As far as an order of magnitude is concerned, Barry, I can't tell you how much more money is required. What I can say is that we have the programs there that will deliver to farmers if there are other factors like trade injury. As Ross said, if trade injury throws your production insurance values off, then maybe there should be a trade injury adjustment to them, or maybe there should be a trade injury adjustment to the CAIS program. It's probably better on CAIS because it wouldn't distort production practices and it would be more practical to do it that way.
Trade injury, for example, could be targeted through an existing program, but as an adjustment to an existing program. If you look at Alberta, they have done that through CAIS. They have targeted additional resources through their CAIS program, in recognition of higher input costs and a couple of other things that they've done. They see that as a possibility.
You don't have to go through all the time and trouble of developing a new program that is never going to be perfect, as we said before. CAIS was supposed to be perfect, but they made it too complicated. It's really not any more perfect than any other programs we've had, but it costs you probably a thousand dollars more as a farmer to get an accountant to fill it out.