I appreciate your comments and I'm very happy to answer that question, Mr. McGuinty. I know that Mr. Julian has been very preoccupied by this; I've been very preoccupied by this.
Historically, you're absolutely right; my predecessor, Mr. Lapierre, did go forward, and an audit was undertaken. That audit was completed in June. Subsequent to that, before issuing section 32, I did ask for another audit to make sure the findings were substantially correct. We did receive a great deal of push-back from CN in terms of their compliance with it. That's the reason I issued section 32.
As you know, it's gone in front of the appeals board, and I am limited in being able to comment on that specific issue, but when this whole issue is brought forward at the appeals process, I do intend to make this audit public. I believe there is no reason in the world that we would not want to make it public. I would add, though, that through an ATIP--through the access to information officer--that has been requested. Third party acknowledgement, therefore--in this case, CN--has to be obtained, and CN has refused us the chance, or at least the opportunity, of making this public. Until such time as the official Information Commissioner statutes on this issue, I am bound legally to respect the terms and conditions governing that institution.
This issue is extremely serious. I met last week with Mr. Hunter Harrison, who is the chair, president, and chief operating officer of CN. As a matter of fact, we discussed this issue. I've indicated to him in no uncertain terms that we will go forward with the appeal process and we will not accept systematic obstruction to the rail safety issue. I would further say to you today, and be on record, that I am looking at different options now as to how we can go forward, including a process that would involve this committee.