On your agriculture question regarding UPOV 1991, it's important to note that this international treaty was signed by Canada, and it's up to Canada now to decide to ratify it and to decide how and when to implement it. It's not necessarily related to the CETA negotiations. In UPOV 1991, there is a provision dealing with the right of farmers to save their seed. I think this is more a domestic policy decision. We have to decide how and when to implement UPOV 1991, since we're already a signatory to that treaty.
As to geographical indications, as Steve mentioned, this is an issue of significant interest to the European Union. We have embarked on a fairly detailed discussion on this issue in the negotiation. In our view, if we were to adapt some of the GI concept currently in existence in Europe, this would need to be done in a way that is consistent with our existing framework on trademarks and the use of generic or common names in the marketplace. That's the approach we're taking. Taking into account the two principles of federal protection of existing trademarks and the protection for common or generic names, are there other ways we can accommodate the EU request for protection for some of the European GIs? That's our approach.
With respect to pulse, you're quite right that all the pulse are currently imported duty-free in Europe. For the processed product, though, they are subject to several fairly complicated tariff structures. Our objective is to liberalize all the processed products so that we can have access to that huge market.
Lastly, for cheese, it's up to the Europeans to submit a proposal on cheese. Canada already imports large quantities of European cheese, more than $150 million per year. European cheese accounts for 3% to 4% of the Canadian domestic market. In no product does Canada have such a market share in Europe. So we are starting from a position of strength here in dealing with market access.