If we adopt farm succession measures, there really has to be a transfer to family or to other persons. If tax exemptions are granted and people use them to put more money in their pockets, that's worthless. It's better to find measures that will really facilitate transfers. I think that's very important.
Like Mr. Proulx, I'm in the process of transferring my farm. When you have a $3 million farm and you owe $1 million, people think you're rich, since you have $2 million. In fact, you're poor because you can't sell your farm to your children. You have to find a way to get by.
In the Gaspé Peninsula, a paper plant project was set up. Two million dollars per job was invested. With that money, the government could have suggested to young people leaving the ITA that they buy a $1 million farm in order to operate it, but that they remain owners. If those young people had managed to make the business profitable, the government could have sold the farm to them. The government of Quebec or of Canada would be rich: their land would have increased in value. We invest in things that we then lose. Land has value. It doesn't burn down. Can someone tell me that the value of land has declined in 50 years? On the contrary, it has simply increased in value.
Governments could invest in land and not see that as an expense. They always invest in things that lose value. They should do the contrary. If people can no longer keep their land because it costs them too much, governments can assign it to young people or less young people who are efficient.