Well, on the first piece, I would argue with you about the farm voice being split. It certainly appears to be split, but that's a bit different. There's always this discussion about farmers needing to speak with a single voice; you can sum it up with that line. But as long as there is company money involved in farm organizations, or other outside interests' money involved in farm organizations, there will never be a single voice, because companies or governments can fund organizations to get the voice out there that they want to hear.
On the other piece, I don't think it can be clearer that the Canadian farmers, time and time again, have lost from the outcomes of these international trade discussions. We have given up program after program after program and received nothing in return. Our farmers' net incomes in Canada show the result, and it's hard to imagine how anybody could promote these trade agreements, or these types of changes in trade agreements, as things that are actually going to help Canadian farmers.
Our previous trade negotiator, Steve Verheul, for whom I had a lot of respect throughout the whole process, actually made the statement that we cannot call any of these trade agreements a success unless we start to see the incomes of Canadian farmers go up. That's not what we're seeing. If this text were implemented today, immediately the incomes of Canadian farmers would go down, not up, and we would lose our legislative marketing tools, such as supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board.