Thank you for the question.
The signatory countries of CAFTA—the agreement between Central America, the Dominican Republic and the United States—support the current trilateral agreement, NAFTA.
What that means is that if we like the agreement as it is now, there's no need to rip it up and create new agreements bilaterally between Canada and the U.S., between the U.S. and Mexico, and between Canada and Mexico.
From the perspective of agrifood exporters, the agreement we have is working particularly well. Yes, we see opportunities to improve the agreement, but when it comes to thinking about new frameworks, we understand that in keeping what we have now there is no need to tear it up and create new agreements.
There are opportunities to make it better. We have articulated some of those today. However, when we look at the world, as agrifood exporters we see major opportunities in other countries, such as through the negotiations that potentially may happen with China and through the trans-Pacific partnership agreement, whereby we have an agreement among 11 countries and an opportunity to get major benefits in countries such as Japan and create new frameworks to enable us to trade in the Asia-Pacific region more broadly.
The concept of ripping up an agreement has been roundly denounced by U.S. agriculture, and we share that stance. I am sure the members of the committee have seen the remarks by U.S. agriculture, but just to give you a sense, here are some quotes. The National Corn Growers Association says it would be disastrous for North American agriculture. The American Soybean Association says it's “a terrible idea”. The U.S. Grains Council says they are “shocked and distressed” to see the concept of NAFTA being torn up.
I would say that from the standpoint of the Canadian agriculture sector and from the perspective of CAFTA members, we would agree with those comments and recognize the value of what we have in taking a North American approach.