Thank you very much, everyone, for coming. There are so many questions and so little time, so my apologies if it seems I'm rushing you through.
There are a number of things that have come out. I'm going to follow up on what Peter is talking about and the value-added. I had the opportunity to tour the heartland a few months ago and have a great meeting with a number of the stakeholders. Just last week or the week before, I met with the chemistry association, and they have done work on the numbers for the accelerated capital cost allowance there. We had a really good, in-depth conversation, so I think the committee will be very interested to hear their presentation a little later.
You talk about the five-fold increase on the value-added product and Inter Pipeline, of course, in Fort Saskatchewan, a $3.5-billion facility. It sounds like Pembina is going to have another facility in terms of the polypropylene.
Those are good steps forward. There is lots more to do, but I think we have to acknowledge that there is work being done, and there are examples out there.
One of the things we've heard about is education, about the skilled labour force. We're hearing that everywhere across the country. There are a couple of things the government is doing. First, there is a pilot project on the east coast around immigration to fill some of that gap. I think there's a second pilot about to start trying to find creative ways to be able to fill this gap.
One of the things I was very impressed with when I was out here a couple of months ago was my conversation with NAIT and some of the very innovative work they are doing around filling specific skill gaps in what we call the new trades of the sector, particularly here in Alberta. I think it is another good thing that's happening, and it's really industry driven. Industry is extremely involved. I think that's the only way we get the workforce we need in these very specialized areas.
When we talk about oil and gas—I know we're in Alberta—we should also briefly mention on the record the $4-billion natural gas, LNG, facility in British Columbia, Peter's great province, that has formally announced it's going ahead and what that means, as it is not just in terms of jobs and economic development, which is very important, but as a signal. I think we have to keep that in mind as well.
In your recommendation you talked about the Government of Canada permanently extending the accelerated capital cost allowance. That's interesting to me, because, in terms of competitiveness, the U.S. is not permanently extending it. There is a sunset clause on that. We've heard, and I've heard meeting with folks, about this seven-year time frame. You have recommended 10. I'm assuming that's because your projects maybe take longer than most.
I want to share this with you, and maybe a couple of people might be interested in commenting. Our biggest trading partner, the U.S., is our biggest challenge in terms of competitiveness, and we're hearing about this. In 2018, the U.S. deficit is $779 billion, an increase of 17% over last year. They are hitting a current debt of $21 trillion, which is almost unheard of, this kind of interest. Next year they expect their deficit to be over a trillion dollars in one year.
It's unheard of to see those numbers in an economy that's booming. What has done it, of course, are the tax cuts. That's not in dispute; that's pretty clear.
We've had 99% of our product going to one customer. We know that's not a good thing, so we're doing a number of things on that front.
I support the accelerated capital cost allowance. As my colleague Mr. Fergus has mentioned, I support the rationale behind it. When it comes to the tax cuts, I would be really worried about the resulting increase in deficit that would impact the country. Would any of you want to comment about doing something that would increase the deficit significantly?