I'd be happy to address that.
In fact, we don't view it as a subsidy at all; it is a short-term incentive. The tax that would be collected by the government will be collected anyway; it's just that the amortization is done faster, and it provides an incentive to build out faster. It's easier to get capital. That's certainly the case for the wireless sector, and I would say it's the case for other sectors as well.
The other thing is that we have to be careful. What I've noticed--and I don't want to speak for anybody else--is that there are some industries around this table that create wealth and prosperity for the country. We can't fall into the short-sightedness of imposing more taxes on those that produce wealth and prosperity in order to subsidize those that always fail. That's the danger. In fact, by providing a capital cost allowance, you're actually providing the incentive for those that create prosperity to do it faster. Then you'll be able to tax them more if you want to, which we don't think is a solution.
Let's support those that succeed rather than subsidize those that end up failing or those that just need more effort.