That's a good question.
It is a good first step. It does start to reduce costs, and, more importantly, get rid of some duplication, because there is some serious duplication that's wasteful, quite frankly. At least this first step gets rid of that kind of excess cost.
Going forward, the long-term benefit we would like to see is a more extensive approach to the Grain Commission's modernization agenda, and that would be the governance. If we can get the governance right, then the longevity of that organization will serve farmers and our customers much better than if we put in solid legislation that doesn't allow the organization to move or fluctuate according to market demands and customer needs. It needs to be flexible and it needs to be nimble to be able to adjust the services it provides, because the world market is constantly changing. Farmers themselves change as well.
Going forward, I think the next steps that we would strongly recommend be taken in the near term will set it on a much more relevant path to serving us in terms of ensuring that our quality assurance parameters are still there and the food safety parameters are still there. Those are all key features that keep us competitive in the world marketplace. We don't need an organization that's bogged down and locked into a process that can't be changed because of legislation. It needs to be more flexible and move as a business to provide efficient and effective low-cost service, because that is a competitive wedge that can emerge and knock us out of some export markets if our costs get too high.