I think that's an interesting question in terms of the Alaska and Mackenzie projects in particular. Directionally, one of the fundamental roles for government is to make sure that the decision-making can be taken in a way that is complete and does protect the environment, but that is also timely enough to give investors a line of sight to know that if they're putting up $20 billion or $30 billion, they will have an answer as to whether or not they can proceed within some expected timeline.
So I wouldn't advocate for specific moneys involved with those northern projects, but absolutely be clear about the timelines involved in getting to decisions, and certainly reflect that south of 60 so that we have a framework in Canada that provides investors both certainty, as far as timeliness of decision-making--not a guarantee on approval, just timeliness--and simplicity, so that we can actually protect the environment without believing that layering on and longer is a way to achieve that.