—then and since then. As a former negotiator, I know that the more you want something, the more you're going to pay for it, and Canada badly needs an agreement with Europe, because there are 27 countries there. It's a major market, and if we're outside, we're least favoured.
Will we pay more? Probably, because we're the demandeur, and the demandeur always pays more, but what I've also said is that we need the deal. It's short-term pain for long-term gain, because we can't afford to be looking at other people in that market who are ahead of us with preferences. It's the same as in Korea.
What about subsidies? Well, I asked the European negotiator whether they were going to put the common agricultural policy on the table, and he said no. When you don't put the common agricultural policy on the table, then all the Canadians who have to cope with those subsidies are going to be at a disadvantage.
As for the rules of origin, I think Jim Sanford is right. If we don't have a cumulative type of rule of origin allowing us to mix our origin with that of the United States, then there are very few products that we're going to be able to cope with in terms of meeting origin. You might get the duty down to zero, but if you can't meet the origin rule, then you're out of luck.
Now, on NAFTA, we only really use NAFTA rules for about 50% of the products that we send to the United States. Some of them are already duty free and we don't have to. For some of them, we can't meet the origin.
As for the issue of government secrecy, it's very difficult to conduct a negotiation in secret.