I'm not sure that what I had said was specifically around market access clarifications, but more broadly speaking, I think it includes that.
One of the things that our experience with Canada's approach to trade negotiations...and I think they all sort of fall into this category. NAFTA may be a bit of an exception just because of how much public attention was shone on it. However, there is a clear absence of an articulated mandate going into these negotiations. I suppose our various lead negotiators, the negotiating team, and the federal government have a plan in place about some of their bottom line proposals, about some of the key areas they want to gain market access to and some social provisions they want to make progress on. However, that's not ever clear what that is, unlike other countries like the EU and like the U.S. to some degree.
One of the things that we've also consistently called for is a more transparent process and a clarity about what it is we are trying to achieve in this. Speaking from a civil society point of view, I think it would be helpful to know this and in a way, I think that it also serves as a more appropriate strategy because it sends a signal to our negotiating partners that Canada has very clear bottom line positions, and as in the case of NAFTA, it could come to pass that a lot of Canadians and a lot of Canadian organizations will rally behind that. Therefore, I think this is something that we want to see more of, but there's no sense that will happen in Mercosur, which is the spirit behind my comment.