Perhaps the simplest way to think of it is, think how an individual company would think of it. Is that company competitive and is it able to make a sale against someone else that does almost or exactly the same thing? If the company is, let's say, down the street, the exchange rate does not come into the picture at all. If you have a better, higher level of productivity in your operation than the person down the street has, you can offer the same thing for a lower price to the customer.
What if the person down the street has lower productivity than you have but has a better delivery system so they get it there two days earlier than you do? That is another element to the competitiveness equation, and the exchange rate still hasn't come in.
Now, we take those two companies and they're competing with somebody in the United States that does the same thing, and their costs, for a foreign buyer, are now impacted by movements in the exchange rate on top of all those other things. That's why this is in layers. If you look at the chart in the monetary policy report that Tiff referred to, it takes the relative costs between Canada and the United States and asks how were those relative costs translated into a single currency, taking account of the exchange rate effects.
The rise in the currency over the past 10 years has made a significant difference in that chart. Overcoming that rise in the currency would mean really increasing your productivity in your operation, or doing something completely differently to overcome that cost disadvantage; hence, the headwinds we described. I said that rise in the currency was associated with the terms of trade rise and therefore there's nothing we can do about it. It's a part of the macro picture.