I have a quick question then.
It seems to me that in your briefing document.... You referred to this; I can't find it right at the moment. But in proposing that closed containment is the way to go, you make the suggestion that if it goes on land, it could go anywhere on land. That's not exactly true. We heard other witnesses tell us it's hard to find all the necessary water sources if you're going to have a recirculating thing. So it can't go anywhere.
But if it could go closer to the markets, which I think you say in your document, what's going to stop these industries from moving out of rural New Brunswick, for example, or Newfoundland and Labrador and going to the U.S., Chicago, or somewhere closer to the market? Would you not see that as a negative result of a widespread, a wide-scale shift toward closed containment?