We've analysed that, the Grain Growers of Canada and other groups have talked about that all along. The problem is it would only be reflective of about 6% of farmers who would actually take advantage of a higher number than $400,000. Right now, we're capturing the vast majority of farms.
My concern, and I know it's your concern as well, is we want to see family ownership of these farms remain. We're not wanting to overstimulate size and scope, and since 94% to 95% of farmers take advantage of the program now in the scope that it's in, there hasn't been an appetite to move it further. We're hoping that the administrative changes and so on that are in here will actually ease some of that. Farms of that size and scope actually have other venues, lines of credit, and so on like that. That's the first question.
On the plowing match, BRM, there's always talk that this happened and that happened. At the same time it wasn't a zero-sum game. Yes, agri-stability was taken from 85% to 70% at the same time that crop insurance was enhanced. We were always told that agri-stability was not bankable, not predictable, and took too long to get the money, so we've moved a lot of the coverage into crop insurance. As you know, you do those assessments right away in June and July, and the money is forthcoming fairly quickly.
The trade-off was to enhance crop insurance so that unseeded acres, flooded acres—using that as an example from Manitoba and Saskatchewan this year—are now captured under crop insurance. You don't have to wait for agri-stability payments a year later, or agri-recovery which may or may not happen, depending on the province triggering it. It's not a zero-sum game.
The biggest argument in Ontario is that we as a federal government will not fund RMP. We have always been very clear on that. It is countervailable in the extreme, so we will never fund RMP.
On Tom Vilsack, yes, we have discussions every month or so. I harangue him pretty hard on country-of-origin labelling. He has decided in his wisdom—he told me this last May in Mexico when we met—that they were going to make some changes to PACA, covering only American exports, not anybody importing into the U.S. It's their program; it's at their discretion.
The good news is there hasn't been a lot of take-up on the PACA underwriting Canadian producers. It's about a $2 billion a year industry, the horticultural industry exporting into the U.S.
Over the past three years or five years, I can't remember, there has been only a $7-million draw on that which, when you look at it, a $7-billion package with $7-million drawn on it, it's a very minuscule percentage.
We have made some changes to our Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. There's a report coming down from Industry Canada sometime in November, I understand, which may start to address some of these things. I'm not privy to that report yet and neither are you, I understand. We'll see when that happens.
We have put in place a single dispute mechanism which does bring them up higher in that protocol when it comes to a bankruptcy and insolvency situation.
We've made some changes. There are more in the offing. Right now, it's very unfortunate, as we work under the Regulatory Cooperation Council that bring more things together as an integrated North American industry under NAFTA—