:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's great to be here.
Greetings to all the committee members as well. It's my first time before the committee. Actually, it's my first time before a committee in this capacity, as a witness. I'm sure you'll be gentle.
At any rate, I appreciate the work that you folks do on behalf of agriculture. In my experience, the work of the agriculture committee is like the work I see in the department; it's done by people who obviously have a passion for the issue. I know that the farmers in our agricultural organizations appreciate your work and the passion you bring to it.
I just want to talk for a few minutes about what we've done in the last few months and then talk a little more about the future. After that I'll take your questions.
As you know, the government committed $1.5 billion to the agriculture sector in our May 2 budget. That's triple our original election promise. It's in response, really, to what we heard from farmers and farm organizations about the need that's out there. We have addressed some short-term needs and have at the same time tried to lay the foundation for longer-term stability. We've been very busy over the last couple of weeks with some announcements on how to benefit our producers now and into the future.
We were very happy to have made three announcements on May 18--the farmers' hat trick, if you will--that put about $1 billion into farmers' hands this fiscal year. The biggest announcement was the change to the CAIS inventory valuation system. We all know that CAIS hasn't been as responsive to farmers' needs as it should have been, and through this change we'll be putting an extra $900 million into producers' pockets. Administrators will be recalculating producers' CAIS applications for the 2003, 2004, and 2005 program years. If producers are entitled to more money by using this new method, they'll be getting a payment.
I should just add that if the old method of calculation is better for the farmers, we'll just keep that one. We'll give them the best of the two methods. Also, there's no additional paperwork, since this will be done automatically. We're trying to keep the paperwork to a minimum all around.
Also connected to CAIS, we're working with the provinces and territories toward expanding the eligibility criteria for negative margin coverage to help viable farms with deep losses. That will provide another $50 million from the federal portion into that program.
We're also committed to replacing CAIS with a program that separates disaster relief from income stabilization. Those negotiations are ongoing with the provinces right now. In the meantime, we are making changes to the program that make it more responsive to producers' needs, as a down payment on our future objective of separating those two programs. In addition, we've gotten rid of the deposit requirement and have replaced it with a fee for this year. We've also deferred collection of overpayments, the clawback provisions. We've deferred that for now and cancelled interest charges on those overpayments until January 1, 2007. We think all of these are commonsensical initiatives that will help meet farmers' needs.
Two other related announcements on May 18 will help farmers now and in the future. First, the tabling of amendments to the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, the AMPA legislation, will improve existing cash advance programs by making them, again, more responsive to farmers' needs. The second part is the introduction of the enhanced spring credit advance program, or ESCAP, which will also provide assistance to producers as early as this year. We'll be doubling the interest-free maximum for spring credit advances to $100,000, and extending the repayment period until September 30, 2007, in order to help farmers market their products to their best advantage. We are anticipating that will make an additional $500 million available to producers this spring.
The AMPA legislation, which will make those changes from ESCAP permanent, is also expected to provide an additional $600 million a year in cash advances. That's because the coverage will be expanded, of course, to include more agricultural products, notably livestock; to increase the overall limits on advances to $400,000; and to increase the cash amounts to producers, interest-free, from $50,000 to $100,000.
In addition to these, I was in Manitoba last week to announce our new cover crop protection program. That's to help the farmers whose land was damaged by flooding over the last couple of years to plant a cover crop and get back into production. We've committed $50 million for this year to fund the initial year of this national program. Most of that money this year will go to Saskatchewan and Manitoba just because of the flooding there and the excess moisture. This will provide producers on moisture-affected land with one-time payments of about $15 an acre.
In future years I would like to move to provide producers who have crop insurance with a per acre payment that's calculated to cover the average incremental cost of planting cover crops on land that's coming back into commercial crop production. This year it covers all land that has been flooded or has excess moisture, whether they're in crop insurance or not.
Earlier announcements. Of course we did accelerate the payout of the grains and oilseed payment program. About $590 million of the $755 million has been paid out. We've also announced that the Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act, the FIMCLA act, will continue. It was scheduled to be wrapped up, but it will continue, and consultations are taking place with industry on how to make the program more effective, especially for young farmers. All of these changes are to hopefully give tools to farmers to run their businesses more effectively, more profitably, and in a more predictable financial environment.
