I might add that I think if you look at a U.S. example on stand-alone costing, you could ask why that was put in place on a replacement cost basis. Well, it was at a time when the rail industry was severely struggling financially.
I would suggest anything but that is the case here. You have record world profits. One of the reasons the U.S. looked at it was so that they did not have to get into a subsidy conversation. The rail industry needs anything but that, when you look at their average contributions.
I think it's also really important here to keep our government spending in the same context. What percentage do we represent of railway revenue as it relates to business? If you go back to Statistics Canada numbers, the railway industry has about between $7 billion to $8 billion in revenue. For our track rates, excluding crewing agreements, because those are separate and related and we pay those in a buy-sell relationship, we are less than 1% of their revenue.
For the impact of it, and using similar calculations, it's almost meaningless. They don't even report commuter rail revenue. That's how insignificant we are in the total scale of their business.