As Fiona was saying, the R and D tax credit is very useful to us. We have a number of companies that benefit from it. That probably is the reason they're able to do the amount of R and D they do in the country, notwithstanding the fact that R and D generally flows to the headquarters organizations.
The issue we have may be a bit of a different way of looking at this. In policy terms, what I see is that we tend to think that if you do the R and D here, then you will develop products here and you will produce them here. That's this linear model of thinking on R and D and that's not our experience in industry. If you don't have a viable manufacturer here, that manufacturer will not demand R and D to improve its product or adapt or change its product. They will have no position within the headquarters company to generate R and D.
Also, a lot of the R and D in our case is “D”: developing and modifying the product, making it more flexible, changing its nature. If you think of a pulp plant, it might be a certain type of paper or a certain type of water quality. You modify your product or your process to deal with that specific aspect. You invent a new way of dealing with it.
It's not a simple question of moving it from R and D to commercialization. In our view, you also need to have a very strong manufacturing sector with a very strong value-added type of dynamic. That will also help attract R and D, because that will be specific to our country. If we do carbon capture and storage in your province, Alberta, we will probably be the world leaders. Guess what we'll be doing then? We'll be doing what Jay's doing and selling that externally.
So when R and D are related, or the “D” is related, to the unique characteristics of our industry or our country, we have a much better chance to do the research and development and then commercialize it, because it is part of the fabric of who we are. You see that in some cases in the agricultural business. In certain areas of agriculture, we're leaders in the world because we have certain climates and certain types of grains and so on that enable us to be leaders.
I think it's a more complex issue than doing a whole bunch of R and D and assuming industry will come. I've seen this in Britain. I've visited places in Oxford where they're doing a huge amount of R and D. Notwithstanding the fact they did it and notwithstanding the fact they patented the materials, the reality is that because they didn't have the environment to support manufacturing, the Japanese or the Chinese came in, bought the stuff, moved it all offshore, and produced it somewhere else.
Having the R and D doesn't necessarily generate growth. You need to have the other conditions to benefit from it.