This story is becoming a little more complex with each and every moment.
What I talked about was that the equalization program takes into account the remitted profits of any corporation that's involved in hydroelectricity generation in the natural resource base. The profits of all other crown corporations are taken into account in the business income tax base. So they're not omitted, if you will. Hopefully that's what the transcript will say.
But that is the policy. Any firm that said the profits--and this dates back to the recommendation that was made by the expert panel on equalization--that come from crown corporations that are engaged in hydroelectricity are akin to any type of royalty that Alberta raises from oil, or that Nova Scotia raises from natural gas, etc.... It should all be part of the natural resource base.
The question is how much of the profit of a given crown corporation relates just to the exploitation of a natural resource? That's the tricky part.
I'm certainly not questioning the numbers that Hydro-Québec has. Please don't infer that I've made that commentary. I'm aware of the numbers that Hydro-Québec produces, but the equalization program--and people have already mentioned this today--should be applied equally across the country. It's not just a Hydro-Québec issue, if you will, in terms of narrowing down the profits to just the exploitation of a natural resource.
Hydro-Québec's data is probably better than others. I'm not going to comment on that. I certainly don't want to classify one versus another. I'm saying that at this point in time we do not have the information available to us to be able to fairly go across the country to each and every crown corporation that's engaged in hydroelectricity generation and isolate those profits that relate just to the exploitation of a natural resource.