On the first point, which is the carve-out that the U.S. has achieved, I think that just makes sense here in Canada because of the structure that you're referring to where you have a concentration of hotels that would be owned by one family, in the case of Niagara, or a couple of families. That situation is not unique to Niagara. It's really important that we allow funding to flow on a property-by-property basis. Those are, indeed, individual business units, even if there might just be one owner who owns a few of those properties. If they're not looked at as individual businesses, you have to spread the loan across all of those properties and you put all of them at risk, because there just wouldn't be enough funding to cover what would be needed. That recognition did take place in the U.S. and we firmly believe that it should happen here in Canada.
On the matter of the GST, I'm certainly familiar with what's been put forward by the Conservative government of Ontario in terms of sales tax over the last six months and refunding that. Certainly that is a lever that could be considered by the government, but it's effectively a loan that wouldn't have to be paid back.
Our idea here on the loss carry-back is that we would be getting these refunds anyway, so why don't we just allow businesses to bring forward the year-end? It could be done very expeditiously. An assessment could be produced almost overnight. CRA already knows what the financial status is of these companies, what their profitability was last year and reasonable estimates for where they could be for this year. Those funds are going to be coming to the company anyway, so why don't we just let that happen now? Expedite those funds so that we can get liquidity in the pockets of the people who need it most.