What is equally important is that we set out some changes for the future, or at least some options for the future for farmers and for producers. I wonder if the way to do that is by helping farmers diversify their marketing opportunities and options. One of those options is contained in the government's commitment to ensure that all motor vehicle fuel in Canada contains an average of 5% renewable fuel content, either ethanol or biodiesel, by 2010. We believe this is an important initiative that will provide short-term and long-term benefits not only to our agriculture producers but also to players throughout the value chain, as well as to our environment and to Canadians in general. There's potentially a huge new market for grains and oilseeds with this initiative.
I'm working with my colleagues from Environment and Natural Resources, and with industry and with provinces to make sure the commitment is implemented in a way that allows producers the opportunity to get involved in the value chain and to derive the maximum possible benefits from this 5% target that we will create.
Consulting with the provinces and industry now on how best to support our producer involvement in this new opportunity is ongoing. It started last week. We had a biofuels conference in Regina with the provinces, a bilateral agreement with the provinces. We want to move ahead quickly, but we want to do it right, and I want to do it in a way so that producers can make the business decisions to get involved where it makes sense for them.
In the longer term, biofuel is really only one aspect of the range of industrial chemical and other products that can be derived from the agricultural biomass generally. We want to support science and research and development to get there, and there are provisions in this budget for that as well.
I just want to update you a little on the WTO negotiations. As I'm sure you know, the WTO members did not reach an agreement on detailed rules and commitments in the agriculture negotiations by April 30 as originally planned. That being said, the WTO members are determined to resolve outstanding issues. We're currently involved in some pretty intensive negotiating in Geneva aimed at reaching agreement on detailed commitments at the earliest possibility. Canada is continuing to push for a more level international playing field for our producers and processors, which we believe can be accomplished by eliminating export subsidies, substantially reducing trade distorting subsidies, and by significantly improving market access.
[Translation]
We want an ambitious outcome for Canada. At the same time—like all WTO members, we have both offensive and defensive interests. For example, it is clear that key issues important to our supply management system continue to be under very significant pressure at the negotiations.
[English]
In response, we have gone to the wall to aggressively defend our interests. Canada's active participation at the WTO is crucially and critically important for the prosperity of this sector. For this reason, I can tell you that we will remain at the table to fight hard for all of Canada's interests. We must be a deal maker, I believe, not simply a deal taker at the WTO. We want a deal that benefits both our supply-managed and our export-oriented interests.
There are a few words I'd like to mention, too, about the CFIA.
As Canada's regulatory agency for safeguarding Canada's food, plants, and animals, CFIA has a very important role to play in contributing to the quality of life for Canadians. In this world of globalization, where borders become very sensitive to problems of disease and animal health and so on, I believe it is imperative that we remain on top of the pressing issues that CFIA deals with so we can better respond to emergencies as they arise and, better yet, prevent them from taking place to begin with. If we are to continue to be recognized as having one of the most comprehensive food safety and animal and plant health systems in the world, CFIA, as I've said many times, will often be as responsible for keeping borders and opportunities for our producers open as anything else we may do. If we handle our regulatory system well, that will continue to make market access possible for our producers around the world.
There are provisions in the budget for pandemic preparedness and for AI, or avian influenza, preparedness, and I'm happy to talk about that as well.
Finally, I just want to be clear that we are working toward long-term sustainability and profitability for our agricultural sector. That also includes the rural communities that are dependent on a healthy farm sector for their own economic strength. In the May budget, we provided a number of measures for non-agricultural-related sectors that are important to rural Canada, including, for example, some tax changes for fishermen, on either coast, when transferring property to their children. Money for the forestry sector, infrastructure development, and access for farmers and others to the Pacific gateway funding are other examples.
We believe it's important not only to support our agricultural sectors, but also to look after rural communities. We believe that where families grow and raise their children in those rural settings is the cornerstone, the backbone, of our country. We want to support that and make sure they have as many facilities as possible and as much access to opportunity as the rest of the country has.
I think that's probably enough for me, Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to take questions and try to answer them.
I'd just like to thank the president of the CFIA, François Guimont, and associate deputy minister, Christiane Ouimet, for being here this morning. If the going gets really tough, I'm just going to punt the ball to one of them.
Thank you.
:
Certainly the details of a negotiator's mandate are difficult to make public, because if you put the bottom line of your mandate in the public realm, then the negotiator's no longer negotiating; all he has is his bottom line. It's very difficult to discuss tactics or strategy for the negotiator day by day, because there's going to be a lot of give and take in these negotiations and a good negotiator is going to have to do his best--and I believe we have a very good negotiator--to get the best deal for Canadian agriculture.
