Yes. I'll give you two very simple examples.
The terms of an agreement are anything. A confidentiality provision of an agreement is a term of an agreement. It's not an operational term.
I've heard shippers and shipping groups say repeatedly that the notion of “operational” is not defined in the act. With all due respect, it's not true. The act currently defines the word “operate”. If you go to the French version, you see that it defines specifically exploitation, which is the exact word that we're using in the law to reflect operational terms or termes d'exploitation. So the word “operate” is defined in legislation, and it's broadly defined: it's any act required for the operation of a train. It was meant to be very, very broad, and we intentionally, at least from a drafting perspective, didn't define it to further reduce the broad definition that was already in the legislation with respect to “operate”.
If people expect that the words “operational term” will encapsulate every term of an agreement, that's not what the legislation was meant to do. My drafting instruction was that you do not...the intent was not to capture every single term of agreement. The intention was to capture the obligation of the railway on how it will deliver its common carrier obligation to the shippers. The operation itself and how they deliver their common carrier obligations were specifically meant to be covered. That's the reason the term “operational” is used.
Terms and conditions that are normally found in agreements, such as “termination clause”, “confidentiality clause”, and all of these normal clauses that you would find in an agreement, were not meant to be captured by the term “operational”.