Maybe I should let Matt take it first, in terms of the state of the industry. Whether domestic or international, all vehicle manufacturers have been impacted by the current state of the economy and of the industry, as you've highlighted. It's important to highlight too that we're not talking about all vehicle manufacturers giving something up. As has been highlighted in the testimony, probably about half of the vehicle manufacturers were already making this information available and doing so willingly. That speaks to the fact that when an individual company comes to this country as a new distributor, for instance, they structure their business affairs in the way they think makes the most sense for their effectively and efficiently serving their customers. At the end of the day, that's what it's all about. Some of them have done this by making the information broadly available; others by saying that they'd like to have the consumer come back to their dealership.
In terms of the balance you spoke to, one of the things we wanted to ensure was that the manufacturers' intellectual property was respected in the agreement, and from our perspective, that wasn't the case under Bill C-273. We think we've put a box around this under the agreement and that the balance exists there. I think all of us here agree that all we wanted to do was make sure that the information necessary to repair and service vehicles is available to the aftermarket. As for the intellectual property to reverse-engineer parts and do other things to improve the performance of vehicles, as Mr. Valeriote mentioned, nobody should have any interest in that, in taking vehicles out of compliance.
All we want to do is make sure that the information is there to repair and service vehicles, and we think we've struck the balance between respecting the manufacturers' intellectual property and ensuring that the information is available.