Yes, absolutely, I couldn't agree more. When those changes, the cuts to the programs, were put in place it was at a point in time when income levels were relatively stable and, as an industry, we were in a good place.
As you mentioned, those introductions were put in as cost-saving measures, and we're certainly not advocating for support from a profitability perspective. We understand why some of those changes have been put in place, but the landscape has changed tremendously. This is becoming an increasingly global marketplace. Well, it's not “increasingly”: We are there. We're not competing with our neighbours anymore; we're competing with farmers from around the globe. When you tack on domestic policies such as the carbon tax and domestic issues, the rail strikes and whatnot that impact us, and you look at some of the trade wars and some of the international events that are happening, you see that they have a severe, detrimental effect on our ability to move our industry forward and to grow our businesses.
Absolutely, I couldn't agree more, the landscape is a key issue, which is why these programs must have some sense of timeliness and must be able to change and be flexible. That's key.
What worked 10 years ago doesn't work now. Whatever we develop going forward, we have to make sure it's flexible to meet the demands for anything that we can see coming down the pipeline in the foreseeable future.