Mr. Chairman, the issue I want to raise here for just a moment is whether or not this whole process could end up being stymied by the parties not being able to agree on things that are terms, but not operational terms. The legislation purports to say that a shipper is entitled to a level-of-service agreement. If that level-of-service agreement, which consists of both terms and operational terms, cannot be negotiated between the parties, then certain things, operational terms, can be referred to arbitration. But terms that are not operational terms cannot be.
What if the sticking point between the parties is a term that is not an operational term? That's the thing that is hanging them up. They can't come to an agreement on that. Then the right in the legislation for the shipper to have an agreement is essentially vacuous because the whole process would founder on that point that could not be referred to arbitration. Isn't that a problem?