Agriculture committee  You're going to have to give up something. With the sensitive products, they would be giving up reductions in over-quota tariffs, but they would be accepting increases in the size of the in-quota tariff, so they would be increasing the size of the quota. That would actually provide some access to the market.

Agriculture committee  You're talking about the WTO market access conditions right now. The idea is that there would be special arrangements for products defined to be sensitive, and there would be some upper limit. It depends who you're talking to. The various tariff lines would define the percentage in terms of covering off every supply-managed product.

Agriculture committee  It would maintain the price stability. Probably you'd would end up with a bit lower prices. With additional access, that access is open; the domestic industry, if it wants to increase the size of the production quotas, could capture it at a lower price.

Agriculture committee  Yes. Japan, especially, is the market, and so is China. There have been a lot of studies in the past that.... Some peculiarities in the way the tariff lines have been set up in both countries give a certain amount of access to soybeans and to the American producers. Japan has historically bought a very consistent amount of canola.

Agriculture committee  The obvious answer is still the Asian markets. I'm not sure what's going to come out of the India negotiations. I think there are probably going to be too many exemptions at the end of the day. However, some of the members of the trans-Pacific partnership—Malaysia, for instance—could potentially be very expanding markets.

Agriculture committee  It would probably be more of an income effect: as income grows, demand is heightened.

Agriculture committee  The demand goes up more; it's more responsive to very rapid.... You tend to think of less developed markets as having more responsive demand with respect to income. You see very rapid growth in those markets.

Agriculture committee  Very much so.

Agriculture committee  It's one sector in which it's easier to target and identify who the consumers are. As you get into broader processed products, it's very difficult to target exactly who they are.

Agriculture committee  The Australians spend considerably more. I'm not certain what the order of magnitude is, but it's very substantial. They've been in this business for quite a while. At the same time, they are not focusing so much on national brands, as we are. I think we've sort of hung our wagon to the star of a Canada brand.

Agriculture committee  I think I'd probably increase the funding that goes to the individual industries. You continue the types of partnerships you've had. Possibly you continue on with the Canada brand, but at the same time I think you need to study it a little bit. You face the risk that if something goes seriously wrong, where once you had a Canada brand that was positive, suddenly it's a Canada brand that is negative.

Agriculture committee  That's one thing CIGI does in its role. Its consumers are a lot easier to identify; they are wheat millers across the world. They offer training sessions. They bring in people for big drunks.

Agriculture committee  No, I was actually looking at Derek.

Agriculture committee  I'll make one comment about drought-tolerant crops, and it relates to research that's been done before. I actually have a grad student dealing with marker-assisted research into drought-tolerant crops and GM crops. One of the things we get out of this, which we often get out of returns to research studies, is that when you have a relatively large increase in production without a corresponding reduction in cost--and in these cases you wouldn't have a reduction in cost--then when prices go down sufficiently, the effect at the end of the day is that producers end up losing money or not being any better off.

Agriculture committee  I think it's a little difficult to exactly price out what covers the Canada brand. I think you also have the AgriFlexibilityfund. It is half a billion dollars, right? I think that because there are partnerships with provincial governments and partnerships with private firms as well, trying to figure out this complex web of where the money is going and trying to determine exactly what happened is very difficult.