I'll start with the last question, and raise a couple of points.
The agency will be reporting on the use of the provision, so certainly in its annual report it will be providing a sense of the number of arbitration cases it is seeing.
In terms of the use of arbitration agreements, certainly the department and the minister interact frequently with railways and shippers, and we get a good sense from them of changes that are happening out on the ground.
The final point I'd make on that is that there is a review of the Canada Transportation Act coming up in 2015. Certainly we would expect that stakeholders will discuss how they're finding this new provision on service agreements to be working in practice in the context of discussions in that review. That is a mandatory review.
In terms of the third question, on penalties, the agency's understanding is that they are intending to prepare regulations to implement the administrative monetary penalty regime for these arbitrated service agreements. In terms of what triggers a penalty and who decides, essentially the service agreements themselves will provide the framework for the specific penalties that may be applicable in each case.
Just to give you an example, if the service agreement has a performance standard in it that the railway is to provide service to the shipper on a certain day of the week and to provide a certain number of cars, that's what would determine, then, whether or not there's been a violation.
You asked who would determine it. It would be the shipper who would claim there has been a violation. The shipper would approach the agency. The agency would have the authority to conduct an investigation of the shipper's assessment of the situation. It would seek evidence as to whether or not there's been a breach. If it finds that there has, in fact, been a breach, then it would be in a position to impose an administrative monetary penalty. It would be brought to the attention of the agency by the shipper, and then the agency would do the assessment.
In terms of the second question on short lines, short lines are subject to the requirement to offer shippers a service agreement if they are federally regulated. I don't have the exact number, but we understand that there are between 20 and 25 short-line railways that are federally regulated. Those would be subject to the provision and required to offer service agreements to shippers who ask for one.
In terms of shippers, I think you may have been referring to producer-car loaders and whether or not they're eligible. They certainly are. A producer-car loader organization is a shipper, and can seek a service agreement, whether it's with a short line or with a class I railway.
On the question on statistics, on how many railways have confidential contracts greater than one or two years, we really don't have specific details on that because of the confidential nature of these contracts. What we do know from the railways, what they tell us is that the vast majority of the agreements, the contracts they sign with shippers, are for one- to two-year periods. We know there have been some agreements that are for longer periods, but we understand, again from the railways, that those are in the minority. They tend to be of more short duration.