There is some history on this, as Bob has mentioned. In the previous bill on this issue, the term “equally to all” had been included. Shippers would be very opposed to the inclusion of the term “equally to all”—that the solution should apply equally to all—for the reason that Wade discussed earlier, which is that shippers by nature are different. Some are smaller, some are larger. Some are shipping one place, some are shipping another. The matter at hand may in fact be common to all of them, but it is inevitable that the solution will not necessarily be equal to all of them because of this diversity.
It is the strong view of the shipper community lawyers that this provision could become the equivalent of the commercial harm test on the issue of level-of-service complaints, and become a significant barrier to shippers who are wishing to bring these claims.
So I think this is a way for the railways trying to get that language back in there that was in previous bills, which shippers had expressed their concerns about at that time.