It's a great question.
I think one important divide would be those that are publicly traded versus those that are private firms. For those that are publicly traded, they are required to meet a profitability objective. Still, that means engaging employees and their employees may have a real altruistic interest, so that does return to their bottom line when they can increase employee retention. Ultimately, though, for a publicly traded private company, profitability is the bottom line.
For the private firms, like a VeriForm, as I mentioned in that example, Paul had a very altruistic perspective. Certainly, we see that amongst some of the smaller firms in the Waterloo region that participate. That altruistic interest is then supported as they start to see profitability alongside it. That would vary, depending on the firm and on their interests. I would say it's a mix of both but that the success of the program overall depends heavily on being able to translate it back for those in the firm, whether it's the ultimate decision-maker or not, that you can come back to underscore the profitability interest. I think this returns to the previous question about incentives and about what government can do to increase the profitability and to make it more attractive, so that you support any altruism and any kind of personal-value interest from a private firm.
Sir, if I may say one more thing on the public sector, there's obviously more latitude there, too.