Certainly.
Again, I'm going to separate the two, although they are common in that they are climate-focused policies. The emissions cap is indeed the investment killer. I said this in a conference here last year. It's simply because, as was presented, when you model it, there is simply no room for any other project beyond the Bay du Nord project, which was just advanced by the provincial government and the energy companies a few months ago. It is a non-starter for the industry. We just manage the decline of the existing fields. That's not going to bring us to the realities of this current energy security-driven world by any stretch. It would certainly show that Canada is not investable by any means.
The price on carbon is something that can be meaningful and can motivate and can drive more efficient and better performance and behaviour amongst investors. My point in raising the Norwegian example is that right now in the upstream, maybe 98% of the world's production is not subject to a direct carbon tax as it is in Norway. That would include our humble offshore stuff, as well as what you see in the U.K. and Australia. That's a vast competitive gap. My concern, though, is that if you're going to install a policy like this, which is meant to stoke a behaviour in an investor and which I agree with fundamentally, you should also look at the front end and drive investment in those critical industries that the world is screaming out for. Otherwise, if we fail in that, the investment and its emissions will simply go elsewhere.