I'll try to keep it very short.
I do not believe it was a mistake. The bill that was tabled was not hypothetical. We weren't talking about a hypothetical piece of legislation. We were talking about actual tabled legislation upon which we have had input. These issues were discussed, and the commission was providing input back. I know that as early as 2002—because I have the independent report that was received in 2002—the commission has had input on these very issues through the evolution of what is now Bill C-39.
Producers and stakeholders wanted to know what the impact of Bill C-39 would be, and we tried as honestly as we could to communicate that. I think that's a proper role for the Canadian Grain Commission to play. It would be irresponsible not to communicate to producers what the impact of the bill would be.
I don't think that as members you would argue that eliminating mandatory procedures at the commission that I think most members feel are unnecessary is an unwise thing. Our mandate under the existing Canada Grain Act is to work to the benefit of producers. That is our mandate, and in the communication of the impact of Bill C-39, I believe we were fulfilling that mandate.