The biggest bang is for primary agricultural producers to be an equity stakeholder inside the industry as well. That provides, I guess, an added benefit of being a bit of a natural hedge against commodity prices. I think on that end there are ways of doing equity capital, and government will have to have a look at it.
But it's the raw production end. Yes, you can multiply 10¢ in increase per bushel by however many bushels are required. But the fact of the matter is, if you're in business and you are losing money on every bushel you produce, then the more you produce the more you lose.
The problem with the system the way it's currently structured, and the way our policy is versus that of the United States, the producers—the farmers—are the generators of wealth in even the ethanol economy, because they're providing the raw material; they're the generators of wealth, but they're not accumulating any of that wealth. Unless we deal with that problem, we're not really going to solve the farm problem. We have to find a way to ensure that producers get paid at least values equivalent to those in the United States, or we're not really dealing with the problem. What you'll have is the same thing as is happening in Chatham: American corn is coming into that plant. We don't want to see that; we want to see Canadian product going through these plants, but at a profit to producers.
If you look at the current situation, agrifood profits have been pretty good the last three years, but farm profits have been pretty damn poor, the worst ever. What I'm wondering is whether on the industry side you can look at that and make some recommendations to ensure that there is some way of bringing up the feedstock coming in, whether through business risk management, through commodity support levels, or whatever.