Gentlemen, I'll ask one question. Then I have a couple of points and I'd like your comments.
It would seem to me, if my understanding is correct, that right now when the railways don't deliver, the farmer is penalized. Due to unreliable service, you folks lost something like $14 million because of everything that has to happen when that car isn't there. It's my understanding that the railways are not penalized if they don't deliver. Is that correct?
Would an immediate answer to part of the problem, then, be a reciprocal agreement, such that if the railway said it would deliver a car at a certain point in time and didn't, it would be penalized? In effect, one would hope that this would spur them to be more efficient. That's my first question.
I have a couple of communiqués from the National Farmers Union. In May of this year, one said that the major railways collect approximately $1 billion in freight charges from farmers, yet the CTA has announced its approval of a 7% increase in the volume-related composite price index. So they're making this money, they've applied for a 7% increase, and they got it. At the same time, they're not becoming more efficient and you folks are paying out of pocket. I just wanted to comment on that.
The other thing is that it's not only the farmers who are having problems with these folks. I have a letter from the Forest Products Association of Canada. They say that for many years the forest products industry and other commodity shippers have endured poor service and high freight rates while awaiting legislative action to address the lack of competition in Canada's rail freight transportation system.
Then they refer to the panel's interim report, released on October 22, which contains a recommendation that the government delay any legislative or regulatory remedies until after 2013, at which time the government should undertake yet another assessment of the state of rail service in Canada, and after that assessment is complete, only then should any recommendations for regulatory change be considered. I think you alluded to that, Greg or Gordon, in your statement.
I would like some comments on those points, if you wouldn't mind.