I think it's a very real risk. I was surprised. I think it's FPAC or the coalition yesterday that made this suggestion.
The railroad industry is like a bus service. You cannot pick up everybody first, and you cannot leave, get someone, and drop them off first. You have to have a run. If a customer decides he would like his switching at eight o'clock in the morning because that's after he comes back from Tim Hortons and he likes it at eight o'clock in the morning, and he goes to an arbitrator and makes the case, he has a fifty-fifty chance that the arbitrator will say, “You know what? That big, bad railroad. I'll go with you.” If every other shipper would like to have their service at eight o'clock...we just can't service everybody at once.
The network impact of railroad services is just the nature of our business. More than 60% of what we move either originates or terminates on another railroad. When we move grain—it's unfortunate Mr. Goodale has left—we cannot load in the countryside a car that has not been unloaded at the port. If there are problems with rain in the port, or if there's clogging in Vancouver and we don't have a flow of cars coming back, there is nothing any railroad CEO can do. Understanding the network nature of our service, understanding all of those details and how they come together, is the devil we have to deal with commercially.
I don't know that any arbitrator or antitrust lawyer can solve that. That's why there's a problem with the regulation you're considering.