However, the MRE does not preclude you from passing 100% of those costs on. We can table that. I only have a bit of time, and I don't want to test any more of the patience of my colleagues.
The last piece is about interswitching. If you're Minister Anand and you're sitting with agricultural groups—and we've had them before this committee—that swear by interswitching as being an important tool, even if it's not facilitated, you know that having it there is important for engaging with both CN and CPKC. It's an important tool to make sure they try to keep costs competitive, which you guys have highlighted.
Mr. Cannings talked about whether the maximum MRE keeps costs down for the U.S. piece, but if you're Minister Anand, would you simply be saying...? I'm sympathetic as the chair of the agriculture committee about the fact that there's not reciprocity, that you as railroads don't have access. Would the argument not be—maybe through an extended pilot beyond 2025 to allow for more data—to make the simple change that the American railroad does not have the same 160-kilometre radius into Canada and that you guys in the agricultural community continue to have the 160-kilometre, short-term interswitching benefit, competing among yourselves as Canadian railroads?