In an agreement such as, potentially, the Korean one, we actually do an awful lot of analytical work. We do it generally using econometric models, and we do impact assessments. The reality is that how industries will take advantage of opportunities, how they will be affected by new competitive conditions, is not something you can be completely sure of.
If I were looking at Quebec, though, I would certainly look at some of the Quebec companies that are major players in the global market—the Bombardiers and the SNC-Lavalins. There are literally dozens of global companies rooted in Quebec that, I can assure you, would have very significant opportunities in Korea. Can I tell you that no companies in Quebec will be competitively affected in a possibly negative way? I cannot tell you that.
We go through extensive consultations before we undertake these negotiations. We go through various iterations of consultations as we progress along the path, and as we get closer to the end, we consult further with the industries that really ought to know what the impact is, what the opportunities are. That's essentially the way we do it.
At the end of the day, we try to mitigate or erase any of the negatives and maximize the positives. We would only do an agreement if the positives substantially outweighed the negatives, and I candidly think the negatives tend to reflect people's fears more than the reality of what will actually happen.