I'll try to be relatively brief.
I'm a little bit puzzled by what some of my colleagues were saying on the other side, because we do have the NPRI and that information on pollution is publicly available. For example, I can look on the NPRI and find out if the units of coal-fired power in my city are emitting more mercury than the units of coal-fired power in another jurisdiction. A lot of that information that's collected federally is already readily available. It's something that the Commission for Environmental Cooperation has been very involved in. I think Mr. Amos is interested in pursuing it in more detail, which is good.
I am a little bit concerned with what I'm hearing from the heartland association and I think I'd like to give you a chance to clarify what you're saying. We have this unique institution in Alberta called the Clean Air Strategic Alliance. I used to sit on the board of that entity. It's tripartite with federal and provincial governments—Councillor Gibbons has been part of that off and on—senior members of industry, and then senior representatives of the environmental community. We have indigenous people, we have farmers, and so forth, and regularly the provincial government refers any pollutant controls. For example, we did a big review on air emissions from the electricity sector.
I'm a little bit puzzled that there would be concern that there might be any surprises thrown at the petrochemical sector. My experience at both the federal and provincial levels is that there's a long-standing relationship with the industrial sectors on any pollutants of concern. For example, one is that the public is getting fed up with no action on the fine particulates. I'm hoping that your response to me would be that you're not suggesting that the government should not regulate a substance simply because it might be a risk to investment.