An important piece to remember is that AgriRecovery isn't a program. It is effectively a framework or an agreement between governments that when a disaster happens, they will do something. It does take time for them to do something.
The problem we have with AgriRecovery is that it's really being used to make up for the failures in the other programs. If we had functioning production insurance that was able to respond to forage losses, for example.... Again, I think if you look over the last five years, whether it's in Newfoundland or across the country, most of the AgriRecovery money is being used because there's been drought or flooding that has impacted forage production. If we had an effective forage insurance product that was available to producers, they wouldn't need to wait for AgriRecovery to come along. If AgriStability was a predictable program that responded in a timely way, they wouldn't need to use AgriRecovery. The only reason we're using AgriRecovery is the failures in the other programs. I think the focus needs to be on how we make sure that we have other, more responsive tools there.
There are situations that are disasters, yes, but they are predictable disasters. We know it's going to be dry and we know it's going to be wet. We know that is the future. We should be able to build a predictable set of tools that farmers can use to respond to that, and keep the disaster framework for the very exceptional situations that arise. Too often, it's being used for things that just aren't exceptional the way they are supposed to be.