I can start on the grain side, if you'd like, Mr. Goodale.
There are more examples. Some of it has to do with car condition, where there are service problems. I'll give you a recent example. I was just talking to one of the companies yesterday. They said they had a train booked to arrive at their facility on Wednesday and were all geared up to load, but the train didn't come on Wednesday. It didn't come on Thursday or Friday. It came on Saturday or Sunday, or whatever it was, so it cost time and a half to load the train. Then on Monday, another train arrived for the next week's order. Now the company has two trains. But they can't load them up within the time period because they can't do two trains at once. So the company ends up paying what they call a delayed lift charge to the railway, because the railway will give you a delayed lift charge if you aren't able to load the train within the timeframe that you're given. That's one.
Then on the other side of it, you end up with both of those trains arriving at a terminal for unloading at the same time. The terminal can't handle all of that at the same time, so you're paying rail care demurrage on the train that you're not unloading while you're unloading the first one. That's probably the most prominent example, but we do end up with rail car condition problems that we pay penalties on, and that sort of thing. I don't know if that answers that question for you.
On whether the costs go back to farmers—I'll just finish up on that particular point—yes, anything that's a standard cost in the system, like fees that we pay to the Canadian Grain Commission, we don't compete on. So it's a line item that's the same for every company and it's factored into the basis. What the companies compete on are the efficiencies of their own operations. That's where they try to gain efficiencies as much as possible to try to attract that farmer's grain.