Well, I think we'll need to hear the shippers on whether that's an adequate framework. I'm glad that it's permissive in the sense that they can be in, but I think the shippers might want some assurance that those subject areas would be properly covered.
Mr. Chairman, I have one more point about the existing confidential contracts that some shippers may have already negotiated. Those contracts may or may not cover the kinds of things I've just described, and yet, if there is a confidential contract in place, whether or not it's a good one, an effective one, it was obviously negotiated without the benefit of this legislative framework. The particular shipper that has that kind of agreement with the railway would be barred from having access to the arbitration procedure until the existing contract expires.
I wonder if that's a way of rationing access to the CTA so that it's not overwhelmed by applications for arbitration. Or is there some other reason you wouldn't allow the shippers to migrate to a better arrangement, namely, an SLA, rather than remaining locked into an existing agreement that may be deficient? It's important, obviously, to get to the best possible result for everybody. I would think it might be wise to let them go to the CTA if the present contract proves to be insufficient.