Thank you, Chair.
I hear my friend and colleague ask his questions, and I think sometimes we are allowed to accept the possibility of good news. I say that respectfully, because what I'm hearing here is potential.
I'm glad to hear you say, Mr. Burney in particular, that when we establish the rules-based arrangement with the intentionally lower tariffs, we can then let business and job creators get on with the job of doing what they do best.
I think the questions are fair all around in terms of what areas could potentially be impacted from Canada's perspective. I was in London this past Friday as part of an announcement when one of our ministers came to my city to talk about CETA and our negotiations there. Frankly, we were very clear that while the negotiations aren't done, the economic impact is some $12 billion to Canada. I was interested to see in your formal presentation that close to $4 billion of benefit will be attributed to Canada.
I think that is good news, and we need to celebrate the potential for good news more often than not. We as a committee are obligated to ensure that from our standpoint our negotiations are as focused as possible on Canada's interests.
I want to come back to what Mr. Davies said, but really I don't want to play musical chairs with Mr. Chen again unless he chooses to. When he made the assumption of zero unemployment, it wasn't because we realistically presume there's going to be zero unemployment as much as it was to have some parameter, some baseline, if you will, to be able to get on with establishing values.
Is that the premise of using zero unemployment on both sides, so that you have some baseline to work from, as opposed to presuming that it will be zero unemployment? Could you just clarify that?