In any free trade discussions, as you've probably observed in your hearings here on the World Trade Organization and the Doha Round, the agricultural sector is always the most sensitive and controversial in terms of negotiations. Specifically with Peru, though, we did not have a great deal of sensitivities. We're shipping largely grains that they don't produce in large quantities, and pulses. They're shipping seasonal vegetables here, asparagus in off-season largely. So there was a great deal of complementarity.
There are some sensitive issues, and of course, when Canada has traditionally, as a negotiating mandate, to take all supply-managed products off the table at the outset, that impairs us in negotiations. Obviously, we start that way. Peru did have interests in certain dairy-related areas, so our removal of those items from the negotiating table did have an impact on what we were able to achieve, as they took off their relative sensitivities in terms of the negotiations.
Overall, I think for agriculture--and in fact the strongest supporters for this deal are from the agricultural community in Canada, or some of the strongest supporters--they're very concerned right now. I don't know what the situation is since February 1 in terms of whether they have lost shipments because of the U.S. free trade agreement with Peru in pulses, lentils, barley, or wheat, but certainly this is something we're trying to monitor while we're engaged in this effort.