That's okay. It's a very detailed topic, and there's lots of thought to go into this.
And Mr. Richardson's just doing his job, by the way.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that.
It is a very detailed and difficult proposal, so I'm hoping that the CMA will indeed keep in mind what it said in 2008, as we go forward, because, as you said earlier, the deal isn't perfect. Some of us would say it's not any good, but that's a question for each of us to decide.
I have to go to Mr. Sinclair and Ms. Healey.
Mr. Laurin kindly talked about what happened with NAFTA and the FTA, and he put it in the historical context of how we didn't do so well over there. We also didn't do so well, in my view, here, which doesn't bode well for the future of international agreements. So based on that, let me ask this question about the scope of the moneys, which was unprecedented in the United States, in the following sense. Was it simply the scope of the money that was put on the table by the federal government in the U.S. that sort of heightened this awareness? Mr. Laurin clearly pointed out—and as I said, I used to use this evidence—the Buy America Act of the 1930s and the upgrades to it over the years, which are still there. Is it simply the fact that the dollars are approaching $1 trillion a pop, and they simply said, “Wow, what happened here? How come we're not in all of that? That's a big cake, how come we can't get a slice?” Or is it simply, “It's always been that way anyway, and if the cake was smaller, we didn't notice”?
Mr. Sinclair.