We don't have any problem providing the information. The more people look into this matter with expertise and objectivity, the better it will be. We think the actual situation is very different from what has been stated using the figures I mentioned to you and giving the appearance of $2 a tonne. So we agree that this issue should be examined carefully, with a great deal of rigour and expertise.
However, we're also saying that there should be a debate to determine whether the five percent of costs that there was under another regulatory system more than 15 years ago was a little too high or too low. That's a bit of an artificial issue. It had been debated in order to offset the increased payment for the cars so that the transfer would be made to the Farmer Rail Car Coalition without any additional costs to farmers.
We propose to achieve the same result, not only to have wagons without it costing farmers any more, but also to have better cars with greater capacity, more efficient cars, and to carry on this operation relying on productivity gains through cooperation between the players involved in the system, rather than resorting to confrontation and technical debate on figures they try to redo based on 15-year-old data.