Mr. Speaker, as I said, I will get the hon. gentleman a calendar if that would help.
The focus in the 1990s was the costing review. The focus in 2006-2007 was the level of service review. The nature of the issue had transformed in the intervening years.
Quite frankly, the issue of private ownership or public ownership of the railways is, in these circumstances, entirely irrelevant. The shippers have had complaints about both sides of the equation, both the privately-owned railway, and while it was still in the public domain, the publicly owned railway. The point is that the ownership structure of the railway has proven to be irrelevant on the question of level of service.
At the moment, if we asked the shippers, they would be discrete in answering, but they would say that they are getting a better level of service from CN than from CP. There were times in the past when that was flipped around, but at the moment I think they would give CN credit for actually having tried to address the issue more effectively than CP has.
The bottom line is that shippers on both types of railways do not believe the level of service is up to snuff where it should be, which is why they were hoping for more effective legislation.