That raises a different question for me.
I want to attribute all the credit where it's due, but I don't want to allocate negative responsibility where it might not be. I think maybe one of my other colleagues around the table suggested that there might be a level of...I don't want to say indifference--call it tolerance, but very difficult tolerance, on the part of the CN management team for Transport Canada regulations, inasmuch as CN no longer calls itself Canadian National, given that its administrative structure is located in the United States, by and large. Its primary concern is that it operate within the regulations dictated by its American operations, and as a result—and I suppose Mr. Chudnovsky might agree here—some of the safety practices of, let's say, B.C. Rail went a little bit by the wayside once the infrastructure at the managerial level was transferred to an operation that no longer considers itself Canadian.
I realize that now we're going into an area, as you put it, of speculation or ideology or national interest, but I'm interested in your observation. You've talked to the membership and people who are employed by an organization that was employed by somebody else before.