Can I add a little bit to that?
The way we've proposed the amendment, you would have to submit to the agency for arbitration terms governing whether or not a service failure has occurred and the manner in which damages are to be assessed. So you're submitting to the agency for arbitration on whether a breach has occurred.
The main difference with the AMPs is that AMPs are paid to the government. Deterrence is good, but it doesn't do anything to compensate shippers for damages that shippers have incurred as a result of a railway's failure to perform. I'd say this tongue in cheek, but if deterrence is the objective and the railways have under law the right to unilaterally impose tariffs for shipper non-performance, then perhaps the tariffs paid by the shipper should also go to the government. It's silly, but that's really what we're comparing here.