Well, we're definitely not offside with any organization. I want to make that clear.
What we have said is that we believe the approach and the logical order of addressing this is to define the service, cost the service, and decide whether that cost is appropriate. We have a system that desperately needs improvement. We have to be talking about the performance of that system and find the appropriate cost.
I've used the example--and let me use it here again--that in our industry we may be told that our rail freight is going to arrive on Friday, so we may be arranging trucking and labour for over the weekend, but we don't find out that the train isn't going to come. So if we have to be charged $500 by the railways for them to pick up the phone and call us to say that the train is not going to arrive, charge it. We have huge costs built into our system.
A focus on the visible rail freight rate without a focus on the kinds of costs incurred by the industry for the lack of predictability is going to start at a place where we're not going to be addressing the number one issue, and that's the predictability of the service. As Greg said, then we can talk about whether the rates charged for predictable service are reasonable.