One of these resolutions came from Manitoba. It was from a senior. With the aging population, we're seeing siblings who started farming 30 years ago, and they have a younger sibling who wants to take over the family farm. The younger sibling was in a different job and came back to the farm at 30 years old. That sibling wants to take over from the oldest sibling, but can't. It's possible to buy it from the parents, and there's a hand down from there. The sibling can be actively farming right beside a brother or sister, but can't take over the farm with that break. It has to be parent to child and not sibling to sibling. If they are actively farming, and that's the caveat, then they should be viewed as the same thing, so it's that back to that family farm. I guess that has changed, right? The laws were made back in the fifties and sixties when there were a lot more families and smaller type farms. Mechanization has brought us huge operations, but the family.... Now it's sons-in-law and people who have never even.... They have married into the family as husband and the wife. The daughter and the son-in-law want to take it over because they're part of the farm.
That is what we're talking about, with the true family entity. That's why in my notes I was maintaining that family type of entity.
We've always been criticized, you know, because the corporate farms are not family farms, but I think 90% of the farms in Canada are family owned.