That's a very good question, because it's something I face on a daily basis.
In broad strokes, the global commerce strategy set out our broad game plan to begin with. We had—and it started before I got to this position—gone through and identified key markets that were of interest to Canada for a variety of reasons, whether in terms of key interests to our business community or as offensive interests. There were other areas in which our competitors were moving ahead, and we needed to level the playing field, and obviously there were some no-brainers, such as how we should deal with the likes of China, India, and some of the big players in the European Union.
We had worked out a plan that had short-, medium-, and longer-term objectives, some of which were to address some of the negotiations that were already in play. We've had mixed results on that. We've been able to conclude a couple of those, EFTA being one, for example. Others, such as Singapore, which has long been on the books, we have still not found a way to wrap up.
In the meantime, as the world continues to unfold, opportunities arise. We hear from stakeholders, from provinces. We spend a lot of time, as does Steve, consulting with our provincial and business colleagues, and they push us and tell us we should be doing this or doing that. We obviously need to work carefully and make sure what each of us is doing is not inconsistent with what the other is doing. They build to a certain extent on the NAFTA model, but we long ago moved away from a pure NAFTA approach. I think Steve's negotiations will move us, in some areas, even further way. So it's a constantly moving process.
We engage a lot of lawyers who keep us honest by making sure what we're doing isn't inconsistent, looking either forward or back. It is a challenge to make sure that all the balls we have up in the air, including what we're trying to achieve in the Geneva context, in the World Trade Organization, aren't going in completely opposite directions.