Just listening to the explanation you're talking about corridors but the measure in front of us talks about regions. What regions? The Prairies as a region? B.C. as a region? Eastern Canada as a region? I'm not sure that the two are interchangeable in your discussion in terms of the table here. Having said that, it may not be a small technical point, it could be a large technical point. We've had some discussion already, but we did hear from witnesses who suggested that the further down we begin to regulate in terms of the specificity of movements, the more difficult it gets for us. You mandate by volume but not necessarily within a given time on the calendar. Now you're committing to an equitable distribution regardless of where flows actually begin to move.
I think it was Kevin Hursh, if I recall correctly, who warned us against the idea of trying to bore down and start regulating every detail in every corridor, and that this would be a problematic approach, Mr. Chair. I think we should back away from that. If we look at what producers were saying, they would prefer that commercial agreements, with teeth, are what regulate the movement of the carry-over and any additional future harvest that's coming. Our G-1 amendment to Bill C-30, I think, achieves that now, the mechanism by which the commercial regulatory framework can take over instead of getting us trapped on the government's side of regulating deeper in a problematic fashion.