Okay. I'll just say that I would be interested in the bureau's position on whether, in order to prevent future conflicts of interest, one measure that the government might consider would be to free the entity of the conflict of interest with the large owners, the incumbents.
You mentioned real-time rail. It's really convenient that we're behind and delayed on real-time rail. By the way, it's really convenient that Payments Canada gave a sole-source contract to Interac, which is owned by the banks, whose own delays will only ensure their profit pool exists for a little bit longer. I would welcome the bureau's recommendations on that front.
There's an issue about competition, no doubt. One of the ways that new entrants were trying to accumulate customers was to talk about free e-transfers. If it is true that the pricing structure was such that these new entrants were significantly harmed with higher prices to offer that service, to me that's a direct decision to limit the competitive landscape by incumbents to prevent entrants from coming in. That's one thing that I would leave with you.
The final thing is that, on e-transfers themselves, they weren't always free. Many people get free e-transfers today, but they're often paying $1.50. Are you able to look at price gouging in a situation where you know that a financial institution is paying six cents for that fee but then charging someone $1.50 on the other side? Is price gouging something you're able to look at?