I guess what we're looking for is a structure. We had proposed this during the consultation process leading up to this legislation, so we're disappointed that the governance issue wasn't addressed. But we are looking for a more business-oriented governance structure, appointed by the government, because it is a government-legislated institution.
However, with user fees, that kind of changes the parameters now, and having a government-controlled agency just passing the cost to farmers doesn't really work for us. What we need is a governance structure that's more responsive to the needs of the farmers it serves and the customers it serves, and to be more business oriented in the approach to the movement, the grading, and the services they provide going forward. If I'm going to pay the bill, we can't afford to have waste, duplication, and excessive overhead in the organization.
We need the right accountability brought into this. We think that accountability comes with a proper governance model that will listen to farmers, that will respond to customer needs, and be more business oriented in the actual commercial movement of this grain through the system and into customers' hands.