I would say that was the main reason. The shippers felt that if CN and CP were offering this, they should offer it for each of their entire systems, and that in this instance the border shouldn't make a difference because a lot of the traffic for many of the companies that are represented in the coalition is cross-border traffic. I would assume you, Ms. Morgan, have a lot. Wade probably has some. The fertilizer people do a lot of movement across into the United States, and felt that if they were going to offer it, let's make it for each of their whole systems.
The other thing is there's a lot of traffic that's interchange traffic between railways, whether it's into the United States to other railways, or whether it's between CN and CP or even to other short lines. I will ask my colleagues here.... If I my memory doesn't serve me right on this, they'll correct me, but my recollection is that each of the commercial dispute resolutions CN and CP were offering were only for their own system. In other words, even in Canada, they weren't going to be extended so that if it was an interline move between, say, CN and CP, it would cover that.