I guess I referred to the option of going to a seven-year average because we do have that much data now. Since 2003, the former CAIS program, the predecessor to AgriStability, worked very similarly. With the advantage of that much background data, a longer timeframe may give you a bit more of an even flow, because you're right that that's the big kicker in a volatile sector. If you get two bad years out of five, it really impacts your coverage. If you get three bad years out of five, then you're pretty well smoked because the...[Inaudible--Editor]...out there too. That's a real dilemma, and I don't know what all the options are, other than to artificially reinstate some margin there by a factor, which again would add stability back to an industry.
If you did have a sector that was suffering from a prolonged period of problems, you would have the advantage of history there, in that you could say that it was an unusual 10% to 15% trend down because of the situation, the droughts or the floods or whatever the case may be. So then let's bump everybody's reference margin in that sector or region back to a more normal level to give them more normal coverage, again understanding that it's likely to cost the system more money, yes. That's the way it works, we know that. It is a real dilemma when your coverage goes, because then you essentially have no program.