I'd like to put in a word here. The nature of the consultation, the nature of the public, is that people come forward with their concerns, not necessarily with their bouquets. If the conversation is negative, it masks the fact that people with a general level of satisfaction probably didn't come forward to talk to us. It was people who had concerns. We acknowledge that. In fact, there were areas in which we had positive comments.
For example, the work of the Grain Appeal Tribunal was heralded as being a good process. All stakeholders felt it was fair. This is the process for appealing decisions about grading. It is dispute resolution by the Grain Commission between what people think their grain should be and what it actually is. There's a lot of credibility in that process. This suggests that most stakeholders feel that the organization, on balance, provides objective services. However, then they would follow up with their concerns, and that's what guides some of the conversation.
I don't want you to have the impression that we feel negative about the Grain Commission as an organization. In the end, we say it needs to remain as an agency and continue its services, but that the reforms we mention might improve it.