I guess that's what this committee is looking for--some insight. You have described the Ontario model as being one of success. We've talked about the differences that are represented in the province. When you look at communities—some of which are urban, some of which are rural, some of which are up north, and some closer to the south. It's got to be a good model that you could extrapolate some of the outcomes and apply them more generally across the country.
I represent several communities where the railroad runs right through the community. What inevitably happens, it seems, is that the railroad is there, the community grows around it, and as the community grows and as the region grows and develops, there's more traffic on the railroad, and before you know it people are complaining about this noisy railroad that's running through their community, whereas it was the generator of or the reason the community exists there today.
I'm curious. I think you're opposed to this amendment, but you seem to be.... Maybe I'm missing something. You seem to be opposed to this particular amendment, but you seem to be very supportive of what happened in Ontario where they applied a very similar requirement. I'm not quite fully understanding.
It seems to be a reasonable one. Representing a community that runs up against the Northwest Territories...I don't see how the application is significantly different.