It's not just you. It's other industry stakeholders, from the groups we heard from before. There's a narrative that runs counter to what the industry was asking for in the first place, which was greater industry control over research to ensure that the research targeted the priorities of the industry and wasn't just shooting off in some unknown direction, or developing something that wasn't necessarily marketable and usable by farmers or by consumers.
I'm putting these questions to you, because you're sitting right here today. It's something I've been hearing from other witnesses, and no one has really challenged that. I do want to challenge that, because they are related. The clusters and government lead on research are related. It's not zero 100%, meaning it's not as if there are no government researchers now, but there's a shift in emphasis, as asked for by industry, and the funding has gone up. The first clusters under Growing Forward 1 came about in 2008. The funding has gone up. Under poultry, I believe you got about $2 million under Growing Forward 1. Now you are getting $4 million. It has gone up. I'm just saying it's all related. There is twice the funding in that poultry cluster.
I would also point out that the total cluster funding is—I'm going to say “only”, and I'm going to qualify it—$5.6 million. The question I'm going to put back to you is, do you feel there should be more resources, money, and researchers involved in poultry research? You have a supply-managed sector. In a sense it's a top-down, hierarchical-type of structure where you have tremendous influence over where you get your revenues. Yet, we've put $4 million into the cluster, and industry and perhaps provincial governments put in $1.6 million. Why wouldn't the poultry sector also put in $4 million or $6 million or $8 million or $10 million, whatever they think they need to advance their own goals?