Certainly, you are very correct. It is something that I touched on in my statements as well: the evolving risks the sector faces. I think the industry is always open for improvements to the programs, in whatever form they take.
You hear a lot of emphasis today on AgriStability because it can catch many different types of risks. It's the only risk management program we have that can trigger a payment for just about any reason, whether it be spiking input costs, commodity prices dropping or a weather event.
Look at AgriInsurance or “production insurance”, as many Ontario producers refer to it. That will cover very specific impacts to your yields if you're producing an eligible commodity. If you look at AgriInvest, that's a relatively small pot of money to make specific investments and mitigate risk, but if we look at a program that can potentially catch different types of risk—even ones we haven't even foreseen yet but we'll be facing—we need that whole farm margin coverage to capture risk no matter where it's coming from.
That's why we emphasize an increased return to the 85% payment trigger. It's why we applaud the recent changes to remove the reference margin limitation and the increases in compensation rate under the program. I think there can be more to increase advance payments in the program to ensure they're more timely, but this is a key program that needs reinvestment because it can capture those risks we haven't anticipated yet.