That being said, what has been clear over the last month or so, for example, is that Canada stood firm when a proposal came forward to expand tariff rates, TRQs, for example, which would affect our supply-managed system. And I'm going to be blunt about this, and I think we have to be honest about this. The problem for us is that the vote in that situation, where we refused to accept any changes to the TRQs, was 148 countries to 1. We completely stand alone on that. All other countries, including Japan and the European Union and others, say they feel there had to be some changes to the TRQs and other tariffs.
The question we have to ask ourselves and the question that supply management has to ask themselves is this. What's the best strategy now, given that we're completely isolated, 148 countries against 1? What's the best strategy now to get the deal possible for Canada? If we continue along a voting pattern of being completely isolated against all other countries of the world, then we're not going to be at the table to defend the interests of supply management. We'll be on the outside, wondering what's going on inside the room. The question then is, who's going to defend supply management if not us?
So the difficulty in negotiations becomes this. What strategies and tactics do you use to make sure that supply management and the rest of the agricultural community don't end up with a deal at the WTO that other countries have crafted, that haven't included our input? So that's the difficulty, and I'm just being honest about it.
The other thing that's clear is that in the end we will be in the WTO. The associations that say if we don't get the perfect deal or if it's not just what we want, we should walk away from the WTO are not dealing in reality. We simply are going to be in the WTO when this is over, and to think otherwise is to play a very dangerous game. We will be in the WTO. That's why it's important that we be a deal maker and not just a deal taker...that other countries might want to craft on our behalf.
:
I would agree with you. That question comes up repeatedly and in almost every sector of agriculture, whether it's horticulture, or grains and oilseeds, or animal health. A common concern is how to get access to leading-edge health products, or pesticides or herbicides, and how to do it quickly and at a reasonable cost.
The own-use permits have been used extensively, as you know. That has been the one saving grace, really, that has allowed a lot of the grains and oilseeds folks to keep things moving, but on other products and in other sectors of the industry it has been more difficult.
There has been some progress on a couple of fronts. One is, of course, that the PMRA is under Health Canada. We might want to debate whether it should be there or under Agriculture, and I know that's a common debate and maybe a good one, but the current head of the PMRA, Karen Dodds, from what everyone tells me, is doing a much better job of being receptive to farmers' concerns. She is listening well; she is trying to work the system to get them products more quickly. So I think there are some good-news stories there. She has been good to work with and has taken the farmers' side on this in a lot of ways. That's going to help quite a bit, because the management of that kind of an agency makes a big difference.
The second thing is that when we make up our own priority lists from the agricultural side and share that with the PMRA, the turnaround time on that has improved greatly. There are, again, some good success stories on that. The problem is that it's only a short list. So we put together the top 10 priorities and share that with the PMRA. That tends to go more quickly. The problem is that a lot more than 10 are required. So we're working with the CFIA and with the Americans—especially the Americans, because that tends to be where the products come from—to try to find ways to not only harmonize approval processes but harmonize the testing process itself so that when programs or tests are designed, we can actually use those results and it will pass muster in Canada as well. Those talks are ongoing, to try as much as possible to move that so that Canadians can get them as quickly as possible.
It's an ongoing problem, though, but we are working on that with PMRA, CFIA, and our own officials to try to get the bottlenecks out of it.
:
I have some questions in my thread of thought here.
Thanks for taking time to meet with us. I'm encouraged by your hard work and the many positive measures you have outlined, Minister Strahl.
[Translation]
In agriculture, we're at a very interesting, but also very critical, point in history. By working together, particularly with those operating in agriculture, we're well placed to ultimately put in place a vision that will help determine the future of our country. For example, I'm encouraged by your commitment in the biofuels sector.
By building our agricultural policy together, I encourage you very strongly to rely on the report prepared by the Honourable Wayne Easter entitled “Empowering Canadian Farmers in the Work Place”.
Here's my first question: Will you consult that report, which reflects some in-depth deliberations?
[English]
It's in the spirit of cooperation with the stakeholders in agriculture, especially the primary producers, that I ask this government to move forward. I will be tabling a motion here with amendments by Mr. Easter in regard to the federal government's decision to retain ownership of the hopper car fleet.
