Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I want to thank the witnesses for coming. I know it's always awkward to come out of the comfort of your home back in Saskatchewan or P.E.I. or Ontario and look at these weird guys in suits and ties and try to explain what's going on. So I really appreciate your doing that. I also really appreciate your testimony. It's always good to hear from the farm groups, and I'd rather hear from farmers than farm groups, because in a lot of ways farmers are the guys on the ground getting their hands dirty and doing the work. It's always a breath of fresh air in some ways.
It's really hard in this committee to start to filter or separate the wheat from the chaff in a lot of situations. We have to balance the needs of farmers, and the needs of taxpayers in a lot of cases too. That's why programs are developed in such a way that they're not meant to be long-term support programs or long-term social programs. They're meant to be bridging programs, where if something should happen, there's the ability to help the guy out so he can see the light at the end of the tunnel and get through that low spot and move forward.
Where I get a little concerned is when bridging programs become social programs, because that tells me something else has to change. That tells me the industry has changed or something else has changed structurally in your situation that forces you to make a decision you may not like to make. It's awkward. What's really awkward for legislators is, when is that period? Is it five years, seven years, ten years? When the industry has changed, how much should the taxpayers support you and for how long? That would be one of my first questions. The taxpayer can't justify supporting somebody forever; it just doesn't work that way in our society. If you can't change, or if you can't structurally change, then it's time to look at other things.
Brian, you talked about what you're seeing in the fruit industry, and that's exactly what is going on, it looks to me. It's sad to see in a lot of ways, because the old way always seems to be the best way, but the reality is that things change and we have to move forward.
I'll start with you, Ernie. In your situation—and not just in your situation, but the situation of P.E.I farmers—you took out an advance and had security on that advance. You did a priority agreement. Then you needed more cashflow. What did the government do? They said they'd give you the ability to have more money without a priority agreement—no security. How do you bridge back to a situation now where you start to pay it back? What's a reasonable timeframe?