Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll return to Mr. LeFort, please.
You stated that over time the AgriStability program has morphed from a stabilization program to far more of a disaster program. We've seen the participation rates fall because of that. I think we've heard witnesses across the study identify three factors. One is that if growers are diversified at the farm level—that is, if they're self-insuring—they don't see as much value in the program. You mentioned the coverage levels dropping, which again has added to that program's morphing and timeliness.
I'm wondering if you could comment on this. I know there are U.S. programs that have developed actuarially sound formulas for pro-rating or discounting—whatever term you want to use—program premium rates on the basis of farm-level diversification. Are you aware of that?
Do you think it could be incorporated and would drive increased participation rates in AgriStability, if there were some sort of recognition of on-farm diversification for program participants?