Actually, that program was in use for about a decade. It evolved in the 1990s because there was a void. It was driven by the horticulture sector and it was offered across the country. It was only picked up in Ontario and it was very popular. The growers jumped all over it because it was something that worked instead of something that didn't. Unfortunately, it went down with NISA.
However, as the letter from Mr. Vanclief alludes to, to give us some assurance because we were getting clobbered when NISA came in--we were losing everything, and we did--he gave us three more years on the SDRM to kind of soften the blow, coming in with a promise that if nothing else was developed, it would be extended. The three years were a sure thing, but guess what? The federal government now wants to avoid the issue and say it's not pure insurance. They're simply dodging the bullet. But the commitment was there, and that's why we came in.
To their credit, and I'm not trying to beat up on anyone here, the province, given the same information, accepts their responsibility and they're in. They're in for 2006 and 2007. Hopefully, by 2008, as we go into the next APF, we can have a more long-term solution. That is why they went in for two years.
I'm here specifically to address the one issue. I agree with everything everybody else is saying, but it's a proven program. The farmers like it. It actually works. It's easy to administer, and it's a whole lot better than nothing. What we're being offered is nothing, and we're not going to take it. That letter from the Minister of Agriculture to me, to answer my concerns, I take as a commitment from the government, not only from Mr. Vanclief. Frankly, I expect the government to honour that commitment. And I'd like to hear why they don't.