Mr. Ritz is exactly correct. Trying to utilize legislation to define something means that you have to get it right completely. If you have it on a regulatory basis, it makes a lot more sense. You can actually do better consultation and you can have it adjusted.
More important, what we're doing is we're having the Canadian Transportation Agency be involved in this as well. They have the skills and the ability to make the right decisions with respect to service level agreements.
I think it's important for the committee to note too that service level agreements are not mandatory. These exist if a shipper wants to have them. It's not about putting an agreement on two parties that are unwilling. The shipper has to want to have one. So far they have opted to go the line of memorandums of understanding between themselves and rail carriers to set out their own contractual relationship. If they wanted to have SLAs, they have a process to have an arbitrated one put in place by the CTA. But as we're hearing from consultations, it's not adequate for shippers in order to bring them to the point where they want to utilize the SLAs.
Now is the opportunity to disconnect it from an actual act, to put it in a regulatory process, which, as Minister Ritz said, is more flexible, more nimble. Equally important is the consultation that goes with this in order to ensure that when the CTA makes considerations, they have the right information before them. What we don't want to have are any unintended consequences associated with moving in one direction or another that could affect our entire supply chain.
My point of view is that the supply chain as a whole has to be stable and it has to be reactive to what our needs are. It cannot be fixed in time and it cannot be fixed in statute. It has to be able to breathe.