Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I think what I want to highlight is that this amendment deals with service-level agreements. SLAs generally exist between, for example, elevators and rail companies based on service. That's what we're talking about.
The other thing I would point out is that service-level agreements are dealt with already in the Canada Transportation Act. This particular act here, Bill C-30, is not trying to reinvent SLAs and the way in which they're handled or arbitrated. That's already within the Canada Transportation Act. What this is doing, though, is it's responding to the witnesses, who we all heard from, who said that when it came to service-level agreements, they wanted teeth in those SLAs. That is what this is delivering.
You were asking for an example, so let's take demurrage. A grain shipper contracts with the rail company, has a service-level agreement with the rail company, the SLA is not respected by the rail company, and there are demurrage fees. That would normally be paid by the grain shipper, but now the rail company actually has a role to play in compensating the grain shipper for that, through the SLA. If there's a breakdown, then there's an arbitration process that's already in place for SLAs.
The thing I would point out is that this amendment is strongly supported by shippers from all commodities. It's also my understanding that the Coalition of Rail Shippers supports this.
So this type of an amendment has very strong support.