As against having to seek an exemption from....
So in terms of the obligation on the carrier, I don't agree necessarily with Mr. Carrier. I think what's happening is there is an effort being made to relieve them of being caught in a regulation that is deemed necessary to deal with ceasing a service. So I'm not sure how you split this.
I agree with Mr. Julian on this point. I don't believe it is invisible to the communities, because, for instance, for whatever the reason that a permanent carrier would be asked to explain themselves, there may be a need to ask a seasonal carrier to explain themselves as well.
It's not all rural and remote. The carrier that is delivering Japanese tourists to Charlottetown...it's not a rural or remote community; it's a seasonal service. It's the tourist season, but it's a seasonal service. And the community of Charlottetown may have questions of the carrier as to why they picked the peak period in the shoulder season. I think that's a legitimate question. They no longer will have to explain themselves to anybody, because before they would have had to seek an exception and now they don't.
So it's a legitimate question as to whether or not the carrier should be relieved of having to explain themselves to the community in many instances. We've gone from perhaps too much requirement on the seasonal carrier to too little. Is that correct?