Just a point. Mr. Mongeau is making a strong argument that service is improving, etc., and that we don't really need this legislation. What I don't really understand in the railway argument.... If you look at proposed amendment one, all this does is say this is what a service agreement should look like. I would assume this would be of benefit to both the railways and the shippers, because now we at least have a common commercial framework. This is not regulatory; this is a framework. We don't want to be into arbitration and all these penalties. Basically this is what we're asking that this legislation say, that if the government is going to move forward and Parliament is going to move forward with the right to a service agreement—which I assume you will, as I can't imagine that's going to disappear from this draft act—then one would assume that you would want to be clear about what it is. I think that would actually further both the aims of the shippers and of the railways.
Assuming, Mr. Mongeau, you're going to end up in a situation where you're going to have this in the bill, I don't quite understand why you would object to that.