I'll tackle that and I'll bounce around a bit. Perhaps I'll start with the last question and connect it to the first one.
The last question was whether “adequate and suitable” adequate and suitable in the definition of service. Our view has been and the view of the Coalition of Rail Shippers has been, for the last three years as we've been discussing these issues, that it is not. We need to modernize the language of the act. We need to bring it into the 21st century. There needs to be more clarity and definition with respect to what the service obligations of the railways are.
We'd begin with a clear statement, as I said in my opening remarks, that the system is in place to meet the needs of its users, full stop. That's where we'd start.
With respect to the first question, would it be helpful to see draft regulations, as we get into the process of drafting regulations, I think there is a whole shipping community within agriculture and beyond agriculture that's prepared to participate in that expedited and focused review of the regulations. We would certainly want to be part of that discussion so that we could ensure that the things you've mentioned there with respect to characterizing and defining the service obligations of the railway are addressed through regulation. We would want to ensure that it picks up on things like performance measurement, so that when we establish a service obligation, when we establish a standard for performance against that service obligation, we're then measuring service effectiveness against that standard, and then ultimately and very importantly for the agriculture community, that we establish a financial consequence for failing to adhere to those commitments.