Sure. I think that first of all, as a condition precedent, I would say that what we're doing on biodiesel and what we have succeeded with on ethanol...I mean, we had the same model in place. It was the application of that model that probably didn't work the way it was originally intended.
I want to be really clear that it wasn't the biodiesel industry that failed to meet this build-out. We have two plants that are going right now. We have a third plant coming online for 250 million litres, so that will get us very close. There are a lot of misconceptions about the use of biodiesel that I think are fuelling some of the consternation in government.
I think the first one is that.... The product is being sold to refiners today. There are people who are having trouble selling their product, but that's not because the refiners don't want to use it. It can be because of the amount of production that somebody has and the quality of that production and whether or not it meets specifications under the CGSB or ASTM. It could be the availability of cheaper product from abroad. The ecoENERGY program created for biodiesel didn't have the opportunity to succeed the way that ecoENERGY for ethanol did.
I think it's unfortunate that the government has chosen to not extend the program and to not allow for that build-out to happen, because we know that there are shovel-ready projects today that can meet that obligation of 600 million litres. I can't speak to the full rationale behind it, but I think minor tweaks to the program could have fixed it.
I'm not here to re-litigate decisions that have already been taken. This is the position of the government. I would tell the government that the program could have been even more successful than it was originally intended to be, but the decision has been made and we haven't seen the build-out there.