Lastly, Mr. Steinley talked about carbon pricing. We may share a slightly different view. I've submitted in the House that if we are serious about reducing emissions, there is no free lunch. To do it, you're going to regulate the activity, which means sometimes compliance costs are passed off to consumers, or you have a pricing mechanism. I sometimes tease my Tory colleagues that this is inherently the most Conservative way to do it in the market. You can also subsidize the activity, but it's going to come out of taxpayers' dollars one way or the other.
There are different ways to look at this, but one conversation that I think is fair to have is how the railroads are able to pass costs off to shippers.
Mr. Sobkowich, Mr. Steinley gave us numbers on what that cost represents to farmers and shippers. The premise of a carbon price is to incentivize a change in behaviour. If the entirety of that cost is being passed on, with no provision for there to be a true cost to the railroads to try to get them to incentivize a change in behaviour to reduce emissions.... I agree with Ms. Murray that it's having a beneficial impact in the country, with a reduction in emissions, but then there's the equity of how it's applied. I was surprised that I didn't hear you talk about this.
Would the Western Grain Elevator Association like to see some type of a limit on the amount of the carbon price that can be passed off to your shippers? Mr. Steinley makes the assertion that it's 100%. I've heard from APAS, and they suggest it's the same. What do you say?