I think there are a couple of facets here. One point I'd like to make is that carbon, unlike other commodities, is a fungible asset that is tradeable universally.
In terms of taking an international leadership position, it's not only that. It's that if there's no universal price on carbon around the world, you're going to have market failures in certain aspects. By taking a leadership position and having a price on pollution in Canada, we need to encourage that group of 45 national jurisdictions that already have a price on pollution to turn into a group of 150 or 187, however many are represented globally.
I think that's the first step: to signal that it is important enough for a major economy like Canada—and other major economies around the world—to drive all countries, because it needs to be a universal price, which Nordhaus recommends as well.
In terms of playing in the international marketplace, we're seeing more and more that countries that have a price on pollution are dictating that on a corporate level to companies. Several of them are either on the Toronto Stock Exchange or operate out of Canadian headquarters. It's driving their operations to change.
We saw this in our work in Australia, for example. Certain countries that had regulatory systems that were putting a price on carbon forced companies to change before the government changed.
That's a shift that's going to happen. If we take a front-leaning position on our policies as a country and on our footprint internationally for companies that operate in the international space, we'll be ahead of the game on the regulatory environment in countries where we operate. It gives us more access to markets and opportunities in emerging markets.