First of all, I don't think we necessarily regard a tax cut as being a negative repercussion. Reducing the taxes by $180 million means there's $180 million more in incentives to invest in Canada, because there's less tax applying to the investment.
You've raised a very perceptive question with respect to the foreign tax credits, and it points up that the answer I gave you before requires some elaboration.
The point, when answering your question before about getting a credit for foreign taxes, was that this is the theory. When a withholding tax on an interest payment is imposed in Canada, the theory is that the U.S. lender, in our example from before, is able to calculate U.S. taxes payable and deduct the full amount of the Canadian tax withheld against U.S. taxes payable.
The reality is, particularly in the banking industry, that there isn't enough room or spread on a loan to absorb a 10% gross withholding tax. If you have an 8% loan, just to pick an interest rate, and a 10% withholding tax represents an 80-basis-point cost on that transaction, there often won't be 80 basis points of profit in those transactions for the tax to be absorbed. Indeed, for it to be fully absorbed, there would have to be something in the order of 200 or 250 basis points of spread to calculate the tax, to use up the full 80 basis points. So the tax, while theoretically creditable in the U.S., often is not.
That's what leads to the point my colleague raised earlier. In point of fact, what often happens with a withholding tax is that rather than being absorbed by the non-resident, it's in fact added to the cost of the Canadian borrower. By eliminating the withholding tax, once again we can help reduce the cost for Canadian borrowers.