Yes, sure.
I think I understand the question.
On the issue we've looked at as growers—whether the revenue cap has any bearing on the level of service we're getting—we've come to the conclusion that it has not. We're around the table of the Coalition of Rail Shippers. They pay full-blown commercial rates. They pay through the nose for some of their movements, just as they pay through the nose for commercial shipments of oil from crushers in Canada into the U.S. They pay dearly for that.
We are all experiencing the same low level of performance from the railways. We see no correlation between the revenue cap on grain movement and commercial movements that pay a lot more money. We're all getting very poor service.
In our opinion, the revenue cap is adequate revenue for the railways to get the job done, but as a monopoly they have a profit-maximization scenario aiming to minimize their cost of movement all the time, whether the revenue is there or not. The revenue just allows them to charge what the market will bear, and that will not significantly impact their day-to-day decisions on what gets moved, in our view.