Thanks.
I did have questions for the other witnesses, so it's disappointing.
Mr. Boag, I appreciate your testimony.
Several questioners back raised the issue about the access to the feedstock and so forth. I guess it's just common sense that the more you can keep costs down.... For example, in Alberta they allege that coal-fired power is cheap, although we pay a lot for it, because the coal is right beside the plant. Obviously it has been an advantage in Alberta for the chemical processing and refining because they have easy access to the feedstock.
There is another issue when you do the full cost accounting and look at the risk benefit, not even cost benefit. It's the same with transport of hazardous waste. When you are dealing with, for example, building upgraders and refineries, you are going to reduce the risk if there's less transport in the pipelines because you are reducing the risk of pipeline leaks and so forth.
Would it not make sense, since we have the feedstock in Alberta, B.C., and Saskatchewan, to be having some kind of incentive or requirement? For example, the federal government has the power in export. When they are evaluating public benefit or public interest, surely a factor should be that you're going to create jobs here in Canada. Also, it's going to be more cost effective if you develop that refining.
Now I'm not taking away from what's going on in Atlantic Canada, or even Ontario or Quebec. But does it not make economic sense? Because the feedstock is so close at hand and you have the manpower, I don't see these arguments that it's too expensive. They're already investing $100 billion in getting the raw product out.