It's a difficult question and an extremely relevant one. I'm sure there are many factors, but I would think the basic one is just the lack of resources.
First of all, I think one needs to do the analysis we're doing--and that has been done before--as to where our priorities are. Priorities have been set. The gulf area in particular has been ranked as one of the top 10 priorities, but not in the lower echelon; I think the lower echelon countries, up to this point, have been given the resources.
This is not the case with other countries, though. I think every one of our trading partners is in an active negotiation for a free trade agreement with the GCC at this time. In fact, in the case of the European Union there are always stumbling blocks, but if they do sign, it would be the first time there would be an agreement between two economic blocs, and this I think would have some great historical significance.
The U.S. has adopted a different approach. They've gone for a series of bilateral agreements. They have one with Qatar. I believe they have them with Oman and Jordan and some of the other countries, but the GCC now has reacted against that and has said they will no longer do bilateral agreements; it'll have to be an agreement with the group as a whole. Australia was very active in courting the UAE in particular, but after that decision it is now opening negotiations with the GCC, China, India, Singapore, and others. There's a 5% tariff barrier that the common economic GCC zone has, but in that competitive market it is significant enough to disadvantage Canadians enormously.
In terms of foreign investment protection agreements and others, quite frankly, I don't know why they haven't been given the priority, because, as I'm sure Dwain will tell you in his remarks, Nexen's investment in Yemen is exceptional. SNC-Lavalin's operations, CAE's operations in the UAE--all of these I think would merit the benefit of these sorts of agreements.
Air agreements are another important question. Our policies have been different from others', although from what I understand, the government's thinking is changing very quickly on this. Australia adopted an open-skies approach during the four years that I served in the UAE. There are now I think over 60 flights a week between Australia and the United Arab Emirates; there are three flights a week via Brussels to Canada. It's not because there isn't the interest in the airline that services that region; in fact, they're clamouring for the opportunity, but we haven't allowed them the access they've been seeking.
In all of these things, of course, in trade agreements and in air traffic agreements, there are winners and losers, but the Australian case is an interesting one because their trade relationship has expanded astronomically in virtually every aspect--not only in direct trading figures, but also in terms of visitors, inflows of investment, education interests, and so on. All of these elements are linked.
The answer to your question--and I apologize for being long-winded--is that we just need to establish this as a priority and then give the resources to our negotiating departments to go forward and put these agreements in place.
One small footnote, based on other people's observations as well as my own, is that we tend to take a fairly complicated approach to these things. It would serve all of us well if we could simplify our agreements and perhaps tailor them for different markets, and I believe the department is actively looking into this.
It's a question of urgency and of the push that's needed to move these things forward, rather than the collective will or the realization of what needs to be done.
Thank you.