You're absolutely correct in terms of what we export and how we export.
When we think of our north-south relationship, almost three-quarters of what we export to the U.S. are parts, ingredients and components that integrate into U.S. manufacturing processes. These are not finished consumer goods. It's also very much true of most of what the U.S. exports to Canada, which outlines how deeply integrated our manufacturing sector is. That is a net good. When we think of Canada-U.S., it really is a sector that works together to build things to compete with the rest of the world as opposed to with each other.
Recent months have illustrated that we need to take a long look at all of the rules, requirements and incentives that might have some value-add and that might have somebody looking for a domestic market. They might be looking for a way to add value within Canada.
Again, to repeat myself, I think regulatory burden rules, like the one you've cited, might have made sense in a current context or in a previous context. We need to look at all of our priors to decide whether this make sense. Are we ensuring that we can add as much value to a product as possible in Canada? The answer may be, in some cases, that we don't need to or that we don't want to, that we're extracting a lot of benefit by selling it to customers in the U.S. or abroad. It's taking a look at all of those rules, requirements and incentives that have caused investors to make the decisions not to do those value-added processes in Canada.