I think it's a legitimate question. I don't think anyone is denying that there is child labour in India and that anything we can do to advance its elimination is positive. I really think that more opportunities and more trade help to eliminate some of these practices around the world.
Simply in the way that these negotiations have been set up, I think there's a pretty good broad-based support, certainly in agriculture and commodities. We understand that India has a tremendous and growing population and a huge middle class that's getting larger and larger. I've been to India--actually, along with Mr. Stephenson--and I can tell you that they can't keep up to their infrastructure needs. Literally, they're growing faster than they can produce the waste-water and freshwater systems and the roadways and highways.
There should be an absolutely tremendous opportunity for Canadian business and expertise to help not just this economy but this nation to grow, and along with that you increase living standards, and you increase every possible sector, whether that's labour rules, regulations, living standards, access to health care, all of it that automatically follows.
I understand why we would have buy-in, but my question comes back to the size of the team. Having a small team I think would aid negotiations; I'm certain it would make them much more intense. But what about the results of the negotiations being applied? I understand that in Canada we can bring it to the House, have some fulsome debate, and have that applied throughout the country, but what about the provinces in India that traditionally have been independent and fairly trade restrictive in a number of areas?