There's a lot of discussion here about our best information and all those sorts of things. Just as I was accused of coming up with various pieces of information, there's no proof in any of the numbers that are being espoused that the Wheat Board would be in demise if they lost their monopoly.
Again, I go back to the fact that if you have producers who want to choose to form that collective—and the potato growers are a good example in Alberta—it does happen and it does work in tandem. If you have producers who want to have that clout and be a part of that collective, I am not opposed to that at all. I think they should have that opportunity. But they should also have the opportunity to say no, to be able to say that they want to do their own marketing for their products on their farms. Currently they do not have that option. They do not have the ability to do the entrepreneurial things that developed our grain industry.
What are we doing when we talk about protecting the Canadian Wheat Board? Or are we trying to protect the future of our industry? I would suggest to you that we do not need to protect the Canadian Wheat Board as an entity, we need to grow the future of our industry, because that will give sustainability to those farmers. That's really where we need to go: sustainability, so that they have income and gain their income from the marketplace, just as Minister Wowchuk said and just as canola growers do it today.
The other thing was supply management, Mr. Chairman, if I may.
You are talking about supply management within a closed market system. You're talking about a control of the supply, which is not the case with the Wheat Board. You're talking about provincial legislation and provincial jurisdiction in many cases, and that does not happen with this Wheat Board. It's important to note that there are severe differences between supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board, and to tie the two is only to try to scare producers for no good reason.