I've won the lottery.
Since we have the time, I'm going to start by asking a question about a passage you quoted, Mr. Easter. You said that the rules of international trade are imposed.
Who imposes them? I thought that our states had to define the rules of international trade among themselves. I wonder whether it's they who impose these rules. In my opinion, agricultural producers around the world would like to have a concept of food sovereignty, and many people in society would be quite in favour of that. That would be preferable to the rules of international trade as we know them now.
If it isn't the state that decides this, it's money, but the state should be above money. Perhaps that utopian, but I dare hope that we've established government rules that put human values above the value of money. The states should decide to put in place a concept according to which money is a tool, and not an end. That's philosophical, but I still dare hope that. I have confidence in the future.
We aren't opposed to a concept that an individual should be supported in a business, but we're becoming aware that the CAIS program—and we now have examples—tends to lead businesses to divide.
For example, a beef producer, a grain producer, a pork producer or a maple syrup producer will divide his business if it is big enough. If it's a small business, he can't afford to do so, he's put at a disadvantage because of a program that works better when businesses are divided. When the business is big enough, you divide it. For example, you make a pork division, a beef division. In that way, you have the opportunity to access the CAIS program.
We're in a form of agriculture that has always been based on diversification. However, this program causes us some concern. The concept of supporting the individual is appropriate. The concept of supporting an entire business is appropriate as well. In fact, experience shows us that producers will increasingly divide their businesses. Some have already begun to do so.
I ask myself a lot of questions about the profile of Quebec agriculture in the future. That doesn't mean that you have to throw everything out. On the contrary, you have to take note of what is going on and try to improve things so that we can derive benefits from one type of agriculture, support human beings in production and not production units: pigs, cows and cattle—they're not the ones that have to have the subsidy, it's us— without that resulting in the division of the business, because that will alter our agricultural profile, but I doubt that will ultimately improve it.
Our agriculture is based on diversity. Here in Chaudière-Appalaches, there are virtually all types of production, virtually all climates, and our agriculture is very much based on that diversity. In my opinion, there is a risk that has to be assessed, and we have to ensure that it's possible to alter this program, so that it is based on human beings, without promoting the division of businesses. That analysis is aimed directly at the CAIS program.