Thank you.
Just to add a little bit more to what Carol said, in our view the agreement we signed with Colombia is the most comprehensive labour agreement in the world today. We go beyond the U.S. obligation. We've surpassed them. We have doubts at this point if the EU, in their agreements and their new model, would go beyond.
We've just seen the text of the EU-Korea agreement. That is a negotiated outcome, and we cannot know what that will be with Colombia, but that gives you a good idea. Now we know for sure we have negotiated the most comprehensive agreement.
That's the first pillar of our labour agreement. The second pillar is the strength of the dispute resolution mechanism. As Carol has pointed out, we take a different approach where we believe we've found the appropriate balance between a deterrent effect to ensure compliance and having penalties of up to $15 million per year. That would be deposited in a fund, but to access the fund and use the money you would have to have the agreement of both parties.
Therefore, if Canada, for example, is not in agreement, the money would just keep accumulating. We've tried to find the balance between a deterrent effect and a problem-solving impact, so if there is an issue—child labour or any issue—you would have an instrument and money to change something as opposed to the U.S. approach whereby if there is a penalty or fine, it would go to the U.S. Treasury. With all due respect to the different approaches of countries, we don't understand how that approach would solve an issue on the ground, whereas our approach would have the deterrent and at the same time be able to resolve the dispute.