That's a great question. I appreciate that, because in 2004, when we decided to embark on our new building construction—I never said expansion, I said we recapitalized and built new buildings—we were pushing 1,400 sows. We had contract barns scattered across the province. We were having issues finding qualified, skilled help. We were having issues with costs of production. We didn't think our costs were in line because of transportation, disease, and medication. We looked at developing a model that would provide a reasonable income for our family and some level of employment for the neighbours around us, and that would be able to be passed on to the next generation.
At 45 years old, we felt we would have this thing paid for by the time we were 55, with reasonable market ups and downs. My kids would be through university. I always tell them they need to work for someone else for five years first, and then maybe they'll find out that the old man is not such a miserable pup after all. Then they could come home, and if they wanted to farm, there would be a viable operation that was paid for. They could purchase it, and that would provide for our retirement.
So we didn't expand. The challenge of programs is always the expansion factor. When we look at the business risk management programs that are being put forward in Ontario, or AgriStability-plus in western Canada, there are built-in safeguards within those COP programs to prevent people from expanding more than 1% or 2%.
I agree with you 100% that programs should not fund expansion. Expansion should be done on the merit of the business.