I'd like to see what the policy fee for that one is going to be, especially for the risky players, because that one is going to be a premium plus a premium plus.
In any case, the inward inspection piece, which is optional...your amendments are such that you're saying that CGC isn't going to look at that optional piece. I guess the question of why we wouldn't go down there has been asked in a couple of different ways. You're suggesting there is some sense of uncertainty to it—it's perhaps expensive, or it's a few other things.
I noticed in your overview that you talk about the risks involved in inspecting grain, and grading grain, in particular, is a skill requiring expertise and training that a court would not have. You talked about if you went to court, which is a different piece. I'm looking at the expertise you say your inspectors need, which I absolutely agree with, by the way. It's an absolutely true statement.
Where will the third-party private inspector get this expertise? You have suggested you can't keep it because of the uncertainties of the market that will ask for this inward inspection, because it's now going to be optional. So where will the private sector get those folks from if you can't get them? You're the experts, and I say that with all sincerity, sir. You're regarded around the world as being at the top of the class. Where are we going to find these folks to do this when folks ask for it? I'm sure someone is going to ask.
You're right that it won't happen as often as a mandatory piece, but certainly it's going to be asked for. Where will we find them?