Okay, I just caution you to be very precise in what you say, because we had this challenge last year when we were in Edmonton, when the mayor said they had trouble accessing federal funds and certain other parties used that, but then as chair I got a letter at night from him correcting the record. It's a little frustrating, frankly, when our own municipality doesn't get the facts right.
Anyway, I'll move on to the accelerated capital cost allowance, which Mr. Carrier raised. I think you know that I'm generally supportive of looking at this concept, but the concerns that we get when we put something like this forward are, number one, that it's a subsidy, and a subsidy to a very large and profitable industry. But we also get another concern, that with the upgrading and refining there's enough capacity south of the border, so why would we look at more upgrading and refining capacity in western Canada?
So I wanted the two of you to perhaps address the challenge of the accelerated capital cost allowance being said to be a subsidy, and whether it is in fact necessary if we have enough capacity south of the border.