Well, that's not true, but that's a subject for another debate.
Mr. Chair, I think by eliminating that and making it simply trade access, which I think we would all agree with.... The trade access comes indeed from the kinds of investments and promotion that the beef industry has been pitching for. Very clearly we have heard that industries are underfunded and Canada is not on a level playing field. That is very true.
How those agreements are conceived and whether it's the type of agreement, like MERCOSUR--that is actually much more fair trade oriented and talks about social policies and social objectives--or agreements where there are binding social, environmental, and labour standards, those kinds of agreements are the cutting edge and those are the ones that are emerging more and more. So given that this government unfortunately continues to rely on an old trade model that has been rejected--when you look at the chapter 11 provisions, even by the United States--we have a template that simply is not in keeping with where the world is going.
I think Mr. Brison's amendment would be acceptable to everybody around the table if we deleted what kind of trade agreement we're talking about: a more progressive fair trade agreement or a more regressive old-style free trade agreement. In that way I think we could have consensus that would allow us to move forward.
I know the beef and cattle industry are looking for that. That is pretty important to them, because for every additional dollar of federal government spending on promotions, they get a lot more supports and a lot more increase in sales than any one trade agreement would allow them to get.