Sure, and I have publicly many times.
The U.S. program was basically cash in the pocket, without any change in behaviour. So the American companies were rewarded for using green energy, which is a fine thing, but they didn't have to use any more green energy. They didn't have to change anything; they just got a pile of money. They were able to take that money and do what they wanted with it.
Now, the piles were so big that a lot of them paid down their debt and became more competitive than we are. If you're not that smart, but you've got huge piles of money, even an unstrategic program has a lot of good.
Our government spent the money much more strategically. In the industry, we did not get access to that money unless we made an investment in a Canadian mill. So we could not take the money and pay down our debts, or go home, or get into another business. We had to invest in a Canadian mill, and that investment had to be an environmental improvement. So we got a green dividend, in the sense of environmental progress, and a job dividend, insofar as we were upgrading our mills. That was much more strategic than the U.S., and it helped offset the difference in the amount.
If you had asked our members if we would have preferred that you had just shovelled cash at us, probably we would have said, yes, please, but as a taxpayer, I'm very respectful of what you did.