First of all, I want to thank each and every one of you for your presentations and for taking time out of your day--no doubt, you would be farming--to come here and give us your advice and your insight. We can't make decisions unless we're informed by those who are most affected by those decisions, and that's you.
Kalissa, you're absolutely right. We are in a crisis, and we wouldn't be here if that crisis didn't exist. We discovered that probably in the last year and a half, while we've been examining competitiveness in the industry. Over the last number of days, that crisis has become just that much more heightened, at least in our eyes around this table, having travelled from Kelowna, in B.C., to Alberta yesterday and here today.
We've heard any number of solutions, and the solutions are consistent with what you've said, anything from harmonizing regulations between this country and other countries so that we are not unfairly disadvantaged.... We've talked about the repair that needs to be done to AgriStability, about problems with succession planning, the cost of land, the lack of a real commitment to a national food strategy, and the preservation of our industry so that we can maintain our sovereignty--in other words, always be able to feed ourselves as a country.
I would encourage any one of you who feels compelled or competent to answer this...it's on AgriStability. It was suggested by several that we move away from the margin approach and move toward the actual cost of production approach. I'm seeing a no. I don't know if there are any yeses out there, but the viability test, apparently, for some is not working. If it were to be a margin-based program, it should be the best three of five years.
Mr. Thompson, you were saying no. If there is somebody else who has an opinion about that, I'd like to hear the other side of that argument from one of you, if I could.