Absolutely, and I can say that it was our intent from day one, in drafting this, that it be as close as possible to what the U.S. did.
There were several reasons for that. First, as I mentioned, we knew it worked. As you stated, there was an agreement in the U.S., and it worked to provide the information that people needed. But the second part of it, purely from a business perspective, is that a lot of companies need to build on what the U.S. has in order to be able to buy this information in a cost-effective manner in Canada. It's expensive to develop the necessary solutions, so in a lot of cases—I'm not going to say 100% of cases—there will be piggybacking on U.S. systems. Therefore, the information that's made available needed to line up very closely.
At the same time, the way that NASTF was written didn't really work, in some cases, for Canadian interests. So if you put the two documents side by side, you are going to notice that there are some structural differences. In some cases, because we didn't really care for the very awkward way in which it was written, we took the opportunity to clean it up. In other cases, we pulled out specific references to U.S. legislation that just didn't make sense—not that we weren't following it anyway, but it just didn't make sense in the Canadian context. We Canadianized the agreement.
In intent, which is the important part, it is identical to the U.S. agreement, certainly from our perspective.