Okay.
Let me ask through the chair, since the witness really doesn't know, whether he could provide that to you, as chair. I would appreciate it. That's an important number to know, since by Mr. Lloyd's own words earlier, either the federal government or the provincial government can initiate AgriRecovery—either one, isn't that right?
Let me go back. I know we want to talk about this, but we're going to talk about another piece.
In the Auditor General's report, at paragraph 8.54, we talk about lessons learned. We talked about lessons learned with the payments, because that was actually the problem with AgriStability.
Mr. Lloyd, you mentioned AgriStability, and you're absolutely correct. With AgriInvest, AgriStability, and AgriRecovery, Mr. Falk's analogy is that it is the goaltender at the end. He is absolutely right; it is. The dilemma was that AgriStability couldn't pay, in some cases, for more than two years, never mind ten and a half months. That was what the Auditor General told us in 2011 about that program—the lesson to be learned with the timeliness issue.
Let me quote what the report says at the end, and then ask you to comment on it: We concluded that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada does not adequately manage the federal role in providing disaster relief to producers.
How did we not learn from the previous program about timeliness issues and getting money to producers, and end up where we are now, when we knew before that another program had the same dilemma this one now has as well?