The department had issued some parameters for the intent of the bill before consultations began last summer. One of the things made clear in that document was that the new provision was not intended to alter existing provisions in the act.
Certainly some of the points raised by the shippers about changing the common carrier obligation fell outside the scope of what was intended for the bill. There definitely was that consideration of the desire for very prescriptive language versus consideration of how the rest of the act is drafted, the approach that's taken. Yes, it's very high-level, but we also know that there's quite a bit of jurisprudence from various court decisions and agency decisions that gives meaning to the common carrier obligation, and therefore will also inform this new service agreement provision.
Knowing what the common carrier obligation means, what service issues are faced by shippers, and then considering how the rest of the bill is drafted, there was a decision to make around the approach: whether to be very detailed or to go with that higher-level approach. In the end, the government took the decision to go with higher-level language consistent with the rest of the act, knowing that this is in fact a fairly broad approach to service.