Perhaps I could summarize that. There are three options before us. The lowest cost for farmers would be the continued ownership by the.... Let me back up. It seems to me the government has addressed or is addressing the crucial issue that has to do with excessive maintenance costs in the legislation, so I think that is being addressed in some fashion.
One option is the replacement to be by the Government of Canada, and that would be the lowest cost for farmers. It would be the highest cost for taxpayers but the lowest cost for farmers.
The FRCC plan is probably somewhat more middle of the road in the sense that we have to charge a lease fee, ladies and gentlemen, to get our revenues and therefore we will be charging farmers. That will be more than the first option. But it would be a lower cost for taxpayers, and there are some other benefits for the farm community.
The highest cost of the three would be if the railways were responsible for maintenance, and we mentioned it in the opening statements. Again, I can quote Ray Foot in a statement in 2001 before the Canadian Canola Growers Association. He indicated $4.57 per tonne would be the increased cost if the railways replaced the cars. So that more than offsets the potential $2 saving that's been identified.
So there are three options. Ours would be about the middle of the road one. If we have to charge a lease rate, which we will, of course, to pay our costs, there will be some increased cost to farmers.