I understand the challenge. But I have to respectfully—when you say “respectfully” it means it's not going to be a nice answer; I don't how we've managed to twist that language so badly. I have to respectfully reply that, seeing as we've extended it year after year, it would have been more effective if the government had decided on five years, six years, seven years, or ten years to begin with, because we're not getting the maximum benefit by offering it year by year.
I'll be clearer. It's a great thing, and we're grateful for the year by year; it's just that the cost-benefit for Canada could have been much better if that planning horizon had been longer.