That's a good question. I think at the end of the day the use of the term “operational” was really intended to ensure that there was broad coverage of the vast range of service issues that a shipper may wish to have arbitrated, to ensure that the coverage was there while at the same time limiting the scope of arbitration to service issues and not broadening it out to include financial penalties, and also avoiding the inclusion of obligations on shippers in terms of volume commitments and those sorts of things.
The decision around it was really a policy decision around what the right scope is. The focus is very clearly on service and a broad range of service issues that we know shippers have raised in the level of service complaint mechanism under the legislation now, the Canada Transportation Act.
As to whether or not there would be an impact on the volume of arbitration requests if we changed the language, it's possible that there may be more. If penalties were covered, for example, and a shipper really wanted to address that issue, wanted to seek arbitration, then that may increase the number. It's a possibility, but it's very difficult to say.
At the end of the day, we do hear from shippers that they really don't like to use remedies under the act, because it's a process, and they just prefer to settle things commercially. That's the agreed approach of everybody. They've told us that they want to have it there in case they need it, but they really hope not to have to use it.