That raises the question of.... The Senate considered this. I didn't watch the Senate hearings, believe it or not, but somehow they chose to pull the mandatory requirement for dairy and yet left it in for the Farm Products Agencies Act. Senators who may not be involved in either of those areas at all—in dairy or farm products—somehow made the decision to pull this change for the dairy side.
Do you know what rationale there was for them to pull one and allow the other? Was it just an oversight because they were focused on the dairy aspect and didn't focus on the other?
I understand what you're saying, which is that it's in compliance with the Canadian Human Rights Act, or it may be in compliance with it, but to me, this one is a bit more substantive.
There are a lot of changes in law that a department could make, purporting to stay in line with human rights legislation or judicial decisions, etc., but they are pretty substantive for us to deal with. There was a rationale at some point for why that was put in there. There's a rationale for why we have a mandatory retirement age for senators and for airline pilots. Why it applies to the dairy commission, I don't know.
Do you know why the one was pulled and the others were allowed to advance? Was it really considered at all?