I think it's important to note that we're not suggesting throwing the baby out with the bathwater here and getting rid of programs like AgriStability. I think they do work for some producers, and they work quite well. There's certainly room for improvement on eligibility of expenses, on timeliness and on understanding of the program, which is quite complex.
Saying that, I think what we would like to see as a sort of evolution of these programs is a movement to start crowding in other options and allowing farmers to have more choice and flexibility in terms of what suite of tools will serve their individual operation better. That can be in AgriStability or AgriInvest—the current tools—or it can be an opportunity, a missed opportunity currently, to advance innovative program solutions that are either public sector in nature or public-private partnerships with farmers to look at some of the targeted risk exposure areas where we are not seeing equitable support.
Price insurance was one point we referenced at the front end. Certainly we are seeing rising concerns around access to farm business insurance, for example, and accessibility concerns there. I think that, more than anything, creating a space that allows the private sector to see a role in supplementing what we have is critically important. That requires supports like catastrophic risk coverage, because that is often a point of concern for private sector entrants. The cost of systemic risk is just so great that it puts them out of the market altogether.
Just creating that space for innovation and more options for farmers to pick and choose is really at the heart of what we think needs to happen over time in this programming suite.