Of course, not all disputes are resolved by mediation. I wish that were the case, but clearly some remain. Many disputes are resolved by mediation or outside the recourse provided by law. These provisions are there, of course, because others are not resolved.
At the moment, there is recourse for transportation charges, and that is binding final arbitration. This is for transportation charges only, getting freight from point A to point B.
Clause 3 seeks to introduce a new recourse to the Agency for other costs: storage fees, interchange fees, demurrage, merge fees. These incidental service fees have nothing to do with transportation. In many cases, shippers do not even have to incur them. Some do, some do not. It is a bit like a menu. Shippers have said that railways often raise these fees without consulting them. The fees are not for transportation. They have said that they have not had an appropriate recourse to challenge the increases or the conditions that railways may require. The recourse is to the Agency, and deals with the ancillary costs not the transportation.
We think that the clause is drafted ambiguously. We could propose wording that would clarify it. Even the shippers will agree that the wording would not be a problem because the intention is to take ancillary charges to the Agency while fees for transportation go to arbitration.