That question covers several different points. Let me try to respond.
First of all, in terms of focusing on energy security in Canada, my own view is that it's important to keep in mind that economic development can be a tool through which we enlarge other types of energy security. To walk away from the potential for $500-billion worth of government revenue in 20 years really cuts short the opportunity to provide for advances in renewables, technology investments, other sorts of energy system encouragements, moneys to municipalities to afford better built environments, etc.
So we have to think about an energy system, rather than just focusing on whether trading a barrel of crude creates a disadvantage for the future, because we clearly have an ample supply for the foreseeable future and beyond.
You also questioned spill response. I believe the regulatory review will do a good job of airing the facts around that: the risk factors, the response, the requirement, and the additional investments to improve navigation oversight. Certainly on the pipeline portion, I can tell you in detail about some of those sorts of factors that are routine beyond my statements, but I'm confident that can be addressed.
Finally, on the question of processing crude in Canada versus abroad, there are a lot of avenues to encourage market responses that are appropriate to meet Canadian needs and to make sure we optimize value for Canadians. Right now, the market signals are causing us to move those offshore. That's appropriate, and I don't think it has to be an either-or situation. You can establish good trade in one commodity. Keep in mind that a tube of steel can serve a lot of different products, so if in the future there were a choice to upgrade in Canada, we might be exporting gasoline.
The key is whether you have the right infrastructure in place to be a competitive global player. Are you addressing the safety and environmental issues appropriately and are you considering reinvestment for Canada's long-term security?