Thank you, Chair.
I think the government's proposal around this whole bill is about choice. I think that's what they're saying. If I've misunderstood it, I'll look to the “no” movement that says.... But I believe the acknowledgement was yes. If that's the case, this amendment now gives farmers the choice to actually...who want to choose to be there. This doesn't say that the folks who don't want to be there have to be forced into an election.
The folks who choose this voluntary association that you want, now get to choose who runs their voluntary association. Surely we can't ask for much more than what you're asking for them to do, which is to have a choice. Those who want to leave can go away; those who want to stay, can stay.
What we're saying to you is that the ones who stay should have the right to choose who runs the corporation and not have someone else being sent to them. That's what you disagreed with. Those are the farmers you fought for, who said, “We were told we had to stay”. Now you're telling the farmers who decided to stay on their own, “You have to take these guys or gals”. That's what you're telling them. You're not giving them a choice anymore about who runs the corporation they want to be with. You've made the choice that they have a choice, except for the choice of who runs it for them. They don't get a choice in that.
At least what we said our position was they all had to join if they want to sell grain, but they have the choice of who is going to run it for them.
How much democracy are you giving the folks who want to be there?