Thanks, Mr. Chair.
First, Ross, on your proposal, I know you're saying you want to get your money out of the marketplace, and I don't disagree with that; in fact, I wrote a report along those lines. But Barry Wilson had some startling figures the other day; they are actually scary. Over the last 21-year period, wherein farmers produced $525 billion worth of product, the realized net farm income was $51 billion and the payments from the federal and provincial government were $58.4 billion. So from the marketplace, between 1985 and 2005, we netted negative $7 billion. That includes supply management.
Then, when you look at the other factor, our debt-to-income ratio with the United States is just unbelievable. Theirs is 4:1, and ours is 25:1. We have to recognize that reality.
My question to you on that line is this. If the U.S. is going to be subsidizing, and the Europeans, do we have to, whether we like it or not, basically request that we meet the Americans head on, dollar for dollar? That's question number one.
There may be an angle here. On your higher levels of insurance.... And I agree with you that we're away behind the times on crop insurance; with new varieties coming on and sometimes the averaging that is done, we need to be higher than we are. But if we went to higher levels—I think you said 40 bushels of canola may be within range in your operation—would you know whether it would still be considered “green programming” under WTO? If we went to higher levels, and if it's green.... We have to change our funding so that it's green, not amber or....
The second question is really to you, Joe. I'm intrigued by the 95% minimum pricing you proposed. We need to look at that. I expect there are trade implications. Do you have any proposals on the domestic marketing side about what we can do there?
Those are my two questions.
Ross?