Yes, thank you. I can definitely clarify that. The intent of my statement was to point out the emphasis the government has placed on capacity-building and training, including training trade negotiators in Central America to negotiate with Canadian negotiators. So we're saying that even if you train them to be negotiators, it does not mean--because we're talking about two very different economies, small economies and our economy--that they would necessarily be on a level playing field.
Mr. Menzies, if I may, I was very enthused to hear your comment just now about the agreement being debated in Parliament. That's very encouraging to us. But I do have one quick question that's sort of nagging at me. When we look at Canada's approach to trade negotiations, when we look at the FTAA negotiations, and when we look at the WTO, all of these negotiations have enabled all different sectors of civil society to have access to negotiating texts and draft texts, which is one of our first demands. I find it very curious that in the bilateral realm we don't have access to the draft text, which would allow us to see the direction the government is engaging in. We see that as part of a healthy public debate.
So my question is whether the government would then support, first of all, multi-stakeholder consultations and further study on this agreement at this level with various experts, and whether there would be an actual binding vote in Parliament on the agreement. So this is all part of this process of democracy that the government has committed to. We see that the predecessor to that parliamentary debate is actually an informed public debate that then moves into an informed parliamentary debate.