To quote:
...will be a vigorous participant through which producers could voluntarily choose to market their grain. To achieve this, the existing CWB will need to transform itself over a transition period into CWB II. For this 'choice' to occur, CWB II needs to have a high probability of success in an environment where it will have to compete for business. One of our focuses has been on creating the environment for a high probability of commercial success for CWB II.
And if people take the time to read the task force, they will see that the bulk of the task force is actually about giving the Wheat Board an opportunity to survive, making it successful for the future.
I'm going to make the amendment later that we insert this as a whole section there, so that people can see that indeed it does talk about dual marketing and marketing choice.
Actually, the point that needs to be made is that marketing choice is another term for dual marketing. They're clarifying the concept here; they're not denigrating it. So it's exactly the opposite of what Mr. Easter is alleging. That's enough right there to throw this motion out, but we can go on to some of the other parts of it as well.
Do we want to continue, Mr. Chair? We have a vote. I can certainly continue here; I don't have any problem with continuing.