Thank you for that question. With respect to the United States, the general difference between the United States and Canada in approaching labour and the environment relates directly to both our market size and the way we approach international diplomacy, and that is that we take a more cooperative approach. The U.S. enforcement, in the case of Colombia, is through trade retaliation, where they withdraw benefits.
With respect to Canada, on the labour side, our approach is more cooperative, but we do allow for a binding dispute resolution that could include monetary penalties. Now, that's just being realistic about how much trade we have with Colombia and what increased tariffs or withdrawal of benefits will do.
In other words, we aren't Colombia's largest trading partner or second-largest trading partner, as the U.S. is, so monetary penalties, in effect, would be more effective than trade action. But generally the approach is cooperative. In the case of our labour agreements--and Pierre could speak more directly to this--what our labour side agreement does is it basically requires both countries to reflect ILO principles in their law and then to enforce those laws. It goes a little broader than the primary ILO principles into some other areas as well. So Canada feels very strongly that our labour side agreement compares very favourably when you look at the U.S. agreement. Now, that has to do with different approaches and, as I said, the nature of our economic relations.
With respect to EFTA, I'm not aware that they have labour or environment agreements; I don't believe they do. The discussions with the EU are ongoing now. They touch on those issues. I'm not sure how they might be reflected.