Thank you. That's a very intriguing question.
One of the things we've seen for probably 30 years now is that any type of planning for our economy has been signing another trade deal, which actually, every time we do that, further eliminates or limits our ability to actually plan our economy. It just becomes an ongoing contradiction.
One of the fascinating things about trade deals, though, is that if you look back at most, or not most but every successful developed economy, or whatever the current description is, basically they all used mechanisms that would now be invalid under a trade deal.
The way that we got to be rich and powerful we can no longer use, because we gave away those rights under trade deals. We're now saying to other countries that aren't yet rich and powerful, “Well, you can never get where we are, because we want to sign a trade deal with you that will take away your right to do the things that we did to get here.”
It seems to me that most of what we're talking about with trade deals—the Trans-Pacific Partnership, CUSMA, CETA and anything new with the U.K.—would be simply further limiting our ability to make independent economic decisions on behalf of our own people.
Trade deals are fundamentally, in a term that an academic from the University of Toronto came up with, international corporate constitutions. They say what governments can't do, not what governments can do. They're all limitations on the ability of governments to control the behaviour of international corporations, which is the exact opposite of an industrial strategy.