Thank you.
You're all very esteemed, and I have the highest regard for all of you. My comments will frame where I'd like you to respond--not so much of a question. I'd like to provide some insight. I'm a fairly new politician with a very practical background in the building industry, and I've lived close to the border and done business on both sides of the border.
I'd like Mr. Beatty, Mr. Muller, and Mr. Rhéaume to perhaps respond. Mr. Rhéaume mentioned establishing a national brand as one of the priorities. Then I heard Mr. Beatty, as an extensively seasoned politician, talk about the European example of a more harmonized approach between countries. Agriculture is perhaps one example, although I don't know specifics. I'm sure there are standards between their countries that facilitate the flow of agricultural goods.
The suggestion seems to be, from the comments today, that we need a more international approach and not a national brand--more of a harmonized approach to how we address all these issues in a new game perhaps.
But I am reminded of the reality of the politics. I'm especially interested in Mr. Beatty's comments about this. I think back to when this country was negotiating the NAFTA with the United States. I remember that the opposition outcry was huge and loud about how this was going to ruin our identity culturally. This all ties to some of Mr. Oliphant's comments about the different kinds of borders.
I would like you to comment on how to create a less thickened border, in a practical and pragmatic way, given the reality of politics where all of these things are intermingled, and the outcry that would likely happen with a harmonized approach. It seems to be a general theme across what you're saying, with the exception of Mr. Rhéaume, who suggested a national brand.
That's the context of my comments. Could you comment back to me on those, please?