I think the repercussions will not just be for Canada but for all members, because this is really an opportunity to tackle some of the most egregious market access barriers, specifically in the agricultural sector.
We are an exporting nation. We rely heavily on our agricultural exports for our farmers' and producers' survival. Our role in this process is.... Well, we're engaged at many levels. We had been a member of a quad group of countries, with which I'm sure you're familiar, in previous years, along with the Americans and the Europeans and the Japanese.
That group has been overtaken by a core group of four countries—the Americans, the Europeans, the Brazilians, and the Indians—and they're essentially the four players who have to come to an agreement for this deal to move forward and for the remaining WTO members, such as Canada, to come to a final agreement. We are engaged in that process through very good linkages with all of those members on different issues in different negotiating areas.
There is also a new group that has emerged at the senior officials' or chief negotiating level, a group of 12 countries, and Canada is a member of that group. At the chief negotiator level, we're trying to draw the linkages necessary to drive a final deal forward. We have, I would argue, extensive influence in that forum. Our ambassador in Geneva, Don Stephenson, is the chair of the NAMA negotiations. That keeps us very closely involved in the critical issues being discussed there.
The outcome for us from not reaching a deal is, as I mentioned in the beginning of my comments, that it's really a missed opportunity. The WTO is the only forum where we can actually negotiate agricultural subsidies in key markets such as the European Union and the United States. These countries, as you know, do not negotiate bilateral deals in agriculture.
Outside of agriculture there are also tremendous opportunities---