I want to go back to the issue of going after small markets, as a way of testing the waters in trade. This goes back to the comments I made initially and would fall into the category of Canada following its own bilateral deals.
We want to decide whether these deals would be strategic, in the sense of creating a Canadian brand or style of trade agreement, or whether we'd just go after markets that are of economic importance. We've tried to do this in the past. We signed a deal with Chile—a small economy where we could test the waters—and trade with Chile has since gone down. A lot of times when we sign deals with small countries we may find that the trade just isn't there.
Most of our trade is going to the U.S., the E.U., China, and Japan. I don't know if there's much to learn from signing deals with small economies, other than the deal itself, which could be a Canadian style or brand of agreement that could work towards liberalizing multilateral or regional agreements. For example, signing deals with Chile and other South American markets could help to open up negotiations in the FTAA. So in that sense, there is a point to these small agreements. But in terms of economic gain or a learning experience, there's not a lot of evidence that it's going to do much for us.