On the railway service agreement on which the chair indicated there was a response in the House, it's coming forward, but at the end of this session, sadly, because it will be February before we're back. In my view, as Don said, we are getting a lot of complaints from the agriculture industry and from the mining industry on the service.
We'll see what the legislation looks like, but at this stage, I almost think the railways have the government like a puppet on a string. That's a concern to me, because the railways have not provided the service, and I'll say it on the record, CP especially has not provided service this year, from what I'm hearing.
To go to the Vision 2020 proposal, this question would be for all three of you. I think you indicated that trade is more than trade. There's the whole question of 60,000 people being needed with certain skills.
One of my pet peeves with the way that trade agreements are being handled.... Let's get an agreement, but I think we need much more than an agreement. What's the industrial strategy behind the agreement, from the government side, that's going to add the value in Canada, whether it's education at the provincial level or skills training at the federal level, whatever it might be, and design the industry in Canada so that it can take advantage of the agreements that are signed? What would some of those areas be in the realm of India from the perspective of your industries, both manufacturing and forestry?