Part of it is this: who should we sign agreements with? I'm an economist, so I believe there are resource constraints. And there must be some resource constraints in negotiating agreements, so how do we decide which countries to sign agreements with?
I read in the newspaper a couple of weeks ago that we have to be doing more with Vietnam, that Vietnam is a fast-growing economy and we're missing the boat. You could rank the countries and go through the list, but I think having a more systematic approach to understanding which countries we should have agreements with and where we're going to get the big returns.... I think that kind of analysis should be done, and that should be part of the global commerce strategy. Then we could go down the list and knock them off. I don't know if any kind of prioritizing system exists. I just think there should be some way of doing that.
In the paper that you've been talking about, I do mention some of the reasons why India is a prominent case for us, and that's because of the fact that it is large and it is growing rapidly. Those kinds of things are reasons to have an agreement with them. Also, we have some common history and some commonalities that reinforce this. But again, going against that are other challenges.
One of the reasons why India is a positive place is the growth in trade that we've had with them, even without having an agreement. I think if businesses are showing that they're interested in an area where the government has some evidence that it could be a potential market.... I think that's happening with Canada and India. We are starting to expand trade, even without an agreement.