As the largest producer of biodiesel in Canada and people who wants to invest a great deal more into this economy in doing biodiesel, we are a non-food-inputs—i.e. second-generation—producer. It's a question of economic certainty. Investors have a really hard time getting their heads around what's going to happen.
To go back to the important part, as I see it as a producer Bill C-33 is when we can actually, to get to the earlier point, stop this—the word “investment” is the right word, while the word “subsidy” is the one that upsets me—stop this investment, because it starts to be that demand will drive the price, and we would be priced off the feedstock.
When we go back to Brazil, there's an interesting point. They have a 25% mandate in every litre of gasoline sold. Guess what: ethanol and biodiesel have de-coupled, and they have set up the price. Now the pricing is priced off the feedstock. The feedstock happens to be sugar, which they had a lot of. The farmer gets the benefit exactly, and then your farmer's not jammed by the fact that we're priced off the petroleum end; we're priced off the feedstock. It has actually brought down the complex of energy.
This is the really important part about this: we have to separate the biofuels from the petroleum fuels aspect of things. Yes, we're selling liquid BTUs, but they have completely different inputs. It would be in everybody's interest, the petroleum producers' and everyone's, for the feedstock to be the driver of price. Then we might see a driving down of the prices. True, sometimes we might see them going up; however, it is really important for your constituents that mandatory inclusion to be driving the market price. That's when investors will come back to the table. Investors aren't anywhere right now, let's face it. But investors will come back to the renewable fuels table.