C billion Canadian dollars. And once they authorize that, I think a very important point is the burden of proof. Where does that switch? Where does that lie?
Because once they authorize that, then the decisions will be made by Canada and by Mexico in terms of: When the tariffs go on? What products will they go on? What will the level of tariffs be? All those sorts of things.
So, we're making those decisions. Now, I'm not in government. I don't ultimately make those decisions, but we've been cooperating very closely with our hog colleagues in Canada, with the government folks, with all the various different departments, and everything I see is, there's a lot of resolve up there to do this thing. We've got the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Trade, the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister himself has said that they want this thing fixed, and they're prepared to retaliate if necessary.
You know, in terms of what's on the list, if you haven't seen the list,
it's a broad list. It has, yes, beef and pork on it. It has other agricultural products. It has fruits and vegetables and wine. And some distilled beverages. Whiskey, I believe, is on there, cakes and cookies. But it also has things from outside of agriculture. There's furniture. I believe there is some steel tubing, mattresses. So, it is a broad list.
It's a list that was designed to get some attention.
We've looked at who are the ... where are the Congressional districts, where are the states that have tended to support COOL, the Senators and Congressmen that have tended to support COOL. And we've looked at products that are made in those areas.
You know again, it is not something that we want to have to do. But the key word ... there is, we have to do it. If it gets to the point where Canada is authorized to retaliate and the Congress has not passed something that's acceptable to us, we will have to retaliate.
This is broader than just this issue. This is about trade policy and the rule of law. And if a country.... I think the United States would be in the same position if the shoe was on the other foot. If a country is restricting your trade and you've gone through the process, and you've spent several years to do it, at the end of it, you have to retaliate if there is not an acceptable solution.
So that's where we're at. In terms of the solution that we're seeking, the segregation of imported live stock has to end. For us, this is not about consumer information. This is about costs and burden in the system in buying and handling and managing livestock. Whether it's feed lots that buy them, whether it's packing facilities that buy them, this rule has created a lot of burden, a lot of cost. For us, it is over $100 per head on every animal. And we need that to go away.
We can't see that there is any way other than repealing this to make that happen. We've heard various suggestions. None of them achieve the elimination of the segregation. So, like I said, we're not proposing something. We're not here to make suggestions for a compromise. We're here to seek the repeal. ... Thank you.
|
