I'd like to start on the first one, particularly because I've been doing some work on this for the NFU. The reality is that we have the ability, as do other nations, to stop some of these things coming to our border. If they do not meet our phytosanitary standards, we have the ability to say no. Yet we don't do that, and I am at a loss to understand why.
I believe if we're going to impose regulations and rules on farmers, we'd better darn well make sure we're not then asking them to compete with people and nations that don't--and that includes environmental and labour standards, all sorts of things. We need to develop a system in Canada for that.
To go to your other question about the APF II, I quoted my grandmother earlier, and I'll quote her again. It's an old phrase. My grandmother said that the problem with elections is that it doesn't matter who you vote for or what party wins, government always gets back in.
I see this through this process. The more I'm involved and the more I see what's happening, the more deeply cynical I become about the entire APF II process. The fix is already in; the direction is already decided. The consultation process is merely an opportunity for when things go south.... And they will. With the U.S. Farm Bill and all the other things that are happening, we're going to see other sectors that are going to be hit and hit hard. But when things go south, there will be the ability to say that we consulted with you. I think that's part of the problem.