Are you asking either one of us?
In terms of the ports and the potential impact of removing the Canadian Wheat Board, I think, again, that one of the things we have to keep in mind is that as traders--and we are traders--we need to get the maximum return for our producers. In terms of where and how we will market if we don't have the Canadian Wheat Board doing the marketing, I suspect that it will be where those markets are, and if that means a north-south corridor, it could have huge impact.
Today, because of single-desk marketing and the way that operates, I think we see significant activity in our east-west ports. Would that be impacted? I don't have the data to make an accurate statement, so I'll simply say that it's something I think we would have to look at carefully. The primary focus for us is making sure that whether it is commodity or value-added, we sell into the best markets for the best return.
What are the potential impacts on rail? Well, I think all of us at this table, at various times and at various levels, have been very clear that we want significantly better rail service. We have seen a real, large abandonment. We have supported producer short lines. They will be at serious risk without a Wheat Board because of the way grains are marketed. Not only that, we still have some very serious concerns about rail and running rights, which we have brought forward at times to say that there needs to be competition, there needs to be level of service, and there needs to be dispute reconciliation that is much faster and much more producer oriented.
I think we stand together on pieces like that, very clearly. I'm concerned, given what we've seen from the board, that if they are not marketing, we will see some serious impacts on the infrastructure that has been invested in to date to try to compensate for some of the activities of the major railroads.