In spite of certain comments that I've heard in regard to the Farmer Rail Car Coalition, they do in fact represent farmers and I encourage you to work with them. In fact, thanks to them, hopefully we can get to the bottom of why farmers have been overcharged for hopper car maintenance. As you know, we have asked the Auditor General to look into this.
The time is right to ask the FRCC to work closely with our government as we deliver policy in regard to hopper car maintenance. Let's use their expertise as we work together in the best interest of farmers. My second question is, are you prepared to do that with them?
Another critical area where this is possible is the Canadian Wheat Board. There are those on this committee and otherwise who believe that the Canadian Wheat Board should have a dual marketing role. On the other hand, according to calculations by the National Farmers Union, marketing and policy benefits of the CWB are worth at least $800 million a year, more than $2 million per day for western Canadian farmers. This sum equals roughly the value of the Crow benefit that farmers lost in 1995. The loss of the Crow is a significant cause of the farm crisis now gripping farmers. According to Stewart Wells, NFU president, losing the CWB would be equally devastating.
Members of this committee have differing views on this subject; however, let's look at the polls. The results for the spring 2006 producers survey were prepared by Innovative Research Group Inc. This survey is conducted annually for the CWB to measure farmers' concerns and attitudes on a number of issues. Of 1,303 CWB permit book holders who were interviewed for the survey, a total of 76% of farmers support the CWB, and 66% of those below age 35 support it. A total of 71% of farmers believe this is the most effective representation for their views on agriculture and trade issues.
The most important result is that 88% of the farmers believe that the final decision on the Canadian Wheat Board single-desk versus dual marketing should be made by farmers themselves through a plebiscite or CWB director elections rather than leaving a decision to the federal government alone. Clearly, here is a chance for this government to work with the farmers rather than imposing its will to change the direction of the CWB.
Governments from all political parties, all levels, often impose their will on the people. With guidance from this government, let's let the farmers decide their future, and most of all, let's put aside our political ideologies.
I would like to see your response and your commitment to working with them. In other words, is this government prepared to let the farmers, the stakeholders, decide the future of the Canadian Wheat Board?
[Translation]
That was my final question, Mr. Minister.
:
When you have a good report, Mr. Chair, it speaks for itself.
Anyway, Mr. Minister, welcome. I know that certainly your heart is in the right place in doing what you can for the farm community, but you're dealing with a tough crowd in terms of your cabinet and even the department.
I've been fairly open about this. I believe we've seen a lot of wordsmithing from the new government on what they're doing for the farm community; the impression is left with the general public that they're doing much more than they really are, starting with the budget. The budgetary announcements by Minister Flaherty left the impression that you were putting more money out there for farmers, and actually there is less money than was committed the previous year.
I have a few specific questions.
Certainly the impression was left with the farmers who were demonstrating on the Hill that there would be immediate assistance for spring. We haven't seen any of that money, and there really is nothing there in terms of immediate assistance for spring. So on your $1.5 billion you claim, I have two specifics on that. First, will any of that money be there to meet spring bills? We're beyond the need for cash now. Will any of that money be there to meet spring planting bills and spring bills? Second, on the low family farm income, is that a part of the $1.5 billion, or in addition to it?
Tied into that is the interest-free loan. I think you know—you've been in business, Mr. Minister—you can't borrow yourself out of debt. Your average Canadian out there actually believed, when you announced the $100,000, that was money from the Government of Canada to the farm community. It's farmers' own money. It's a good program, and we will work with you to try to get that legislation through rapidly. But the fact of the matter is, there is a break from government on interest, and it is really just an additional loan. Has the department done any analysis on how many farmers will not qualify for that interest advance?
I'm hearing from farmers out there that they're in a credit crunch. They haven't paid last year's interest cash advance; they won't qualify for this one. In terms of this announcement, has the department done any analysis on who will not be eligible for that money? You cannot borrow yourself out of debt. The impression has been left with the general public that you're dealing with the farm crisis, when in effect you're doing practically nothing.
I have more. Just as long as you don't give me a Ralph Goodale answer, Mr. Minister, we'll have enough time for another question.
:
You asked quite a few there, Mr. Easter.
I'm just checking with officials here. I don't believe we have an analysis of how many will not qualify. We do have an estimate of how many will take it up. It's a bit of guesswork, of course, because we're not sure. Farmers don't have to take it up, so it's a bit of a guess. We are estimating that it will put another $500 million into the system, and so that's the analysis that has been done, but I don't have a number as to how many won't do it.
