So would any of these that are defined in the proposal from the NDP be unreasonable to be included in a definition of service obligations?
I guess the purpose of the amendment is to make it very clear what it is, and from your answer just now...because it's on a case-by-case basis, the shippers have advised us that they have difficulty getting past the railway assumption that nothing is a service obligation.
Would these amendments make it more clear what an arbitrator would be dealing with in terms of what the railroad's service obligations would be?