Mr. Chairman, I have three questions that I'd like to ask the witnesses, along some of the same lines that Ms. Chow was discussing.
In answer to an earlier question about damages, Ms. Gibbons said, I think, words to the effect that providing damages is something that's just not done by regulatory agencies and that it's more typical to impose these penalties.
It may not be done frequently by regulatory agencies, but of course it is done: on occasion they do levy damages. But it is a regular feature of arbitration, and arbitration is what is being established here, if the negotiating process isn't successful.
So why wouldn't you let the parties agree on level of service agreements that provide—between them contractually—for a way by which they could identify and provide for damages, and then, if that fails and the thing goes to arbitration, there allow the arbitrator to do it?
It may not be something the CTA does on a frequent basis, but for an arbitrator it's fundamental to the process of arbitration. Why not allow it as an option for the contracts to be negotiated between the parties here?