That's no problem. If you wouldn't mind doing that, I know it does relate to CETA in that the infrastructure is going to be required when this agreement is put in place. We're going to be moving more product maybe through Thunder Bay, Churchill, or other facilities like Montreal, and it might pull some of that pressure off Vancouver where, if it's raining and raining, it creates other issues in loading too, so there might be other issues.
As far as your 20,000-railcar deficit, I think that's the reality we're faced with: the fact that we've got such a huge crop. They're really doing their best to move it this fall. I talked to one of the rail lines this week. If you look at their movement per hour over the last 10 years, they're well above their weekly averages of what they normally would move, but in the same breath, they feel they have to do better.
I am a little concerned with one of the rail lines. It seems it has a derailment every week, which I think is an issue that needs to be addressed, but a different committee would do that.
You also talked about low-level presence and chemical residue acceptance levels; Barry made this point very clearly. I know we've been trying to deal with GMOs and a process to have the science we have in Canada accepted in Europe, to recognize that our science is safe and sound, and make any agreements based on sound science. Europe has the tendency to let politics bleed into some of these things once in a while, and GMO is probably a good example of that.
Do you see the agreement setting up the platform for negotiations on disagreements like this?
I'll start with you, Gord, and go to you, Barry.