Okay.
Thank you very much for coming.
I'm going to try to be brief. I have two questions, and hopefully we can get through them with some quick answers.
We seem to be talking a lot about freedom--freedom of choice. We have this idea of freedom of choice. It's kind of a philosophical question that I think we have to get at.
There's evidence to say that collectively we in Canada have benefited in agriculture. This was brought home to me when I met with the president of UPA from Quebec last week. By the way, he is going to Manitoba to talk about the benefits of the Canadian Wheat Board. Obviously there is a solidarity here. We see some link between supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board, otherwise those people probably wouldn't be travelling all this way to talk about it.
In Quebec, people have benefited. Their agriculture has been strengthened by the people working together collectively. This has happened with the Canadian Wheat Board and prairie grain farmers. Apparently New Zealand wants to get back to single desk for kiwi selling, because apparently dual marketing hasn't worked. Quebec people are telling us--and André has mentioned it--that they want to get back to some collective way of doing things.
So it's a philosophical question. Given the U.S. pressure in today's world, the WTO, and other countries wanting us to weaken our state trading enterprises, if we see this is a threat--and it is a possible threat--should a small minority of people who want this freedom have that choice to the detriment of the collective majority? I think this is what we're looking at. Sure, it's this kind of rugged individualism, but should we allow someone to say, to heck with the Wheat Board, I'll do what I want and it doesn't matter what happens to those other farmers who have this collective choice? It's a philosophical question, and I hope you understand.
I just want an answer before we move on. Mr. Horner, please