Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all our witnesses.
Mr. Cross, I want to ask you a question.
I think your point that maximizing the price for resources should be the end goal, and not necessarily diversification, resonates with everyone here.
We had a presentation last week from Natural Resources Canada that talked about the supply and pipeline capacity issue. They're forecasting that at our rates of growth the supply for pipeline capacity would be exceeded by 2015. The graph we have shows that if you don't add a Keystone-type pipeline by 2015-16 through to 2020, then we'd have the product but there would be no way to ship it. If we added the Keystone pipeline, then by 2018, with the rate of growth, we would move outside of its capacity and move well into the depth of the Gateway pipeline, if that were to be developed.
The interesting characterization made in that testimony was that there are only going to be one or two projects to supply oil to market and that if we don't get in on that game, we will lose out. That is how it was characterized.
I appreciate your point that jobs shouldn't be the only measure of importance. But I would like you to comment on what impact we would face in terms of jobs and opportunity for the Canadian economy and the Canadian people, the spin-off or peripheral benefits of these sorts of things, and the social and environmental benefits from our investment when we have that kind of growth, if we were to lose out on any one of our pipeline options. What if they all went to the United States, or completely different options were explored, because we missed that opportunity?