Exactly. That's why this can be done so quickly.
On the issue of the enabling legislation, if I could just complete my response, Mr. Chair, in the past there have been ideas of enabling legislation, but they were getting into the weeds of running the railway. That's not the approach we would propose.
The approach we would propose is an approach that enables the company to run itself. Give it a specific mandate, whether it be the environment, car traffic competition, or remote areas, and then let the company run itself like any corporation should. Therefore, it would eliminate the need for a government subsidy, first and foremost, and second, where there is competition—and some are concerned about competing—it would be on a level playing field with no government funding. That would be the objective of enabling legislation, not mandating that you have a station at this place or that place, or that you run the train at 9:05 versus 9:25.
The other fallacy is that law would give priority to passenger trains over freight trains, like it does in the U.S. The U.S. legislation makes that statement, but if you talk to my colleague, the CEO of Amtrak, he'll tell you that's worth nothing, because you're on a network. It doesn't matter that you're the first to go. If you're going at 100 miles per hour and there's a freight train 200 miles ahead of you going at 30 miles per hour, how fast will you meet it? You don't have to answer that question.