We've had the first merchandise trade deficit in 30 years. Results don't show it. Adding up the numbers, it just seems to me that getting a trade deal for the sake of a trade deal is not the answer. There need to be results there. All the trade agreements that you've signed on really only amount to the equivalent of about 126.5 hours of merchandise trade with the United States. I'm basically saying let's not ignore the markets we already have while you add up the numbers for new trade agreements.
I have two other questions, which maybe you can answer together, because I'll run out of time. The first is on CETA on procurement. I'm wondering if you have a legal opinion on this. Given that the federal government is responsible for trade, if a municipality does not live up to an agreement—in other words, they ignore the CETA agreement and don't allow the Europeans to tender or whatever on the procurement—who is liable for the compensation or the future lost profits that have to be applied to the Europeans?
I remember, the last time you were here, trying to get an answer out of you on tariffs and access, which you failed to answer. You went back to supply management. You said in a Reuters story that you would not move on tariffs relative to supply management, whether it's TPP or CETA. What about access into the Canadian supply-managed market? Are you willing to negotiate on access?