In some cases, yes, but you've certainly said it. It's difficult sometimes to draw the link between the activity you're funding and the concrete outcome at the end. I'll give you a couple of examples in a second where I can. You can't always do that because of the timeframes involved, and as with basic research, there are often a few meanders along the way before you get to the final result, but we do go through as rigorous an exercise as we can to try to find out the outcomes and how the program performed. Should we renew it, should we change it, or should we just keep it the same? That would really be for all of the programs that are sunsetting. If I take the geo-mapping as an example, in addition to what the minister had quoted that are, as you said, examples of surveys, new maps, and data, one of the studies that has been done suggested that—and again I can't claim this to be absolutely rock solid, but it's the best estimate we have—for every $100 million of investment we put into the GEM program, it results in upwards of $500 million in exploration investment.
That's the kind of statistic we have. We're always probing on those to make sure that we are sure they are solid and robust, but that's the kind of thing we look for—how much activity this program actually generated in addition to the other things that, as you mentioned, are positive, but sometimes harder to quantify.