But it seems to me—and I'm not an economist here, so far be it from me to disagree with you—that the example we have discovered in Alberta is exactly the opposite of that. When you have this kind of diversification into rural Alberta, as we've seen with the oil sands—and your argument is much the same as that of those who were opposed to the subsidization and the development to the oil sands 15 years ago—it seems to me that every time we add more industries into these communities, we end up with a spinoff of more jobs and higher wages and, yes, higher prices for farmland and other lands.
But from my perception, what I'm hearing from you is that you're talking about it in a vacuum. Given the example that we've seen within Alberta, especially rural Alberta, the entire economy.... In my area, communities like St. Paul and Glendon are communities where there wasn't a really viable industry, other than agriculture, for many years. The oil patch comes along, and all of a sudden the average income goes up. The spinoffs with the tradesmen, the plumbers, the electricians, and the journeymen go up. It seems to me that the average income and the average standard of living when you do this actually increase. Alberta is a prime example of that.