Well, there are an awful lot of parts to that question. I'm going to let Michael address the issue of the border, and the part of the initiative from Friday that I will deal with directly and personally will be the regulatory cooperation piece. So I'll let Michael take a whack at that.
But with respect to increasing our visibility, I would say that the focus in Washington is--I guess it's obvious--the United States and their own set of economic challenges. In my experience, it's not that they think badly of us; it's just that sometimes they don't think of us at all. It comes as a surprise, sometimes, to Americans that Saudi Arabia isn't their largest supplier of energy--it's Canada. And it comes as a surprise that something approaching 30% of our exports to them are their firms in Canada shipping back into the U.S., or that something like a third is inside supply chains as inputs into the products that they are making. Therefore, if they put up barriers to those imports, they're making their own products less competitive.
The reason there are supply chains is that you're buying something cheaper, better, and faster from a supplier. That's why you choose them. If you close the border in some way or make it more difficult, you're hurting yourself, and I think that's a message that.... The deep integration comes as a surprise to policy-makers.
On how to do better advocacy, I guess Lynda should take a crack at that.
With respect to the SME focus, as I say, we are going to try to go further than the existing Buy American agreement with the United States. In fact, Laurent was in Washington yesterday to start the discussion with the U.S. side, in a kind of a scoping exercise for how we will proceed in those discussions and see if we can go deeper. Certainly it has a greater effect on small businesses than large, because they have less capacity on the ground in the U.S. to work the market and to find the workarounds from those regulations.
Also, while I'm on the subject of SMEs, I'd comment that SMEs have an unusually large share of Canada's new markets where we're diversifying our markets into Asia, into Latin America, and even into Europe. The SME part of that trade is larger than the rest of our trade, so it's an important part of expanding our markets.
With respect to COOL, I would note that the U.S., to their credit, was the first market to reopen to Canadian beef, and that was because they did accept a science-based approach. So I guess it doesn't always go badly. But in respect of COOL, we would suggest that it's not science-based; it's based on markets. That's the case we're making in the WTO. By the way, I would comment that in respect of pressing these cases, the minister is very active in trying to make that case with his counterparts in the United States.
With regard to interprovincial barriers to trade, I would suggest that at the moment in respect of our activity in trade negotiations, those barriers are mostly a problem, or at least a challenge, in respect of our negotiations with Europe. But soon, I suppose, when we get into the substance of the regulatory cooperation agenda that we launched last week, we may find that the interprovincial regulatory barriers become a problem.
Michael, will you add a word?