Just on several fronts--one is on low family farm income. That is part of the $1.5 billion. Details of it haven't been announced yet, either because it hasn't gone through the approval process or because it hasn't been completed yet. I announced the general parameters of it. It's an attempt to catch those who have fallen through the cracks, have low family farm income for whatever reasons. It could have been that they've had a couple of drought years in succession on the prairies, or grasshoppers, or they could have been diseased out, or who knows what. This will catch a good number of farmers. Again, I can't announce the details of it, but it is part of the $500 million.
As you mentioned, the $100,000 maximum interest-free loan and the $400,000 maximum available under ESCAP are not completely without strings for farmers; they have to pay them back, but they do allow them not only the increased dollar amount, but also an increased period to market their products. The combination should be good for farmers. It gives them until September 2007 to market, and so it's not as if they have to plant their product, sell it this fall, take whatever price is there, and pay them back. They'll have 16 months to market. That should allow them, in that 16 months, to hope they have that money interest free, and they give them the maximum opportunity to market at the best price during that 16-month period. So it's hoped that will be beneficial to farmers as well.
Maybe I'll go back for another question.
:
Thank you. I appreciate your comments on the Canadian Wheat Board, and as already mentioned, there's a healthy debate out there about what should happen to the Wheat Board. Certainly we've been very open about our desire to move to a dual marketing system.
What I've been reluctant to do is just say, well, let's make the changes and let the chips fall where they may. I think it does need to be a well-managed change. I think farmers have to be engaged in that. We don't want to leave some unanswered questions and leave farmers vulnerable. So we're being very careful about it, and I think that's the prudent thing to do. But I do think as we move to more value-added products and more farmer involvement in the processing industry, it's going to be important that farmers get a chance to make a buck, every buck, through this system, and that's why I think a dual marketing system is in their best interests.
As for the CAIS program, again, some of these figures are still being worked out with the provinces because some provinces administer their own CAIS program. There is no doubt that our initial figures, our best figures that we have, show that the grains and oilseeds sector will benefit the most from these retroactive inventory valuation changes more than any other sector. Beef is second, and then the rest. All the sectors get something out of it, but grains and oilseeds are the biggest single recipients, and then beef is after that. So grains and oilseeds, of the $900 million on the inventory valuation, will get the biggest share of that.
Of course, they also receive their portion of the $755 million GOPP program that was announced on the first day of the government.
On the meat inspection code, we have done some work. I know there's some interest from the provinces to try to have the CFIA international standard, if you will, the standard for export purposes. There is a very rigorous standard and it's getting more rigorous, and it will probably continue to be more rigorous. There is interest from the provinces to have a standard that will allow the sale of meat across provincial borders--not internationally, but across provincial borders. There is broad interest in that, and we're working with the provinces now to see what that might look like. Of course, a large number, especially the small abattoirs, tend to be local efforts, but when they're right along a border on any of the provinces they see an opportunity there, and we're trying to find a way to make that possible without having to reach the highest standard of the international standards.
So efforts are ongoing to make that happen, and the provinces are very interested in that. There is some budget set aside to see if we can make that happen.
On the bluetongue/anaplasmosis issue, this is going very well. I think there has been an effort by CFIA working with officials down in the States. We've been keen, as have the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the provincial cattle associations. They have all wanted to get the border open for a free flow of beef without the restriction on bluetongue/anaplasmosis. There has been an ongoing study for some period now. I don't know when it started, but what we have done is publish a document. It's available for discussion now. The provinces are commenting on it, the industry. Parts of the industry, the agriculture sector, the sheep industry, for example, are commenting on it because they are quite concerned about potential bluetongue/anaplasmosis in their own livestock.
So that discussion paper is out. They've asked for an extra week or so, I think, to express their views, and then following that, we hope to move ahead, based on science and some other technical documents that are published right now. That paper is available for discussion. If anybody has some particular views on it, I welcome those, but it should be done quickly because we plan to move ahead with that and we plan to open the border for anaplasmosis and for bluetongue as quickly as possible.
:
Obviously there's a sense of urgency, and right now it's particularly in grains and oilseeds. I'm always careful to point out to people not to be completely doom and gloom about the agriculture sector. There are parts of it doing quite well, that are profitable and so on. But especially in grains and oilseeds, there's a real income problem, no doubt about it.
