I'll start with the second part, contingency planning. What we have looked at over many years and many sessions is losing the single desk on wheat, or losing the single desk on barley, or losing the domestic market—just a whole bunch of iterations here to say that these are the possible outcomes in a future we don't control all the elements in.
Any good board goes through that type of contingency planning. It doesn't mean we expect it to happen. It means we're prepared in case it does happen. It's very important to understand what the implications are as you're setting policy and as you're operating as an organization. That is happening on a continuous basis.
The barley is difficult, because we don't have enough definition. Of course it depends how producers vote, so we'll have to see that first. But we want to get that definition so that we can do more analysis around it.
But there are a lot of unknowns, as I said to Mr. Goodale. Part of the question is, will government guarantees still be there for part of that barley market? Or are we going to be part of that barley market? Will we be able to use the contingency fund as a backstop because we're undertaking a risk on that side?
We need to have some of that clarity around. When will the bill be introduced? What is the bill going to say? And what are the time periods around it? It's that clarity, I think, that would be very useful to our organization as we continue to plan for the contingency of a potential loss of barley.