When I first saw that at first glance, when we looked at the bill, I thought why did we do this? Then I got talking to people involved and started realizing that the review was actually going to be pulled forward. So we're going to see that review start this summer.
This piece of legislation was never meant to be a fix-all. It was meant basically to be a patch, so that the review could happen, and then get some structural change and good recommendations of the review that will happen this summer at the transport committee. It's appropriate that it should be done.
What I wouldn't want to see though is our not having a sunset to this. First of all, we do have an ability to renew it. So after two years, if we think we need to move it forward in another two years, we will be fully able to do that. There's nothing preventing that from that happening. It's more important though that we also don't put something in place that would hinder the review.
A sunset clause actually puts pressure on getting that review completed and recommendations brought forward in a timely manner, so that we can see the structural change that needs to happen after the proper review process.
We'd all agree this came along very quickly and the review will actually be more comprehensive and more complete to get a better piece of legislation out that will better protect farmers in the long run.
I have no problem with the sunsetting at all, because the review is coming. That was the key part of this, and it is coming. Mr. Eyking, I think we agree on that. I just didn't realize that the review was actually coming this summer.