So they use theirs, and some other countries maybe beyond them use it as an economic development issue, rather than as basically a component of their tax regime. You're basically telling us that they have higher corporate tax than we have and lower depreciation or capital cost allowance than we have.
I think we always get, with our industry, to what makes them viable and what is sustainable. Are you saying, then, that basically the economic development part of it is secondary to the financial part of it? Or is it that there's a balance now that has to be determined between capital cost allowance and economic development within the industry?