A number of people, Mr. Meijer particularly, earlier made a strong case for two-way benefits and liabilities. I've listened today, particularly to you, Mr. Marshall, and what I've really heard, I think, is a series of excuses rather than any vision. I've listed them. There are a dozen reasons why the system doesn't work here.
Two or three times you also mentioned that one of your concerns is that you don't have a commercial contract. I'm just wondering if that is the real reason we're having this discussion: you're resisting the obligation for services because your company doesn't see your relationship with grain as being a commercial contract. You've talked about being treated different legislatively. You talked earlier about one of the other commodities, that you have a contract on that and that's why you have benefits and liabilities on both sides of the issue. Is that how you see it?