Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you all for coming. One of the problems with six witnesses is that there are too many questions and not enough time.
Just to start off, David, you had mentioned that really Steve Verheul's hands—and the government talks about this often—are tied in terms of negotiations because of the House motion. For the government to use that as an excuse is nothing but malarkey. About one or two motions a week go through the House that the government doesn't listen to. Some of you mentioned the Canadian Wheat Board. There have been two motions in the House giving direction to the government in that area, and they absolutely, completely ignored them. So for them to use that as an excuse is absolutely wrong, and I just want to make that point, that it's clear malarkey. And for them to talk about that, where on the one hand they abide by House motions and on the other they ignore them.... Don't allow that to be used as an excuse.
I want to try to get to some specifics in terms of your own commodities, Martin. The specific question to you is about transportation. Although we're the agriculture committee, it is absolutely crucial to the agricultural industry. I mean, transportation is functional to marketing. It doesn't matter whether they were the government or we were the government, the problem is the Department of Transport. They might as well call themselves “the great railway defenders”. I've dealt with railways since the 1970s, when I was president of the farmers union. I guess the key in this one is what needs to be put in place to deal with the concerns of shippers in a more rapid fashion? The Canadian Transportation Agency doesn't really effectively work. What do you suggest in that regard?
I'll raise the second question now really to anyone, but mainly Mary-Ann, as you've mentioned a number of areas. The U.S. is much more strategic than Canada, and you mentioned that we had to be careful in terms of opening ourselves up to trade action. If you look at the U.S., they do school milk programs, they do food stamps, they do environmental programs, and they do it across a section of departments and across the government. They're green. Why can't we do that? Why shouldn't our on-farm food safety be entirely green, entirely paid for by the Government of Canada, or at least a combination? Why not an environmental program of the same things? Why can't we pump money into our system, the same as they do, under green programming? Would anybody be in favour of doing that?