There's one thing in this that to me is kind of complicated. I see two liabilities here. I see the liability of the track and the right-of-way, and I see the liability of the operator and the machinery that goes on the track. So my challenge is this: have you separated that, or is the obligation...for instance, the obligation on the track and right-of-way owned by the rail company? Do they assume the obligation of those who travel on their track that they have to have safe equipment to go on that track?
With that, as Mr. Laframboise was saying, if that's the case, that it's the one who owns the track and the right-of-way who should be the ones who secure the operator, if they take their running licence from their transit authority to say that it's safe, would that be acceptable?
I guess I'm having a challenge separating those two burdens of liability and in the act. Have you separated that?