Before your next question, I would add that one of the other things we were striving to do was to improve the overall credibility and perception of the organization while maintaining the key fundamental protections for producers. A very easy criticism from non-producer stakeholders about decisions the Grain Commission has made is that it was acting in a biased way in favour of producers and that it was unfair. In some respects they may have had some justification for that, but it may also have been an unfair decision.
With respect to the implications you asked about, in practice I think the Grain Commission has effectively been doing what our mandate prescribes, which is to be fair and judicious with all stakeholders with regard to the standards for quality of Canadian grain and regulating the grain-handling industry. However, to be prioritizing and biasing producers in certain areas, for example, the protections we outlined in the second part of the mandate, where those protections are the main focus of decisions.... So by distinguishing that, it allows the Grain Commission to operate in a fashion to diminish that very easy criticism, in my view, and yet still preserve the protection for producers provided by the act.