All countries interact with the global marketplace to a greater or lesser degree and many firms prosper as\u00a0a result of trade, but this is not the case for all firms in a trading economy. The international marketplace\u00a0is a very dynamic place and it will always be the case that some firms will find that their international\u00a0competitiveness is declining.<\/p>\n
Country of origin labelling is allowed in the WTO, but there are some constraints on its use. Article IX,\u00a0Marks of Origin, of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ( 1994) allows imported products to be\u00a0labelled with specific country of origin at the time of import so long as the marking requirement does not\u00a0seriously damage the imported products, materially reduce their value, or unreasonably increase their\u00a0cost<\/em>. It seems likely that either one or both of the italicized outcomes will be able to be strongly argued at\u00a0the WTO. Unfortunately, it can only be argued after the fact – after there is evidence that value has been\u00a0reduced or costs increased. As a result, much of the damage would have already been done as the costs of\u00a0MCOOL are expected to be much larger for the Canadian livestock industries in the short run than in the\u00a0long run. The materially reduce value and unreasonably increase their cost<\/em> criteria have never been\u00a0tested at the WTO so there are no precedents to assist in determining what the dispute panels would\u00a0consider as materially<\/em> or unreasonably<\/em>. As a result, Canada could well lose the case.<\/p>\n