Mr. Chair, can I just come back to the purpose of this section of the act and the purpose of this provision? It is very much focused on rail service. This section of the act is not intended to cover every possible element of a relationship between a railway and a shipper. It is focused on service. The concerns that have been brought to the government at various stages when this section of the act on railway obligations with respect to service has been under review have always been about service. That is the focus. These provisions are in keeping with the kinds of concerns that people have brought before the government throughout the history, I would say, of having these railway obligations in the act.
The kinds of issues you're raising are not front-and-centre issues, I would say, with the exception of the financial penalties issue and the issue of commercial dispute resolution, having the arbitrator being able to make a decision on that. Those were the two items that were more important, I would say, on par with the kinds of service obligations that are covered under the new provision. It was a policy decision of the government not to include them under the arbitrator's scope. But the other types of issues that you raise are not really major issues that have been brought forward by shippers as a concern.
Just to come back, the intent of this provision was not to try to establish a fully comprehensive contract between railways and shippers that covers everything. It was to focus on service, because that is the area where Parliament has determined there needs to be legislation governing the behaviour of railways.