We view tariffs, if you will, as the issue that we could deal with almost on day one of a trade negotiation, in the sense that we don't think this is the real barrier or focus for a CEPA or any other trade negotiation. We would like to see Canada move to 0% tariffs, because we do not feel that they're a necessary revenue source for our government. Frankly, the issues really go beyond this, in terms of involving non-tariff barriers and regulation and red tape.
Looking at the Indian example, we have to show some sensitivity to the fact that tariffs as a government revenue stream remain a much more important source of revenue for India than for us, along with taxation and levies and other revenue-raising items. But again, we would argue that these are not the areas that we should focus on in a trade agreement. We should show some sensitivity, I believe, particularly in light of Professor Su's remarks about the fact that more than 50% of India's economy is still agrarian. So there are some, shall we say, mutual sensitivities in agricultural products that I think we could quickly exchange views on.
But we would encourage negotiators and this committee to focus on issues well beyond tariffs.