Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to come back to something that Mr. Hersack just said.
and I'm going to do it in English, because I've graciously been given a couple of minutes as we head towards the end of this meeting.
You made a statement before, Mr. Hersack, that the level of export of bitumen cannot be retreated from under the NAFTA. I would allow myself to refine that answer and to tell you that it can be retreated from proportionally. That's the proportionality rule of the NAFTA. So you can retreat. But to go to the question that was asked by the colleague with regard to other markets, you couldn't retreat from the U.S. market and start directing towards Asia if doing so were economically more interesting for you. That's where the NAFTA proportionality rule would block you.
Sustainable development compels you to look at a problem socially, environmentally, and economically. When you look at the fact that we're still behaving like a third-world nation in many regards, exporting something that's very raw, allowing the value to be added and the jobs to be created elsewhere, just on Trailbreaker--that's one of the numerous ones to go in, along with Alberta Clipper and Southern Lights--it's been calculated by an independent outside study that 18,000 jobs will be created in the States with the upgrading and refining, and that's not being done here. So it's an interesting debate.
What would be helpful—you seem to be singularly well equipped, from your description of it—is to get your idea of how many jobs would be created if that sort of work were being done here, with the ACCA as a possibility, as opposed to what would be created somewhere else. I know I'm very much on the same wavelength as the chairman on this issue, so if you could provide us more information on that, it would be helpful.