I'm happy to, but I've been talking.
I think it is important, and let's use South Korea and the dispute between pork producers and auto manufacturers. It wasn't helpful for anyone on either side. We need to figure out ways to structure agreements and sometimes maybe the best way to do it is through sectoral agreements. In the CPTPP, from what I understand, they have taken several side agreements that look specifically at sectors and the specific problems they have within those sectors. So you have an overall framework, but also a sub-framework that can help on some of those sectoral issues. Our point on this agreement or any other agreement is you can't exclude parts of the economy from participating in a free trade agreement, whether it's agriculture, mining, auto, aerospace, it doesn't matter. If the agreement doesn't open the markets for every part of the economy, there's no point in doing the agreement at all. It's got to help everyone.
I think in the past we have gotten into this trade-off game between one sector or another. To me, it's just not that helpful. I think we need to find ways to work around those differences within Canada. If that's through having a broader framework of a trade agreement with subagreements that help certain sectors on certain issues, that would be fine. We'd certainly support something like that, but the big thing for us is not excluding sectors from trade agreements. You just can't. You can't sign an agreement and say it's good for everyone but you because you don't qualify for some reason, which frankly has been the case in the past sometimes; that's not good enough.