The dilemma with changing behaviour is that people need to know there's a consequence, so that they actually want to change their behaviours initially, not that I disagree with you, Cam, on the issue of how you can't write a ticket for every single car that goes by. It doesn't work that way.
Let me draw back into what Wade has been quoted as saying, related to some of this today, and ask you the question if it's about tying it to this piece of legislation minus.... You had six suggestions. Let me go through these. They talk about how, on this element, the questions are how to ensure grain shippers receive railcars, one, at the right level, two, at a consistent rate, three, apportioned appropriately among the corridors, four, spotted at the inland terminals where shippers require service, and five, at increased volumes when required to account for peak shipping periods. Suggestion number six is about beyond 2016, in talking about this as a sunset provision.
Let me leave the last one out, because if the CTA gets done and the rail service review gets done prior to that, that takes care of beyond 2016, if that becomes a piece that gets worked out and that folks are happy with. That remains to be seen, of course.
Not knowing what the regulations will be either, in the sense that we're still waiting for those as well, is there anything in those first five suggestions, Wade, that you want to see in Bill C-30 now?
There are two timelines here; well, maybe there are even three, if you want. There's the immediate of this crop year, which is sort of the end of July; it's kind of over, and that's why that provision, even with this legislation, ends July 31. Then, of course, there's the medium term until we get into the review process, even though we want to see it expedited. You've lived through that once before. It takes a bit of time to do that. Even if we rush it, it'll still take some time. Then, of course, the long term is what's on the other side of that.
Can I get your comment on those pieces?