We don't have an explanatory memorandum. Because of the way CETA was tabled in the House, we didn't get some of the supporting documents that we normally would, and because an economic impact study was done previously, obviously there's value in doing this regardless of the methodology used. I think it's understood that it is the best method we have in order to have some sort of snapshot of that economic impact. I think this is particularly important because we saw last week that an EU parliamentary committee came forward and said it wouldn't support CETA because it projected the loss of 200,000 jobs in the EU. We need an understanding of what that looks like currently for us in Canada, in terms of what we are facing.
Certainly using a 2008-09 model in 2016 doesn't give us the best ability to have our hands on what we're facing here. Is it normal practice to have an economic impact study or analysis done around a trade deal of this scope? Really this is the largest trade deal we've engaged in since NAFTA. It's quite an ambitious piece for us to do, and I think having all of the information available to us would help all parliamentarians, because I'm certain they won't be able to read all 1,500 pages of it and do the assessment we've attempted to do here at committee.
I wonder if you could speak to that, Mr. Verheul.