It's interesting. I chose to use those five because I just got those five things from a group of farmers across the country I teach a management course to. I've taught it to them for the last two years or I've been involved in teaching it. The 27 farmers are outstanding farmers, including some of the outstanding young farmers of Canada. They came up with five comments on income support.
First, they would really like not to take it, or have to have it, if they could get to a point where they could have fair rules around the world. This is why they put the emphasis on gaining market access and so forth.
Secondly, if they have to have it, there are some things they would like to have done. They talked about fairness. A number of people in that group were concerned about the fact that they might undertake something in good faith and their neighbours don't. The example that someone used is they get subsidized crop insurance, they decide to pay their share of it, and their neighbour doesn't. Then the neighbour gets the one-off payment that goes on top of crop insurance, and they do too. They'll probably claw back their crop insurance payment. They're saying they'd like way more fairness and responsibility placed on producers if they're going to take income insurance, but they would like not to if they possibly could, which is why I chose to leave it off the list.
I've taken groups through this process from right across the country for the last five years, and they almost never say anything about subsidies being in the policy program. They always say these things I just talked about.