It's probably an issue where there are nuances in the views of the CRFA and CPPI on renewable fuels. Basically we're saying we need to be cautious.
We do not believe that between now and 2010 we could have a policy that articulated set targets for biodiesel, because for one thing the people who are supposed to use it, in the policy statement we have seen, are the Canadian trucking industry, and they don't want it. They have their reasons. They are right in saying that standards are not clear yet; they're right in saying that there are issues around the cold climate that could create problems, as problems have been created in cold climates with the introduction of biodiesel.
We are suppliers of fuel. When it comes to ethanol, the car industry wants it, consumers accept it, and the product is going to be subsidized somehow in a way that will make it acceptable—either subsidized, or the consumer will pay more—but in the end it will be very competitive.
Biodiesel is very different. Furthermore, we are involved in researching what other uses there could be for biodiesel. A couple of my members, the international ones, are looking at ways to use biodiesel in their refineries as intermediary stock for some of their process units. The benefits environmentally would be the same in the end.
Why would you rush into a policy the truckers are not comfortable with, to say the least, and change the whole infrastructure of the country to deliver to trucks when potentially we could be using more of it inside the refineries? These questions are months or a year away from having a good airing.
So we're just saying be cautious about diesel. Do not include it in the same mandate. Make it as if there were two separate trucks, and for the biodiesel trucks, make it a longer period than by 2010. That's our position.