In terms of the board seat, again if and when we do become a member, in the constituency that we would likely be joining, that would make us the largest shareholder in that constituency. There would be a very good likelihood that we would be taking that seat at the table or it would be alternated with the other largest shareholder in that constituency. I think the voice at the table wouldn't be a third or fourth alternate. It would be a consistent voice or perhaps an alternating voice with the other large shareholder in that group.
One of the challenges that I think Canada always has in any multilateral forum—and this is the same in terms of our membership at the World Bank, at the IMF, at the EBRD, the Asian Development Bank, and the African Development Bank—is that the nature of our country and the size of our economy is such that we're never the majority shareholder. As Neil mentioned, our influence comes from being able to influence early in that project process, being able to work effectively with our partners to encourage the right type of project coming forward, and to have a voice in the development and the assessment of those projects.
Generally, this is the role that Canada tends to play in the international order because of the size of our country and the size of our economy. The influence is greater than just that 1% share. The influence comes from the variety of levers that we're able to pull.