We do it quite easily, Mr. Allen. We've been able to have a very aggressive free trade policy in this government and still back-stop the industries that work well domestically. You wrongly point that supply management is a closed shop. Roughly 5% a year of our domestic consumption is allowed in from other countries. That means on an annual basis some $150 million from the EU comes into Canada. We have $30 million of access back.
In the case of New Zealand, I think in the last four years it was in the neighbourhood of between $80 million and $100 million on average, and we have zero back to New Zealand. So it's not a closed shop as such. The Canadian Wheat Board was a mandatory system only in western Canada. The supply managed system is embraced coast to coast to coast in all provinces and territories, and it is well liked by the farmers it serves—and they serve it.
Having said that, I don't see any problem continuing with the aggressive trade agenda we have, protecting supply management yet talking about market access and other issues. Every country in the world has defensive and offensive positions. In the case of the TPP, the United States is very vocal and open about maintaining their support for sugar, cotton, and some dairy. The Japanese are very cognizant of the fact that they will not move on rice protection. Certainly we're not alone in having defensive positions as well as offensive positions.
The last part of your question was...?