Ms. Eaton, I need some help in balancing out the spectrum of comments that we've had. Certainly in a number of comments people have spoken indirectly—yours were directly—about neo-liberalism, but they were also talking of binaries and polarization of issues, to somehow find a common ground that we can share with Canadians to move forward with or without this agreement. There are costs to ratifying it, and there are also costs to not ratifying it.
This morning, just after the presentations, I spoke with Mr. Colwell, the agriculture and aquaculture minister here, and I asked him what the implications would be on the provincial side for Nova Scotia if the other countries went ahead, particularly the U.S. and Japan, and ratified the agreement and Canada did not. Would it rectify some of the issues that we see on the polarized end regarding the concerns about health care, pharmacare programs, and the cost of drugs?
Yes, the cost of drugs, as we've heard from a number of different witnesses, will rise significantly, but Mr. Colwell's point was that for every $1 in export, it's the equivalent of $7 in return. As a province, the argument may be from a provincial level that looking for those who are the most in need and the most vulnerable is often taken care of, to some extent, by a provincial or federal government.
If we had less revenue drawn from the international trade market and we had a lower price or a consistent price in medicare costs, how could we balance that out? We now have a social service network that may not have the same support that it would have if we had higher exports in international trade.