Again, that's why we accelerated not only the payout but the amount of money that went out from the GOPP payment that was approved in the previous Parliament and hadn't been paid out. We paid out much more of it in the spring advance--90% of it went out in the initial payment rather than dividing it into a 70-30 split, as it was originally designed. Also, the changes to the ESCAP program, and even the AMPA, if we can get it done through Parliament, will all help farmers this spring.
I am somewhat encouraged that prices seem to have bottomed out and come back a little bit in recent weeks, both on wheat and corn. There's starting to be a little bit of movement there, perhaps partly because of biofuel initiatives around the world, but also because of some particular problems both in Brazil and the United States with drought and so on. Let's hope the wheat prices continue to rebound and the corn comes back some.
All of this is hopeful, but every time farmers plant a crop they're hopeful. So hopefully all this will help.
On the idea of NAFTA challenges or the fact that we're likely to see a series of NAFTA challenges because of the Softwood Lumber Agreement, I've had no indication of that. There hasn't been any concern expressed from our legal department about it, that we see anything brewing, that something's on the horizon or somebody's tabled a document. There's been nothing that I know of. I don't know what might have.... I can't even comment on it, because I've seen nothing on it that would indicate that's the case.
I'll have to look that testimony up to see what their arguments are. From my point of view I haven't seen anything, but I'd be interested in having a look at that.
Finally, with the rail car coalition and their conditions on how they want to help, there are a couple of things.
I'm keen to work with people who are keen to work with farmers, and that includes the people from the rail car coalition. But the truth is that thing went on for eight years under the previous government--eight years of “We're going to sell it to them”, “We're thinking of selling it to them”, “We might sell it to them”, “We're really going to sell it to them”. And now for the coalition to say we've been way too quick to move on this....
When I talk to farmers in the Prairies, even the ones who supported the coalition said, finally, somebody made a decision. They're concerned about some of these same conditions you've raised, and we need to address them.
But the reality is that the decision had to be made. Uncertainty is a killer for business. This thing wasn't an anvil, but it had become a political football, and I think we needed to make a decision. Now we need to make it work. That's why I'm interested in seeing these proposals and motions. I'm not allergic to any of them. Let's find out what went wrong before and what we can do to make sure it goes right.
To me, the rail car coalition is a group of people supportive of farmers, concerned about farmers. In that sense, I'm interested in working with them. But the rail car coalition was formed to buy the cars. If that's its purpose, its purpose is over. We're not selling the cars. We're keeping the cars. We're going to look after the cars, and we're going to use them for farmers. The way we have it designed, it will mean lower freight rates for farmers. We're not engaging with the rail car coalition with any idea that we're going to reverse that decision. We're just interested in their input as interested people supportive to farmers.
I'm interested in hearing from them, but it's not in the light of thinking we'll reverse our decision or that they're going to persuade us differently.
:
Thank you for the question.
Mr. Chairman, the federal standards for meat inspection apply to premises that are engaged in interprovincial and international trade. These standards are a combination of Canadian standards and input that countries that accept Canadian meat have given to us over the years. If you were to look at the standards that Canada implements in those federal facilities, you would see a combination of food safety standards that are driven by our own expertise and a combination of input that we receive, as an example, from the U.S., the EU, Japan, and countries to which Canada ships. Those standards are normally very high standards.
The next level of standard has to do with what the provinces have implemented. Mr. Chairman, there's a great variation in terms of how these standards are derived and how they are implemented. There is a whole range or scope of standards that are associated with these small plants. In some provinces there is no mandatory inspection, and there is an inspection in some provinces. There is a wide variety of standards.
As far as we are concerned, we've initiated discussions with the provinces to come up with a national standard that would potentially allow trade to take place between provinces, as the minister previously mentioned. There is some level of agreement in terms of what these standards would be. It's going to be a matter of deciding how they will be implemented, how the provinces will deliver that system themselves, or whether the federal government will deliver it on their behalf.
Those of you who are from Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and to a certain extent B.C. would know that we deliver provincial meat inspections for some plants on the behalf of provinces. There is a lot of work being done with regard to standards and their applications.
In terms of your last question on where you should go in terms of flexibility for small producers that are stuck with no place to go, it's going to be very hard to come up with an answer on that. The majority of provinces that have implemented mandatory inspections have been facing these situations, where small plants did not meet the standards and had to be taken out of commission. It's a hard case.