In a nutshell, I don't believe you need to go further, for two or three reasons. The first is that we've already developed some experience on how to make this work, and it's starting to work well. The bill already enjoins the CTA to put together its procedures to start at the local level and work up, and there's already some good practice out there that will help.
Second, the CTA has a very, very long history in its various incarnations--it wasn't always the CTA, but in its various incarnations over the years--of coming up with procedural and regulatory approaches on dispute areas in transportation. So there's a highly developed body of expertise in the agency itself, and I'm not sure, if parliamentarians tried to second-guess that expertise, whether it would add much value, frankly.
The third point I would make to you is that it's extremely important that there be consistency in the approach to noise management across the country. My colleague mentioned that CN touches 200 constituencies in this country, and if you add the short lines in and CPR, you touch almost every constituency in the country. There are a few exceptions, but not a lot. And if we attempted to manage noise by enforcing municipal bylaws and that sort of a patchwork approach, we would rapidly do major damage to the economic efficiency of the country, and frankly we would probably be very unfair in our applications across the country.
I would argue very strongly that it's in the national interest to take an approach that allows for consistency in the way we manage noise across the whole network. We run very, very big risks if we don't do that.