There's a significant amount of literature on the impact of pricing on people's behaviour, and that's one of the reasons that the government selected this option. It has been documented, so there's no doubt about that.
We also continue to track the results, but it's not just about carbon pricing; it's about other measures that we need to take into account.
It's also sometimes that people look at the.... That was the point that John was trying to make too, which is that the status quo is not cost neutral. That's a point that was in some analyses in Europe, and it's important.
That status quo costs money, and it is going to cost more money for Canadians and for the globe in general. We saw it last year. We're more exposed to that—I don't think anybody here denies it—so when we look at those elements, we also need to think about the risk of not taking any action versus the risk of taking some action.
When we take those actions, we try to minimize any negative impacts on the population. That's why, as we mentioned before, the government decided to frame the carbon pricing in this way, to make sure that there is a strong redistribution and that the redistribution will go to those who need it the most.
That's the way it is. The models are models, in the end. We need to check them against reality, and that's what we're doing on an annual basis to see if they translate into facts.
Yes, it's going in the right direction, but of course, as some of you mentioned, there's still work to be done for sure.