I'm happy to take that conversation off-line.
On the technical side, I'm being presented with information by my constituents. I'm also equally having those conversations, I would say, with some of your senior management. We'll have that conversation off-line.
Mr. Epp asked about carbon pricing and some of the associated costs. He's asked you guys to table them.
My question is for the two railroads.
You've talked about the maximum revenue entitlement. With regard to carbon pricing, beyond the cost—I'm not necessarily transfixed on the actual cost—is the entirety of the carbon price that you pay on your freight passed off to shippers? That's my question. When we have conversations with agricultural associations in western Canada, their assertion is that they understand there will be costs passed down as a result of this policy. They're saying they're in a situation where some of them should be borne by the railroads.
The concept of carbon pricing, of course, is to adjust and change behaviour. I know and appreciate that there's probably some work being done on the railroads with regard to efficiency and fuel efficiency on cars. However, if the entire price is being passed down through the supply chain, you can see how it truncates the goal of what we're trying to do, which is that some of the true cost is borne by the railroads.
Is that actually happening? Is 100% of the carbon price being passed down to shippers?