On improved information, we've evolved in the sector. Obviously, I've been involved with this for close to 30 years. Some of the issues that have caused challenges with respect to available data are the same as they were 30 years ago when I started working on this.
We have a couple of different options for producers when it comes to tax filing. All of those forms use different sets of coding. The more detailed one that goes all the way back to the NISA program would, for example, break out horticultural production across Canada and other unique commodities in a more detailed way, enabling better data. We could harmonize that and do that in a way that would greatly improve the ability to help those producers access the programs, etc.
We really don't have a singular database for farm income in this country. It's disjointed in many different ways. It's still very functional, but it could be improved in ways that could contribute to the factors that have been identified, as far as timeliness, simplicity, etc., are concerned.
I'd also mention that I listened to the testimony the other day from some people from MNP whom I know quite well, and I echo some of the comments there. By my math, over 75% of farms in Canada have external credit. If you have external credit, you're creating an accrual financial statement, which has inventories, etc. That is the base of good, solid production information, whether it's for the farmer, whether it's for government or whether it's for CRA or industry.
To acknowledge that and enhance some ways that we could do that.... It doesn't mean you have to suddenly file income tax on the accrual basis, because if you're a corporation, you submit your accrual financial statement and adjust to cash. We could do that in a much greater sense with relative ease in my opinion, and in turn that would enable some better data, etc. That is not without work, granted, but that would go I think quite a way towards improving some of the things that have been identified.