That's one of the problems we talked about in the presentation: reporting on the impact of the programming. I think that's one of the things that should be looked at in growing forward 3, if you can call it that. How do we measure what we're doing, really clearly identify what the objectives are and how we measure?
On some of the types of programming, we likely have some good information, such as on the environmental farm plan side, the types of projects that were funded and the amount, the number of dollars. On the business development side, I guess measuring the number of courses that were offered online might be one of the measurements. However, the stark reality is, with business risk management, as a number of people have mentioned, there has been a decrease in AgriStability participation. I think that's directly related to the drop from 85% to 70%, the changes in the reference margin. Those are the types of programs on which there's fairly good information.
There's just one thing I want to comment on. You mentioned tax policy, and we've talked about that before the finance committee. One of the other things we might want to look at in transition in farming is for farmers who are holding back a mortgage, for instance, to a young farmer taking over their farm, looking at a way to see if the interest paid to those farmers could be tax exempt. That would encourage the farmers to lend at a lower interest rate yet still have the income that would give them the retirement pension they need. I think we have to be a little creative in how we look at the types of tools that are there to ensure that this transition takes place.