With respect to the first point about releasing the studies, all I would say is that there is a bit of a tension between the interests of wanting to be as transparent as possible and also preserving our negotiating coinage at the table by not releasing too much of the internal analysis about how the impacts are going to play in one sector or another. That's one of the challenges we wrestle with. I've heard the message loud and clear, and as I've already committed, we will endeavour to put as much information in the public domain as we can.
On the second question, when we assess whether to pursue a trade initiative with a country, we look at the full range of policy options that are at our disposal, including FIPAs, air services agreements, and so forth.
I don't think that quite addresses your question. If your question is whether we looked at alternative approaches to free trade agreements, perhaps I would need a bit more specificity. We do have some variations in how we pursue trade agreements. We don't always pursue services and investment chapters, for example; it depends on the market. We have, in most cases. For Canadian business, the most comprehensive model we have is the NAFTA model, so that is our natural default. Unless there are overriding reasons as to why we shouldn't be pursuing a comprehensive, high-quality agreement, that would be the route we would tend to pick.
Maybe I didn't follow the first part of the question, in terms of what the problem is with the model.