I guess I look at it—and certainly the AgriInvest—coming from the policy area of looking at programs as whole-farm programs. That's a transition we've seen over the years. I've been through a lot of years, with some payments back in the eighties and those types of things, which were very ad hoc in nature. Some of them were commodity-specific and sector-specific programs. I think it's positive that we've moved into a situation of whole-farm types of programs.
Again, I keep coming back to the whole bankable and predictable aspect. You know how much money you're going to put in there, and yes, there's some tweaking you have to do. Again, I keep coming back to this: we are managing our own business. It's an opportunity that.... We still have a government that supports agriculture and is putting money into it, but let's do it in a whole-farm aspect so that it doesn't become distorting for commodity production. I think we have to always be careful about saying, “Which commodity is going to make me more money because of the program payment?” We've seen that happen in other countries too. That causes some issues and some grief as well.
I like to think that I tend to run my operation certainly by segments, but again, it's as a whole farm at the end of the day that it pays the bills, and I would like to see that we still maintain that whole farm. It doesn't matter whether you're a $100,000 producer or a $5 million or $6 million producer; the rules are the same and you have the same opportunities. I think it's a very fair way of doing the division of the pie of that privileged amount of money. I know there are arguments that we should have more sometimes—and that would be great—but you have to divide the pie fairly.