Obviously these are enormous trade agreements. They're long documents. They provide for different rights in different areas.
I think the central difference between the two agreements, from a labour perspective, is that the labour provisions in the Peru-U.S. agreement are subject to the same dispute settlement enforcement mechanisms and all other criteria as are the commercial provisions of the agreement. That's the essential distinction between the Canadian model and now the U.S. model.
Monsieur Cardin spoke about the side agreement versus incorporation into the main agreement, and that's a really important issue, but it's not just that. I know that the Canadian government takes the position that labour and environmental rights have to be in a side agreement for reasons connected to the division of powers under the Canadian Constitution. We won't get into that argument in its minutiae, but the question is whether or not the enforcement mechanisms, whether in a side agreement or not, are equivalent. The reality is that under the Canada-Peru agreement, they are not; under the U.S.-Peru agreement, they largely are.