I think you could perhaps look at the specific case. Look at the case of potash. I think the government was wise to decide to disallow that. I think that was a wise decision because I think that is a strategic resource. I think as Dick Haskayne, a former chair of a number of resource companies and a strong opponent of the proposal to take it over, indicated, what happens when one of our national champions--and he considered it a national champion, and there are others--is taken over and the decisions are made outside the country is that those effective decisions, even if there is a branch plant or head office, are made outside the country. In the case of the marketing structure...particularly if Potash had decided--and it indicated that it had decided--it was going to pull out.
I just think that's an example of a strategic company, and when you're talking about removing the main decision-making from the board of directors and the CEO outside of the country, then it is not in the public interest. That's an example of the divergence between the public interest and the private corporate interest.