Sure.
The key test of industrial and economic relevance is actually whether industry is willing to participate, and to participate not just not just in “good words” but in real monetary terms.
One of the things, for example, that we would look at in terms of a few years ago is that the industrial participation in real terms at NRC was actually quite small, in the order of, perhaps, 5%. At 5%, in many ways, it's extremely difficult in its...extremely easy, and not very meaningful, types of participation.
If I could use a very bad analogy, but it comes to mind, is it's a bit like buying a lottery ticket. If you take a little of your play money and put it in the lottery, you may win and you'll be very happy if you do, but you won't miss it, probably, if you don't. But if you were to put all your money in the lottery, you know you're going to lose, right?
Now we're asking them to put a significantly greater amount of their own skin in the game, so to speak, and when you do that the expectation of a return on value becomes much higher. So the whole thing becomes more disciplined. Fundamentally, when you come right down to it, the biggest change is to do things that will be of benefit to Canada, through Canadian industry, and make sure that you validate that it really will be by the fact that they're prepared to put more money into it.