Again, part of my early comment was not to oversell the trade agreement. Saying that trade agreements either increase inequality or significantly diminish it is probably not the right way to look at a trade agreement. There is very little evidence that inequality is going to be affected one way or the other.
On the one hand, it might help, because if trade and investment increase economic growth and development in India, then it's going to reduce worldwide inequality. Within Canada, it's not likely to have much effect at all.
In employment, it's the same thing. A trade agreement with India, as far as I understand the evidence—and I haven't crunched the numbers; the trade numbers are small. If you look at trade agreements even with large countries like the United States—and I've looked specifically at these agreements and at the impact on labour forces—there is no evidence that inequality increased because of free trade with the United States and Mexico. There is no evidence that long-term employment was affected. Manufacturing is declining not because of trade. Those aren't the right considerations.
In the article I wrote, I asked, “What do we have to gain?” and I said, “Not much”, because I just don't think there is an appetite in India for having a free trade agreement with Canada—not that we shouldn't do it. I haven't changed my view on that, but I may be a little bit more optimistic that something could come, because one of the stumbling blocks was the nuclear issue we had with India and we've addressed that.
The mission seemed to be successful, and now with attention to the state-owned enterprises, we have really got India's attention. So maybe we have some leverage to get something done.
Market access is a key, and we've heard that today. The way Canada can benefit is if we get market access. I'm just a little bit skeptical that India is willing to give that up.
That's my view.