Quite frankly, it sounds a little bit like wishful thinking. You have provided for the AMPs, the administrative monetary penalties, to be there but I don't think it's going to change the behaviour, or the circumstances—that the shippers obviously feel aggrieved. I think it's just not sufficient to correct the behaviour that was the cause for creating the review panel in the first place.
I have the same concern about the high-level language you described earlier—using the common carrier obligations that have been in the act from time immemorial, which obviously the shippers think have not worked. It is too vague, too general, too high-level.
What would be wrong with including language in the legislation, using that high-level service obligation nomenclature but then saying, “Not limiting the generality of the foregoing, here are specific things that fall within this definition”? You could satisfy what the shippers were asking for, and that is some specificity about what the term “service obligations” really means. Obviously the definition that's there now has not achieved the level of service that they think is appropriate.
Could you not have both: use your general language, but then run in some specific examples of what that general language includes?