Obviously, if there are concerns about this agreement, the release of those studies would allow us to have a better sense of how legitimate they may be in terms of the actual impact. It might potentially work in favour of the negotiations. So the earlier those figures get out--provided they're solid numbers, which have been done with the view of honestly addressing the impacts--I would suggest, the better.
Coming back to the issue of the NAFTA model, as I mentioned earlier, we're seeing a situation now where manufacturing jobs have been eroded since 1989. Ultimately, what that has meant is that 60% of Canadian families are earning less in real terms than they were in 1989. That's the bottom line of any trade strategy.
I come back to the issue of a NAFTA model. We've seen some real difficulties with dispute settlement because they're not being used, either by the current government or by the previous government; the chapter 19 provisions of NAFTA have not been put into effect, and that is to our detriment.
As part of the approach that the ministry took in looking at this agreement, were there any discussions of other models of trade agreements that might be more effective in terms of meeting that bottom line, which actually is having family incomes come up rather than go down?