Well, Mr. Lemieux, you don't owe me anything. I think you owe me a bottle of wine, if anything. But I don't think you paid for that wine that I brought back from the Okanagan Valley, which was interprovincial by the way. But anyway....
No, you don't owe me an amendment. This is a good amendment, it stands on its own. I think it was discussed by some of the witnesses that yes, the uptake now is 2% to 3%. Looking at the numbers it'll be 10% next year, no problem, who will go over the $400,000.
You can't say just because a small group of farmers may need it or use it that we should not go for that group. If you're a big-shot lawyer and you're making a lot of money does that mean you shouldn't get your wages from being an MP? I don't know. That's the logic of saying that group should be left out because it's only a small group. It doesn't wash.
I'm not going to make much more of a comment on this. I know it's a good amendment and I know it's one that you'll have to revisit in a couple of years when the numbers of farming.... The farms are getting bigger. There are fewer farms, the numbers are going to be there. You're going to have to address this sooner or later so you might as well address it now. That's my take on it.