It's an interesting question, because we went through this in the development of some of the recommendations for the global commerce strategy, where we looked globally to try to figure out where our efforts should be placed in terms of this bilateral and regional activity. There was a whole range of factors that were in play. Sometimes it was—as in the case of Peru and Colombia, for example—the business stakeholders saying the playing field needs to be levelled with, in this case, the United States. Frankly, the United States is often the benchmark that's used for many of our agreements.
So in terms of this agreement compared to the American agreement, we are quite comfortable saying that this agreement is equal to or even better in many instances than what the Americans were able to achieve in their agreement. We think that the percentages are in the high nineties, and even in those areas where there was less ambitious market access in a couple of areas they were offset in the global picture by some superior outcomes in other areas of commercial interest to us.
The American deal reflects U.S. interests and our deal has to reflect Canadian interests. So there is never going to be a one-to-one alignment, but we are quite comfortable that the deal we got can stand up to inspection against the deals that are usually used as benchmarks by our business stakeholders.