No, but it's a good example. So let's take that for an example.
What is the difference? Why do we need to negotiate with all these countries when some of them already have this regulatory enforcement whereas others don't? Why do we need to do this at the table? Does it provide anything? Is it beneficial? I guess that's what I'm wondering. Is there time lost there? There are tons of questions I can ask.
We're negotiating at the same time with Japan. We've already negotiated with Korea, and perhaps Korea will attach themselves. We already have agreements with the U.S., Mexico.
Is this the right approach? I'm not second-guessing, but I'm just wondering if it is the most efficient, best way to go about achieving what we want to achieve at the end—I guess that's free trade or fair trade—when there are some countries involved in the partnership that are not even at the first step of where we are. How does that work? Because I'm not part of negotiations. I'm just even wondering how you're even able to get there.
There are a lot of questions there.