Agriculture committee  Sure. I'd be happy to. Under the current legislation, there is a remedy in legislation that's called “level of service”. Every shipper that ships any products, any commodities, and who feels that the railway has not complied with its level-of-service obligation as stated in the

Agriculture committee  It's just that you have to show that there has been a loss.

Agriculture committee  If the shipper can show the agency.... First of all, you need a breach, so you need the agency need to come to the conclusion that the railway has breached its obligations. If it has, and if the agency is satisfied that there's been a loss, then the agency has the ability to awar

Agriculture committee  Well, it's not required, but if you require it, then at every time they have to order it. But you may not be in a circumstance where you need to order compensation every time if there hasn't been a loss. It's a power given to the agency. If there has been a loss, then you assume

Agriculture committee  Yes. The answer is yes. I mean, if the agency issues a decision under the act, there is an appeal process to the Federal Court of Appeal, but it's true in every instance, whether you have a contract or whether you have an arbitration process. There is always an ability to challen

Agriculture committee  There's an appeal process in legislation for the railway to—

Agriculture committee  Yes.

Agriculture committee  The legislation deals with the relationship between the shipper and the railway. If the farmer's not the shipper.... The legislation only deals with the relationship between the shipper and the railway. The relationship that exists between the shipper and the farmer will be dealt

Agriculture committee  There is currently a provision in the act, section 151.1, that talks about listing for CN and CP—those are the only two companies subject to this provision—to list provisions where producer cars can be loaded. There is an obligation to list them, there is an obligation not to d

Agriculture committee  Yes.

Agriculture committee  Under the AMPs regime under the act, the maximum penalty for 99% of the violations is $25,000. The only exception is the violation of an SLA, which is $100,000. So this would become the second exception to the $25,000 rule.

Agriculture committee  Yes.

Agriculture committee  Currently any violation would have to prosecuted, because the obligation is set forth in an OIC that was issued under the legislation. The only remedy is prosecution, so it would have to be a criminal prosecution. If this legislation were to pass, the AMPs would establish an admi

Agriculture committee  Criminal prosecution obviously follows criminal court processes. AMPs are more administrative in nature. The department would issue an AMP. There's an appeal mechanism to the Transportation Appeal Tribunal, which is administrative. It should be faster. But, of course, there's r

Agriculture committee  Criminal prosecution on something like that doesn't happen a lot. AMPs are issued, I won't say daily, but quite often in transportation legislation. We issue AMPs throughout legislation. We have AMPs in the air sector and in the marine sector. We issue AMPs quite routinely when