Sure. There are a number of points noted in the submission that was provided back in April. I think there are about 15 items in total that were noted in it. Those are the items that we feel would be extremely beneficial, if all of them were looked into and followed through. Some of them are administrative and some of them are related to the program.
Again, as we mentioned, we don't feel that we can weigh in on where the trigger point should be, so we're not going to address that one. We will let producers deal with government on that and find a reasonable position.
Beyond that, one of the key things I would point out that is not in our submission is that we have some issues when we have prolonged weather disasters or prolonged negative impacts on farms, let's say for three to four or maybe even five years in a row. With the existing AgriStability framework, that becomes problematic. Reference margins become depleted, and therefore insurance coverage is depleted significantly and is insufficient. That would be one area that needs to be reviewed in the long run when looking at AgriStability.