It's not just that they want it to be August 1. They actually want to get at this and get some of these contracts signed and under way prior to August 1 so that they can take care of some of the issues of being able to sign contracts prior to the beginning of the new crop year and then begin to move ahead from that. So they're excited about it, as Mr. Menzies has said, and they're ready to move ahead.
There was a criticism of the voters' list in the NFU's letter. Actually, KPMG was given the job of overseeing the election. The government did not interfere in that. We think KPMG took the bull by the horns. They had a very difficult job. We know that through the last—I think it's four—rounds of Wheat Board elections, it's been very difficult for the Wheat Board to establish a voters' list, and in this situation it wasn't easy as well, but the government I think did the best it could. Ballots, if I remember correctly, went out to all the folks who were in CAIS programs, the ones who were in production insurance, and then they were allowed to fill them out. If you hadn't gotten a ballot, you could fill out a declaration and get one. The only obligation on people is that they only filled one out for their farm operation. So that was clear. It went out, so that dealt with that issue, I think.
There was no issue of voters' rights because there was to be one vote per farm, and I think that was clear. People didn't have to be concerned about that. KPMG scrutinized the vote. I don't think anyone is going to say they're not an organization that's capable of doing that. So they were responsible for doing that. There were some people who had requested that they have scrutineers there, and that was limited because we would have had everybody and their dog there, probably, if we'd said open it up and everyone can come and scrutineer as they please; we'd still be counting ballots. So KPMG had the responsibility for that, and we think they did a responsible job on that as well.
In terms of spending limits, there were no restrictions put on spending limits, that's true. But at the same time, everyone had the opportunity to be involved, and it was farm organizations and farmers, so they were able to do that. I think it was appropriate that the Wheat Board, which is a government agency, was not involved. The minister and the cabinet made a decision earlier that they should focus on marketing grain and not be involved politically, as they have in the past. So the request was made to them that they abstain from political involvement. Actually, it seems to be working. It seems like they're focused more on marketing grain than they have been in the past and maybe less on trying to influence things politically, so that's been a good thing.
Ballot secrecy was an issue, but in terms of that, KPMG supervised that and they gave assurances to the government that no one was going to be able to be traced back to their ballot when the process was done. We trust they did that, and I don't think there's been any issue of that as well. Again, the intention was that each farm operation would have one vote, and for the most part, farmers were declaring honestly. We think that was done.
There was some issue about websites. I guess this goes to the fact that the farm organizations were free to set up and lobby, and there were websites set up on both sides of the issue. It was interesting to look at some of them because there were websites that were clearly on the side of choice and wanting to open up the market, and there were other websites that were set up by people who clearly supported the Canadian Wheat Board and were trying to do all they could to support the position in the past.
Just in terms of the ballots, when they were counted—I mentioned I wanted to get back to that, and I want to give some other people an opportunity to speak here, and maybe I can get back on the list later as well—the results were pretty clear. There were about 37% who said they'd like to retain the single desk, and then there was just about 50% who said they wanted the option of having the choice, and another 14% said the Wheat Board should not have any role in the marketing of barley at all. So you can add them up how you want, but clearly 48.4% want an option and another 13% want a change. That comes out to, what, 62% or so of the farmers who voted wanted some change to the system that didn't lock them in to the single desk, as in the past.
Whether the National Farmers Union likes the numbers that turned out or not is really irrelevant to this request. They clearly did not, as some other people have expressed. They don't like the numbers. They don't like the fact that 60-some percent of farmers have said, we really want to market our own grain.