Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I think on the last point, Alex and Dennis, on the feed business, it's another case of where Merv hit the nail on the head, that pretty nearly everything we do on policy development in this country relates either to international trade rules or how they might feel about it south of the border. I think you made a really valuable point in terms of your 20-acre vegetable farm.
The fact of the matter is there are two acts involved in feed, the Maritime Freight Rates Act and the Feed Freight Assistance Act, and both were dumped to meet WTO requirements in 1995, I think. And, Merv, Newfoundland is a different industry. A number of us have been there, and it is growing and expanding, whereas agriculture in the rest of the country is in a different situation.
But my question would be, what about companion programs? They weren't in ATF I. They were taken out. The CAIS program was going to be the be-all and end-all of programming and there was never going to be ad hoc funding again, and there certainly wasn't going to be companion programming. Companion programming might meet some of the needs in Newfoundland. It might meet some of the needs that Mr. Gordon talked about in terms of the environmental area.
So I'd ask the witnesses three questions. What's your view on companion programs? Secondly, we do things very differently in this country than in the United States. They have all kinds of subsidies that aren't seen as agricultural subsidies. On some of the things you talked about in environment, should the public pay if it's done for public good, whether it's environmental or anything else on the farm?
Havey, you were saying that supply management should be part of the new APF as a risk management program. How should that be worded? This really goes to our researcher here. Are you saying the three pillars themselves should be stated and not the words “supply management”.
And lastly to the hog producers, we don't have a national energy policy in this country. We have a new ethanol and biodiesel policy, which I support to a great extent, but what I'm worried about is that all we're going to do is make another profit centre for the oil industry. They don't need another profit centre. Should the energy policy for Canada be more all-encompassing, including wind, biomass from manures, for instance, and other areas, and be tied into an energy policy that benefits Canadians and rural communities rather than just the oil companies?