I have two comments. The first is that our comments were about the fact that the department is responsible for ensuring it can demonstrate, so we really weren't commenting on whether the programs were good or bad. That's consistent with our mandate.
On the second question, yes, the whole design of that program, as I'd mentioned earlier, is to start with environmental farm plans. That's a very important mechanism by which producers determine what the biggest environmental risks are. That then becomes the gate to moneys under the other programs you've mentioned: stewardship, Greencover, etc.
We raised two issues with respect to that. First, one of the great obstacles for the department in terms of being able to demonstrate what impacts those programs are having is the fact that the farm plans remain confidential. We recommended that much of Statistics Canada's and other organizations.... There are ways in which one can protect the confidentiality of those farm plans, yet still be able to demonstrate results.
The other concern we raised is that from an operational point of view, because of the confidentiality of the farm plans, when someone comes forward and is looking for money under Greencover or stewardship, the department isn't in a position to know if in fact the things being sought are the biggest risks on that farm. Again, we made recommendations where we believed that the confidentiality of the farm plans could be maintained, yet provide some mechanisms for the department to manage this better.