That's fair.
Actually, I was going to point out, Chair, just to follow up on Mr. Eyking's question, that as I said in my earlier remarks, this deals with service-level agreements, which are between shippers and the rail companies. What's been happening is that the grain companies, or the shippers, have been losing money and that loss has been passed on to the farmer. The point is that if the shipper is not losing money because of something that had to do with a service-level breakdown by the rail companies, he's not passing that on to the farmer because there was no money lost there. The rail company is paying for the loss to the shipper. The shipper doesn't have to pass it on. He didn't incur a loss. In the end, it was paid for by the rail company.
Then as I think Mr. Meredith said, under the Grain Act, there are sections, which we just went through, that are about the producer—the farmer—and the grain company. So, actually, it's on both sides of the equation. This is dealing with both sides of that equation.