I hope you don't take from that, lady and gentlemen, that we are not as serious about this as you are. We do take the issue very seriously, as I think you probably have come to understand through some of the questions that have been raised by all members of all parties.
I want to go back to what I said earlier. It would appear to me, and it's reinforced now through your responses, that you're really asking for government to be much more engaged than it has been. That's a strange thing for those of us here to hear. And as I said when the railways were here on Tuesday, we have a government that is perceived philosophically to be more hands-off on industry but is actually much more engaged in the marketplace. So that tells all of us that the situation is not always as it appears to be. So I'll repeat the compliments on having convinced somebody, everybody, that you're in the right.
But I want to come to another question that I asked the railways, and since you were here, you heard it. I asked them if they wanted to change something, propose an amendment, what would it be, and the amendment they proposed--and I'm not sure it's what you would have agreed to--refers to section 169.2 and it goes back to FOA. I asked you a few minutes ago about making that process a little bit more systematic, and you referred to it as a bureaucratic position. But I'm going to read something to you--I don't have a copy--for your reflection, and it would change section 169.2, which I think you have before you. It says that:
The Agency shall not have any matter submitted to it for a final offer arbitration under subsection (1) arbitrated unless the shippers who are submitting the matter demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Agency (not to anybody else) that the matter is common to all of them and that they are making in respect of that matter a joint offer the terms of which apply equally to all of them.
Why would you have a problem with that?