Those are very big questions and are questions that I think are largely going to fall to the parliamentarians to answer.
Certainly funding has been a challenge for the Grain Commission for a number of years. As most of you are aware, we have not increased fees since sometime before 1991. In 1991 there was a legislative directive that we not increase funds, that there be a freeze placed on any fees that would be turned back to producers. Most of what at that time we were charging in fees was going directly back to producers...perhaps not directly, in some cases indirectly. But producers were paying.
Since 1991 we have not raised fees. What that has meant is that we've had a growing void between what we're able to collect for the services we provide and what it's costing us to administer those services.
Ultimately, that's a decision for government. How much is the government willing to pick up in appropriation and how much is going to be charged in fees and consequently passed back to producers? Those are not easy questions to answer, and I know that is something the government will have to struggle with.
Having said that, that's part of why this review has taken place. It is to look at whether there are some ways of doing things differently that perhaps could streamline the organization and create some efficiencies.
If we contract out, clearly those fees will be turned back to producers. They won't be fees that we will charge. They will be fees that the private agencies will charge, and they will go back to producers. So the decision with contracting out versus the decision with the CGC being involved is still ultimately a decision of whether government should pay or whether producers should pay, and those are difficult questions to answer.