I'd have to say that we compare in a number of ways.
One of the ways that Canada sets itself among the appropriate peers globally, and we would consider those to be Norway, the United Kingdom, Australia, and others, is that much of our regulatory regime and the regime behind it is focused on safety. It's focused on the environment. It's focused on responsible resources.
It is something in which we use a lot of goal-oriented regulation, if you will. We spell out what we desire as the outcome, as opposed to saying that you must do this, you must do that, which is usually termed prescriptive regulation. Our regulatory system has the ability to evolve and to stay current. The previous comment on substitution is an example of that.
Certainly, when some of the studies and some of the reviews were done after the tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico, Canada's system was compared by a consulting firm for the U.S. department with the U.K. and Norway. Among the three other peers, we were seen to be the most substantive in what the system covered and the most thorough in terms of our approach to regulation and our approach to looking at these areas—