Yes. With regard to dispute resolution, a number of specific cases were presented to us where there was no opportunity for stakeholders to have a hearing on the implementation of policy with the Grain Commission in any type of fashion to have their concerns addressed, without having to leapfrog right to the very costly process of taking them to court. Based on that and also on the fact that throughout the grain industry, as we earlier described, there are different conflicts that arise, having a process for mediation and arbitration--those two being distinct and different--for dispute resolution in matters relating to grain issues, commercial transactions...probably the logical place to put it is in the Canada Grain Act. In fact, some of those services may be able to be provided relatively cost-effectively by government through some existing mediation services that are provided through the farm debt mediation service, which is national in scope. So there's no real additional overhead. It can really be pay-as-you-go for those who choose to use that type of service for mediation.
On the arbitration side, the Canada Transportation Act has some framework that we feel is maybe appropriate for some higher-level dispute resolution, where one or the other...it may be final offer arbitration, for example, and a cast of arbitrators proposed by the minister and accepted by complainants. It gives them an opportunity to have resolution in a cost-effective, efficient, and timely way, as opposed to burdening the court system and expending a lot of money to try to get it resolved.