This has to do with the arbitration proceeding. There was an earlier amendment that proposed putting in the law certain terms with respect to the arbitration proceeding. That amendment was defeated.
My question is this. In terms of the ability of one side or the other in a contract negotiation, or in terms of a commercial relationship between a shipper and a railway, and trying to make sure, which is the objective of this legislation, that the relationship be as even-handed and on as level a playing field as possible, what is the logic of having provisions in the law that would allow railways to unilaterally impose penalties on shippers, penalties that shippers pay to the railways—not to the government, but to the railways—without the shippers having a corresponding right or opportunity?
Where is the balance in that relationship if one side can impose, in effect, damages—called “demurrage”—but the other side cannot?