Sure, and I appreciate the question.
With respect to personal, the way it was presented there is still some room for interpretation with respect to certain commercial activities. There is language that states that an aircraft under 39 seats doesn't qualify.
What we're trying to recognize is that it's the importance of not just the industry within Canada—that is to say, aviation and aerospace—and the importance of research and development and those things that go on. On the matter of sustainability, we can celebrate when we talk about the first fused winglets on 1977 business aircraft and when we talk about the first business aircraft to use that technology.
When we go to this definition, that's some of the work that's still required, with perhaps a backgrounder being put out, but in the end what needs to be recognized is that for the amount of revenue extracted from this tax on aircraft, the associated cost to the Canadian economy far outweighs any benefit from the potential revenue that would be extracted.