Of course, I'm opposed to this. This motion is even more ridiculous than the previous one, but I'll give you one example of some of the mix-ups that were in the vote that's referred to.
A guy from Saskatchewan and his wife both owned separate properties. The man told me this last January. His wife leased her land to another active wheat farmer. The husband also leased his land to another farmer. So there were leases to two different farmers. The husband was ruled ineligible to vote, but the wife was still eligible. He said this example only touched the tip of it. He was actually a supporter of the Wheat Board; she was not. What he said at the end of the day was that the voting was so mixed up and out of place that there were thousands of people who actually voted who shouldn't have. That was even after some of the changes were made to try to correct that problem. Probably the thing didn't go far enough, but certainly there appeared to be a lot of ineligible voters beforehand, people who hadn't actually farmed for 30 years but were still called wheat producers.
So I'm opposed to the motion, Mr. Chairman.