—and we feel we have a very strong analytical basis to the decisions that were made.
Of the 93 countries, for example, on the declaration of use form, the only other countries that have it are the Philippines and the United States. The United States legitimately had a constitutional issue that required them to keep the form.
Had we maintained the form in Canada, we would have effectively had two systems, and the goal of this was to reduce paper burden. It was very much like smart regulation, where you want to have a single system so that countries operating in different jurisdictions don't have to relearn a new regulatory environment every time. It's the same principle here. We want countries that want to sell their products in Canada to have an easy process to bring them in. We don't want to have our trademark system being effectively a non-tariff barrier or a tax on companies coming in.
Likewise, for the Canadian firms, the government has made opening export markets a critical policy objective, and we do see this as aligned with that. We want Canadian firms to enter those marketplaces. If they have one set of rules in Canada and then have to learn another set as they go into those export markets, it's going to reduce that likelihood or their chances. It will complexify it. Building a brand is more than just doing a registration. Actually, the big expense, and where we really want companies to make the investment, is to actually get to build the brand to go into export markets and to compete successfully. We see it all aligned with those policy objectives.