Let me re-emphasize the point: never have we seen a government do less. I'll explain why.
I'm also concerned, Jurgen, about the farm leadership being so quiet. You requested $800 million, which I think would have gone much further than the current programs. The current programs could have been in addition to that, but you seem to have backed away from that request.
On these two programs, my concerns are these. On the second program, in which the bid process is in place for people to transition or be out of the industry for three years, it's a process in which people are bidding neighbour against neighbour for who'll get the lowest price and get out of the industry. It's almost inhumane.
I want to talk extensively about the other one, the loan one, or ask you some questions on it. The concern I have there--and this is why I criticize the government--is that the only one gaining on this whole proposal is the government, which gets paid on its APP, while you're left holding more debt. I'm told now that the banks that are coming in are not going to charge prime plus one, but prime plus extensive interest rates, with a government guarantee. That's unacceptable.
In our report in December 2007, we as a total committee made what I think were good recommendations. We asked that the reference margin calculations be changed, we asked that the viability test be eliminated so that the industry could use positive margins, we asked that the annual contribution limit of the AgriInvest program be increased, and we asked that the government look at the whole regulatory regime. That is where our cost structure in Canada, under regulations, is much higher.
Have those recommendations come through from the government in terms of reference margins, viability tests, or annual contributions to the AgriInvest program? Has the government dealt with the regulatory regime, which would make one hell of a difference?