I have a legal rather than an economics background, so it's outside my skill-set to talk about economic effects. From an academic perspective, I recognize that the agricultural provisions of the agreement seem to leave our agricultural policies in place. This is in article 3.2: “The Parties declare their readiness to foster, in so far as their agricultural policies allow, harmonious development of trade in agricultural products.” It's kind of a fluff statement, but I think the statement would allow us to continue with whatever agricultural policies we have. There will not be a case like the one brought under NAFTA by the U.S., saying that our agricultural policies needed to be changed.
I think we've covered that off, so this agreement should not have an impact. They might yet bring a case against us, but if I was acting for the Government of Canada, I'd rely on this statement and tell the panel that we didn't have to change our agricultural policies as a result of this agreement. That's what I'd argue.