We do. We talk a lot about regulatory harmonization with the United States, and this would be a good place to look, but I have a slight correction. The U.S. does not go first to binding arbitration. The first thing is that the two parties table their demands and needs. There is discussion among them, just as in Canada. If they are unable to get to a shared outcome, they go to mediation. If that doesn't work, then they are asked if they wish to go to binding arbitration. If they choose not to do that, there is a cooling-off period. They are given more time to think about their positions. They are given enhanced mediation and, ultimately, given a chance yet again to come back to binding arbitration. If they fail to do that, parties could still strike. Parties could still lock out others, but by that time, there has been so much work done that this would be a very rare outcome.
Again, the legislation has been in place in some shape or form since 1926, and we don't see the types of annual rail disruptions that we have here. It's in neither party's interest to either lock out or strike by the time you get to that—