I appreciate that analogy, and thank you for that.
I guess my other two questions will go to Mr. Doyle.
I appreciate Mr. Guimond's interjection on behalf of the dairy industry. He tends to have a bias, I will tell you, but it's a bias that I agree with, so it's not a bad thing.
However, I don't think it's as simple as saying that there can be no negotiations. I think we have done a very good job—and I appreciate your praise for it—as a government defending Canadian dairy and Canadian supply management. I think the concept that farmers deserve to be paid with a margin of profit involved for the product they produce and that we move away, quite frankly, from some of that cheap food policy that is subsidized by the rest of the world isn't a bad concept. It is as simple as that.
I don't think we say that enough, and we need to say it to Canadians. If you read the paper, you will read time and time again that we're paying too much for dairy. What they don't say is that Canadians are paying for cost of production. There's nothing wrong with that, and if you can't pay for cost of production, you can't afford to be in business. No other business could operate without getting cost of production.
On the geographical indicators, because the geographical indicators will be a substantial challenge, have you talked to our trade negotiators about the discussion that should be going on concerning them? You mentioned two that are important, parmesan and feta. Both of them are well-known products, world cheeses that you can buy in Australia, New Zealand, or Canada, the United States—anywhere in the world. I'm not sure that we can't find some accommodation with the EU on those types of geographical indicators. It might be—this is speculation—as simple as saying “Canadian feta”, because certainly in Europe you can have Greek feta and Italian feta, and made in other....
Would you be willing at least to have that discussion? We might have to add to the name, but it's not as simple as saying that we can't use it.