Why should shippers in the United States in a sense be at a disadvantage to shippers in Canada with regard to bottleneck prices?

Getting the choice is important to chemical companies, steel companies, coal companies, granaries, et cetera.

I really question the basic proposition that railroad rates or conduct in any way, including mergers, would be found invalid under the antitrust laws.

You can operate under rules that would be illegal for any other industry in this country to do.

But I do not think we should be subject to two regulatory regimes, to two masters. One master is enough.

Let me just simplify it to North America. Why is it that you should be able to operate under exemptions and an antitrust situation would be illegal in any other industry?

It is because you have behind that the threat of the choice.

What would be a way that you might-- not hypothetically, but just thinking back in your experience when you say enhanced competition or I would say pro-competitive evidence--and we have agreed it is sort of the same. What would be an…

It is. Suppose you find it becomes deficient.

I do not know if that is true, but I would hope that that would not be true.

I think it was you--or somebody--said 'I do not see why any industry should be treated differently.'

I am one of those who tends to think that mergers kind of keep taking place until they cannot anymore.

Everything you are saying... is really affirming an answer to a question that I gave to you.

Now, obviously within the airline industry, the public would rebel.

I have been a Governor for 8 years and I have been doing this for some time.

There has to be a follow-up on all of this was my point.

Now, is that a way of saying that until we change the law, you are stuck?

And they do not have the protection, of course, that railroads do.