I agree with you on that. I don't think Alberta, Quebec, or Ontario will ever give up their departments of agriculture, even though we may want to address it.
On the point you raised, Mr. Dykstra, that in Canada we haven't gone hungry, a few people will remember the dirty thirties. We had new Canadians, second- and third-generation Canadians who came from Europe and who went through World War II. People who've come from Africa and who went through the famines there understand it. But most Canadians don't appreciate that fact.
Americans seem to get it. Even though they have a history that's similar to Canada's, they seem to get it. They have a large population and they have to keep people fed. They invest in it heavily.
Some of the comments that were made today are similar in line to what we've heard across the country about APF pillars, that we should be incorporating supply management, or at least that in the three pillars supply management has to be worked in as part of the business risk management. We've heard that we want a pillar on trade and marketing, and having stronger bilaterals. If WTO can't address our situation or our issues, then we need to be out negotiating as many bilaterals as possible. Where I see a bit of a disconnect....
Actually, regarding some comments that you made, Mr. Gareau, about working with your American counterparts, are you essentially looking at a North American supply management model? And how do you see that meshing with the broader perspective of being a trade commodity?