I'll just offer two points. We did anticipate this debate when the FTA was being highly debated within the Americas and we did produce a document because we felt it was important. It was not just to be critical. You have to have some alternatives to suggest, and we did suggest that there are things that government can do. If you are serious about having an integrated market, what would that look like? We produced something to speak to that.
As a matter of fact, many governments in the Americas are now looking to this as a document. We go on to say that many of the governments in the Americas believe in fair trade as opposed to free trade. And what does that mean? It means they want to talk about trade and trade and development in the same context, not separately. Because these are emerging markets, they are countries obviously not of the same development as Canada, but they do recognize that, like us, they obviously have to move forward.
I would suggest, again, that the erroneous part of the free trade agreement is chapter 11, which still seems to prevail in every agreement. And similarly, I think what the U.S. has now done in dealing with labour and environment by incorporating those in the agreement certainly brings added dimension.
I also think it's critical, as we go down this road, for Canada and for these other countries, that there be an impact study especially in the context of what the employment growth would be if we're going to have a free trade agreement. What sectors would be affected, but more importantly, what transition measures would we put in place to allow those sectors to deal with changes? I think it's only fair because we ought not to do this in isolation. These agreements do have an impact.
There is no question that Peru has a large trade deficit with Canada, and we have to take steps to try to address that. But we ought not address it in a blind way. We ought to address it in a way that says this will lead to giving Canada a real voice in the Americas. How we are going to conduct our relationship with other countries is how they will conduct a relationship with us.
We are viewed very differently from how the U.S. is viewed in the Americas. We don't have the same history. We don't have the same prejudices the Americas have for the U.S. They see Canada in a very different way, but except for policy, we don't necessarily take a different approach. And I think it's critical, given our own development, living beside the United States; there is a need for us to take a different approach.
Canadian trade unions are not suggesting we should bury our heads in the sand and not talk about how we are going to conduct ourselves with regard to trade with other countries, but in doing so we need to be very clear about what the underlying pillars are that we are going to promote. Most importantly, is one sector going to benefit more than others? And with regard to this agreement, the primary objective, I believe, and maybe I'm wrong, is to deal with the investment side of the agreement and then with the other sides of the agreement.