Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you to all our guests who are with us today.
It is interesting how we definitely hear some different aspects on this. One of the things I want to come back to, and it's been talked about a lot, is everybody's desire on the commercially negotiated contracts. I think we've also been very clear that this bill is actually what we want see it as, as a backstop, so that we can create commercially negotiated contracts. That's where it sits. When I look at it, I see some things in this bill that will actually be advantageous going forward in negotiating these contracts.
One of the things I look at is that the arbitrator is required to consider the full network implications when he is making decisions based on what has been brought forward. Mr. Peters' concern about the short-line aspect of it. Well, that is part of the network. The port is part of the network. All of that has to be looked at by the arbitrator when he comes forward with his final decision. To me, I think this also sets the precedent for when you're negotiating with the shipper: they now know that the network is part of it. From what they were saying initially in some of the hearings that we had, there was a sense that the network wasn't part of it or shouldn't be part of it. I think they're coming to understand that the network does have to be part of it, because we don't want to overburden the network and have it collapse on us. That would be advantageous to no one, neither them nor the railways.
I just wonder if you could comment on that aspect, that it actually sets up a good clear parameter that may help you not to have this backstop but to actually have the commercially negotiated contracts you're looking for.