Your time has expired.
Let's have some order here.
On this topic here, Mr. Roesch, let me ask you a quick question.
As a farmer, before I got involved in federal politics, I remember every time I'd read or hear about U.S. beef or Argentinian beef or Australian beef coming into the country, because I'm a beef farmer, it used to tick me off. I'd think, what the heck, this just doesn't seem right. But once you get in government and you get to the realization and fully look at it.... Quite often, as farmers, we get out there and we're into the everyday work, which is what we love, and sometimes we're our own worst enemy when it comes to marketing. Normally we're not known as good marketers. But when you get to see the actual percentage of beef and pork production--particularly those two, and lamb to a lesser degree--in the livestock sector, we export huge amounts of it, and you soon come to the realization that because we produce so much here and we have a small population base in relation to the size of our country, we have that.... If you want to send products around the world and into other countries, the last thing you do is start closing your borders and what have you.
The bottom line is that we have to compete. I quess the simple question is this: do you think the taxpayers should subsidize overproduction? In essence, when you can't compete and you can't get a fair value on the world market for that, basically, you're putting a product out there, and if you're not getting enough, all of a sudden you're in trouble. It's akin to gambling. Sometimes you win, sometimes you don't.
I'm not trying to be factitious on this, because the issue is that if we want to export, we have to compete out there. Right now we have the Canadian dollar rising, which we all know is the worst damn thing for agriculture. That 75ยข dollar is perfect. Could you comment on that a bit?