I'll just add two key points. The first is that regulatory cooperation is an integral part of this negotiation. If you look at professional skills, minerals, forest products, agricultural products, and even procurement, all those sectors face barriers going into the European Union. In procurement, sometimes it's technical standards—the environmental standards for even, say, paper products, which are not necessarily based on sound science. The regulatory reform is well advanced, because this was discussed in the predecessor to the CETA, which was the TIEA, the trade and investment enhancement agreement. I know work is well advanced.
The two key components of the regulatory cooperation chapter, from what we understand, are that both sides will have the responsibility to give advance notice on any planned regulatory formation so that the other side can issue comment on how it will affect exports into the European Union or into Canada; and it will be backed by a binding dispute resolution mechanism, which is something we currently don't have. When we see that we're faced with regulatory barriers into the European Union now, our exporters really have no recourse, whereas with a legally binding dispute resolution mechanism, our hand will be greatly strengthened in dealing with the European Union.
Thank you.