Well, there have been a number of changes in the past three budgets that I would say are good ones. I'm a great believer in keeping rates low and the bases broad, and trying to have neutrality. I don't think governments are very good at picking winners and losers, and losers are pretty good at picking governments. It is important to have neutrality in the tax system, so I think getting rid of the mining corporate exploration tax credit was the right thing to do. In the recent budget, it was the right thing to reclassify certain expenditures that were getting expensing and now are going to be treated for development, which will get a slower rate of depreciation. I think the elimination of accelerated capital cost allowances for oil sands production that was done a few years ago, the phasing out of them, was exactly appropriate policy.
I would probably go a few things further. I would like to see the elimination of flow-through shares. I don't think they're doing a favour to the oil and gas industry or to the mining industry. I also think that there are probably some other areas that we could consider. But in terms of the work I've done, which is published, on what's called the marginal effective tax rate on capital, one of things that's quite surprising, at least to me when I actually did the analysis, is that the effective tax rate, in other words the impact on incentive to invest, is actually now higher, at least in Alberta, on oil sands compared to other industries. That's actually an interesting thing. In other words, even though people talk about various types of subsidies, there are elements of the tax system that could be changed.