Right. You can see from that particular question and answer why some of us are troubled by some of the positions that are taken.
I want to be as balanced and fair as the next person. I've gone through the Government of Alberta position, and they essentially take the side of the shippers. In fact, on virtually every single issue they say you don't have the position to stand on and that as a result of—as you call it—deregulation, the pendulum has swung too far towards you, and it's time to go back in the other direction in order to achieve a balance.
As I read your submission, you're essentially focusing on two things. One is the removal of proof of commercial harm. The Government of Alberta's position is that it's not really removed at all. Why do they disagree with you? I mean, they consulted with you. You made submissions to them in both Calgary and Edmonton. Is there a philosophical difference here, or has somebody got hold of the wrong facts and is making recommendations on the basis of pure self-interest and nothing else? By the way, I don't know what the self-interest of Alberta is, other than the fact that they say the transportation industry, and especially the railways, are integral to the success of the Alberta economy. That sounds reasonable to me.