Perhaps I've been misunderstood. We're not talking about helping to dismantle the Wheat Board or about hastening the dismantling of the Wheat Board. What we're saying is that when this bill passes and we no longer have a single-desk Wheat Board, the issues I raised need to be addressed. We need to make sure that considering those issues, we are the architects of a system that will work for the collective group of those farmers who would like to continue to work in that group.
We're also not saying that we are there to compete against a new Wheat Board. Rather, the new Wheat Board would also be a farm organization. We're a farm organization, and we would be more prone to building partnerships and alliances with an organization like that again to create an even bigger group to empower farmers as much as possible on shortline rail, on grain aggregation, on finding inland terminal space, on finding port positions for the grain. So all of that, of course, is contingent on getting a good group of farmers and getting a business plan in place, but again, it's not about replacing the Wheat Board. It's about being prepared for a new environment and allowing farmers to work inside a new environment that will continue to empower them and make sure that they improve their cost-competitiveness and their profitability. We made one suggestion as far as raising capital for farmers goes. We're not even saying that would be enough, but we are saying that would be a start to provide an opportunity for farmers to invest in something to adapt to a new grain handling, transportation, and marketing environment.
So again, to sum up, we're trying to define where the puck is going to be and make sure we're prepared for it to be there on behalf of all those farmers who are interested in being part of a group that we think has the potential to empower them. Again, there will be others who say they want to market on their own. That's fine, but we at least would like to make sure we have an empowerment tool in place.