What I mean is sort of a quid pro quo. I'll go back to Mr. Cannan's remarks on what the advantages are.
I'm going to answer your question, but I just want to preface it with this. India is a big market, but it's not really ready to play the same game as the U.S., European Union, and China. I think it still has a way to go. Canada is sort of a better fit. I think there's more of a comfort level there. The Indians would probably say that they do want to negotiate with the United States, but I don't think they'd like what that negotiation would look like.
What I'm saying is that instead of trying to get this broad, ambitious agreement, go for an ambitious agreement, but don't be so set on it being broad. I think there are a lot of things we'd like to have in agreements, but we won't always get them. I think it's more important to get some institutional framework in place as opposed to getting the perfect deal that never really materializes.
What I'm saying is that one of the key things the Indians are looking for is this temporary entry for IT workers. A big prize for the Canadian side of the equation, or one of the big prizes, would certainly be access to the rapidly expanding commercial banking and insurance market. They would get a first-mover advantage by doing it, which would essentially be a—“reward” is not the right word—return for acknowledging and addressing a key strategic interest of the Indians that's not getting accepted in their other international trade negotiations.