You're referring to the timeliness, I guess. There are a number of things that would have to happen. I know that provincially, the crop insurance has to assess the damage. I think they then report back and the federal government then has to.... The province has to actually declare a disaster, and then the federal government looks at it.
I think it's better now than it was. I referred back to 2006 in my presentation when the program was still a little shaky. There were producers in the southwest part of the province, as I mentioned, who went for at least four, maybe five years.... They actually were dried out. They had no feed at all for their cattle and somehow this program didn't kick in.
I think the program's timeliness is better. We're still looking for a better definition, and maybe something more timely then, because of the fact, as far as a grain farmer or a cattle farmer is concerned, they don't actually have any production that year. If you don't have any grain carryover, you really have nothing to live on. I know sometimes senior governments don't understand that message, but when you're a farmer and you have bill collectors, it gets to be very stressful and I think we need to have a program that kicks in.
AgriStability doesn't really deal with that, because it's always a year behind. I know there have been cases where advance payments were made through AgriStability, and some things happen during the year where you did have some land that did have some crop. While that's so much better for the farmer, the farmers then have to pay the money back, and farmers don't like to put themselves in that situation because it causes more instability.