The U.S. has this 60% double-declining balance, as it's called, and it's in their tax code. We have a company right now that's considering a major investment. They're looking at the Gulf Coast where a lot of the investments are going. Probably a big part of the $72 billion in the U.S. will go to Louisiana, and Texas, and places like that. When a company makes an investment of a billion dollars, and NOVA just announced that investment in Joffre, for about five years they're spending money. They're spending that billion dollars. While they're building that plant, there is not one single cent of revenue. Then they start up the plant and it may take a year to get the bugs out, to get the product specifications right, etc., so now you're talking about five to six years and you haven't earned a bit of income. What the accelerated capital cost allows you to do is to write off those investments once the machinery has actually arrived on the ground, as you're making those expenditures. I think the CME has done some very good modelling of this, indicating that it produces about $30 million extra of tax deductibility on, say, a $100-million investment that you wouldn't otherwise have. This allows you to have the capital to keep making investments. So it's extremely important.
The companies that have been making those investments are saying, “I can do it in the U.S. or I can do it in Canada.” The ACCA, combined with the corporate tax and other things, at least puts us in the game. I wouldn't say it makes us super-competitive, because they have something that's longer term, but it puts us in the game where we can make the argument that at least we have this benefit, and it does enable us to make the investment in a relatively good financial situation.