Okay, good.
Mr. Ervin, just switching up a little bit here, in your testimony you cited the rationalization of the industry. One of the factors for the rationalization of the industry was environmental regulation. Precisely, you said it was progression of fuel quality standards, which are basically environmentally driven, such as those for reductions in lead, benzene, olefins, vapour pressure, sulphur, and so on. I think most Canadians would agree that this was what needed to happen. We all want a clean environment. We don't want various things in our atmosphere. We don't want the NOx and SOx gases and volatile inorganic compounds and so on.
Yet our friends Mr. Newman and Mr. Gargiso just testified that Canada should always be striving to achieve the highest-level standards, and even perhaps, referring to the Irving plant, which was actually in New Brunswick, to overachieve the national standards that are being set. Yet it seems that every time we impose a further mandate on this, it causes further rationalization of the industry and the shrinkage of various refining locations, which creates situations where we have the tightness you just referred to. If you have an incident when you have 40 plants versus an incident when you have 15 refineries, there is a big difference in the effect.
Do you think, Mr. Ervin, Mr. Gargiso, Mr. Newman, Mr. Quinn, or anybody who wants to address this, that we actually have the right balance? Does industry have the ability to strike the right balance without too much government interference? How much more government interference should we have in dictating or mandating, basically, a market-driven sector?