I appreciate the offer for that.
An example is a recommendation that all dispatching be done from Canada. We agree with that. All our dispatching for Canada is done from Canada now, in our rail traffic control offices in Edmonton, Toronto, and Montreal.
Where there's a bit of a nuance is at the border. You don't tend to have a control point right at the international boundary between Canada and the U.S. One of our most important places is at the bottom of the Sarnia-Port Huron tunnel. We don't want to stop a train there in order to hand off control to another country, so we'd like to have some discussion with Transport Canada and others, and with our union of rail traffic controllers, to have a little bit of flexibility at the border locations. Other than that, from a general perspective, we don't have any problem with that recommendation. It's that type of thing. It's more getting it down to operationalize it.
In terms of things that we had proposed to the panel, many of which found their way into the report and into the recommendations, we were hopeful that there might be a recommendation concerning drug and alcohol testing, and--this is a minor point--we were hopeful that there might have been a bit more of an opportunity to harmonize some of the reporting regulations, accident reporting formats, and so on between Canada and the U.S., because we're increasingly becoming a company that operates in both Canada and the U.S.
Those would be examples. Frankly, those two are the only ones we would have asked them to add.