I don’t really accept that argument. The demand is not there because the pellets are not there. In every one of our communities, of course, we have government facilities and they would also benefit and easily be able to contribute to any additional costs of this program. Recognizing that the department would have to struggle with the up-front costs of replacing those boilers in government facilities and so on. When we’re talking about 30 percent, 40 percent and greater savings, 45 percent, 48 percent savings, the payback times on those have been demonstrated to be quite effective and we do have a borrowing capacity. When there are those sorts of returns, I suspect that’s considered a wise investment. It does require some work and I commend the department for doing the study, but then to ignore the huge possibility here for savings is still perplexing.
To say there’s no demand, well, we have broad government goals here, one of which is to enjoy environmental benefits and reduce the cost of living. Go out and create the demand by supplying the pellets. That alone would not be a big cost, obviously. I guess I would just, I have heard the Minister. I realize it’s not easy but I would urge him to not put it on the back burner and to begin working on how to get this done during the life of this Assembly.