Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'll be dividing my time with Ms. Liu.
I want to come back to you, Mr. Telford. You've been very eloquent in talking about the abuses of the TFW program and the fact that the government has not carried its responsibility forward on this. But it is troubling to me that we're also seeing cutbacks by this government in training and in manpower development. What we're seeing is a worsening of the situation, really, if we look forward ten years, because of cutbacks in training budgets. Even though I know that the UA is doing its part and a number of businesses are doing their part, the federal government is simply not there.
What we see, then, on the horizon is that not only will the abuses continue within the TFW program, but that we'll also see an increasing number of TFWs brought in because we haven't done our work as a country and the federal government has not been putting in place the training programs that are needed—for welders, for example, of which you've spoken very eloquently.
I want to ask you a question around Keystone. You talked about two seasons of eight to nine weeks to complete that project. The Alberta Federation of Labour has estimated that it costs about 40,000 jobs to export that raw bitumen rather than have it upgraded and refined here in Canada, and we continue to have a government that looks to exporting raw bitumen on the one hand and importing refined products into eastern Canada on the other.
Don't you think it's a more practical approach, in a national energy strategy, to put in place programs such that we have the upgrading and refining capacity here to create those permanent jobs that you spoke about so eloquently when Mr. Gravelle asked you the question? Isn't that a better approach?