Not really, in my humble view. If a shipper and a railway can agree on, let's say, choice of law clause—which law, Ontario's or Manitoba's, should apply in the case of a dispute—the shipper has an ability, if they can't get the railway to sign an agreement, to agree to sign an agreement; they still get to arbitration. They get an arbitrator to establish the actual obligation that the railway will have to comply with, notwithstanding the dispute that is ongoing with the railway and the choice of law.
The choice of law can be resolved at the point where a dispute occurs. The railway may refuse to sign an agreement in the absence of a clause that says this is the applicable law. The shipper, being frustrated, may decide to go to arbitration to get an arbitrator to force the railway to comply with the actual obligation set out in the decision of the arbitrator because that's the outcome of the arbitrator's process.