That was the point I made. If you have a program that is zero.... In a bureaucracy, whether for local government, provincial government, or federal government, there is a cost associated with running a program and having expert people who advise us and run programs. There is an administrative cost, and to ignore that, I believe, would not be acknowledged as good accounting. The comment that the accounting to support the program is revenue-neutral is not true, I think, in any accounting ledger sheet.
I have a question on its not being controversial and having general support. I had a meeting—many of us did—with Transat A.T. Inc. They had a meeting with the environment minister, and they are a member of the National Airlines Council of Canada. They're saying that since 2005, they've had a reduction in the fuel they've been using to fly all over Canada and around the world, a reduction of 30% through efficiencies. They've done a great job.
Their point is that when this comes into effect on January 1, they will have already achieved the goal. They have the prize. They have reduced fuel consumption by 30%. That's the target for 2030 for Paris. Now that they've achieved this, through billions of dollars in investment, this is going to be added. They're saying, “What better can we do? We've done as much good as we possibly can, and then you're going to be putting this carbon expense onto us, making flight within Canada more expensive. It's not justified.” So they're asking to be exempted from this.
The government has exempted a number of other big emitters. This is an industry that has already done it. Air Canada, Air Transat, WestJet and Jazz Aviation AP together have sent a letter, and they're very opposed. It is controversial. There are industries that have already done the job, and now they're going to be punished. Why?