The changes to AgriStability, Madame Raynault, are discussed at the federal-provincial level and the territorial level as well, and all of those changes are driven by a vote of eight of the provinces or territories with over 50% of the farm-gate receipts. The federal government does not have a vote at that particular table to make those changes workable.
I'm not sure where you get the number of $445 million. I've never seen anything like that number that comes close to the changes we have talked about. AgriStability is a demand-driven program, and it changes from year to year. There is a line item as to the allocation that's there. Should we go beyond that because of some major disaster, God forbid, then I go back through the cabinet process—Treasury Board, and so on—to ask for those dollars to be delivered.
There are a number of other programs within that pillar, within that support group. There are four, actually. Most important is the AgriInsurance, the crop insurance side, and then AgriStability, AgriRecovery, and, of course, AgriInvest, whereby a farmer can put in a certain amount of money and the federal government matches it, and then we move on. There are some changes coming to that program as well.
What we have done is taken the top tier of AgriStability down by 15%, but we have added 10% in the bottom for the most affected producers, the negative-margin producers. That's a good trade-off, because it's those that are hurt more often who actually have the demand for that program. By building up that bottom end, we've insured that those most in need will be able to trigger more dollars.