Thank you.
I believe that, at the outset, the objective should be to support the resilience of agricultural producers. Resilience should be defined as the ability to absorb shocks and manage the impacts of those shocks in order to return to the starting position. However, this is not about growth. It's not about increasing production. Programs should really just ensure that, when there is a shock that could jeopardize the farm's or business's ability to survive, there is support in place to help it.
The problem today, as you just mentioned, is that many producers, when they are affected by tariffs or market disruptions, don't have that kind of support. There are shocks in the system that can impact their ability to survive, but there are no programs that can respond to them in a timely manner.
There are other needs, such as more proactive management, that can be supported through other programs and tools. However, if we subsidize producers, we should ensure that, from the outset, the subsidies are in place so that they are available when needed or when requested.
If we look at the figures today, it's not clear that payments increase when incomes are declining. If the goal is truly to support resilience, the two should go hand in hand: When incomes are down, payments to producers should go up. It happens sometimes, but it doesn't always happen today.