That's okay. Thanks very much.
Colleagues, we have time to begin, potentially, a third round of questions. We have about 13 minutes, based on my watch. We could do a third round of questions, or we could say we've had enough questions for this panel. I leave it to the committee.
Okay. Good. We will do a third round of questions.
I have a question as well, so I will take this round for the Conservatives.
Mr. Roy, you talked about a couple of things. You talked about sanitary and phytosanitary matters. I know this is a big issue. It's a big issue for pork; it's a big issue for beef, and it's a big issue in both the EU and the U.K. None of these things have been resolved by the government. There are now long-standing trade irritants that mean, in fact, that you're not able to export, realistically, any pork to the EU or the U.K. These are supposed to be big markets for you.
My question really is this. The government has limited resources. Within the trade department in GAC, there's a limited number of people who can do a limited number of things. When I look at the free trade agreement with Ecuador, it would appear that the potential gains from a free trade agreement with Ecuador are marginal. Canadian trade is about $800 billion, and we're talking about gains in the millions of dollars, potentially, with the free trade agreement, so this is actually a rounding error in the actual comparison of Canada's trade.
I wonder if you think that, if the government would focus instead on resolving these long-standing issues with sanitary and phytosanitary matters with the EU and the U.K., it would be a better use of the government's limited resources in their trade department than pursuing a free trade agreement with a country that won't really add much to our trade GDP.