On a more serious note, this topic is interesting to me. I'm from Burlington, the riding across the bay from both the former Stelco, now U.S. Steel, and the former Dofasco, now ArcelorMittal Dofasco, which kept the name. We have two steel companies right on the same street, with two different experiences.
Mittal is investing, and things are going well. There is foreign investment there, takeover, I guess you would call it. Unfortunately, it's not going quite as well with U.S. Steel, and we're taking them to court as a government. Even Mr. Angus in the previous panel gave four examples, two that worked and two that did not—or were not working the way he expected.
Based on what I've been hearing thus far, it's difficult to pick who's going to win.
Mr. Hart, you said if you were sitting in our chair, this is what you would do. The one thing I think you're missing in that equation is that, like it or not, we are politicians and there's a political aspect to everything we do, so it might not be quite as easy to do as you think.
With respect to the study, one of the questions has to do with increasing the ability of the minister to comment afterwards on whether something had a net benefit, why the decisions were made, and the criteria that went into making the decision. Are you supportive of that change? Let's assume the act is going to stay as it exists, not as you're recommending. Are you in favour of that? Are there limits to it, or do you think that will make any difference?