Our argument is this. It starts with a series of things. First off, where are you going to get the biggest bang for your buck? Where are you going to get the largest emissions reduction? We would suggest to you that it's in the areas of fuel quality and renewable fuels, because when you add the fuel to the technology, you get maximum environmental benefit.
Second, there is the fleet aspect. There is huge influence there that can be levied by fleets in terms of procurement. The more vehicles we get in fleets, the more people can see that these technologies do work and will provide environmental benefit. In terms of roles, the government has a role there, but there are also private fleets. Why wouldn't we provide incentives to commercial and private fleets as well? Get more vehicles out on the road and get them the fuel they need to do the emissions. As well, what about these older vehicles? We could provide incentives to get the older vehicles off the road. It would help some of the lower-income people as well.
Third is the technology itself. We would suggest that you not pick winners and losers. There's a full slate of technology; some cost more than others, but some technologies provide more environmental benefit than a more expensive technology. We would say to you, because we're all competing very fiercely in the marketplace, that you should not pick in terms of winners and losers, but pick on a GHG basis or something for environmental benefit.
The other one would be research and development. We want to expand research and development in Canada. We want to provide the technologies--made here, sold here, and ultimately exported abroad--because that's where it's going to be at as we move forward.