I don't think that's exactly a fair characterization. I don't think that the opposition, principally to the ISDS provisions, is in contradiction to the interests of small businesses or large businesses. I think that there are babies and there's bathwater. You don't assume that the agreement is of whole cloth and that all of its provisions are good simply because they promote trade. I have not thoroughly signed on to the notion that these are actually trade agreements; they are investor-state agreements and protection for investors. I don't see why we should have provisions that prevent government from taking progressive measures.
Again, I go back to Lone Pine as a classic example. That may be promoting trade, but at what cost to Canadians? These things should not go ahead holus-bolus without government control of what the nature of that trade and investment will be.