The cement sector, as you suggest, is an emission-intensive, trade-exposed sector. In fact, in the federal analyses, it has consistently been in the top three of the most emissions-intensive trade sectors. There is a recognition that our industry is uniquely exposed to the potential downside risks of costs like a carbon tax if our competing markets don't bear the same costs.
The output-based pricing system and all the provincial equivalents, except for the system in British Columbia, have provisions to provide a certain measure of protection to industries such as ours. We believe that in those output-based systems—which, as I said, exist everywhere except British Columbia—we have struck a pretty good balance in the short term.
As for the challenges, we're now entering the next compliance period under the federal system and, by extension, the provincial systems, so there is upward pressure on the price and downward pressure on the benchmarks that we have to meet. At a certain point, if industries are no longer able to stay ahead of what their compliance obligations are under our carbon pricing regime, competitiveness risks will start to come to bear.
The relationship between that and the IRA, of course, is that as an industry we want to stay as far ahead of that curve as we possibly we can. Transformative technologies will be required to get us to net zero and ultimately to make good on the incentives provided by carbon pricing and other measures. The Inflation Reduction Act effectively makes those transformative investments more attractive in the U.S. right now.