It's hard to compare, because the U.S. funding seems to crop up--they're going to build a bridge out of corn; they have parts of the Farm Bill; then it's going the other way. We're waiting to see.
I think it's fair to say, and I say it with a fair bit of confidence, that in Canada we have not chosen to fund the transformation to green energy as aggressively as other industrialized countries have. The support for transformation to green energy in Europe and the United States remains quite a bit stronger. Given all the difficulties we're having in the forest industry--and we've been quite clear that we don't think government can save us from those difficulties if they're market-driven--better and more intelligently used funding for integrating bio-energy and bio-products into the industry would change the economics.
When you saw a log, chips come out, and those chips can go into making pulp, making energy, or making chemicals. If you actually have bio-refineries that can use those chips in any one of those three ways, the economics become a great deal more stable. But we're not going to get there without funding, because Europe and the United States are competing. In fact, I'd say that we've gone from an age of increasing global competition to an age of increasing international, between-nations competition. In the forest industry and in the bio-energy business, it is actually competition between nations more than between companies because of the size of the interventions of government.