Yes, I can talk about that.
In the TPP it's been a bit of an iterative process for a few reasons: one, when we joined; and two, it's not a bilateral negotiation. Unlike the Canada-Japan FTA, for example, where a study was done before we joined that assessed a number of things, the TPP operates somewhat differently. Rather, the TPP represents or includes a variety of markets and countries that have been identified as priorities by our department and the minister through the trade policy agenda. Those priorities were based on consultations with Canadians, on assessments of market access barriers that exist in those regions and countries, on what we were looking for in improvements.
So there was an assessment through the global commerce strategy and its successors to identify core markets of interest for Canadian businesses. In addition, as the TPP has evolved, we have, as I said, a bit of an iterative process in assessing where it's at and the benefits as it progresses.
We have considered the opportunities that will arise from deepening our relationships with FTA partners, the U.S., Mexico, Chile, Peru, and others.
We have assessed the benefits of some of these new emerging markets, and our chance to gain new access into some of these areas, based on the high tariffs they had, based on some of the non-tariff barriers and regulatory or competitiveness challenges that we have with those countries.
All of the partners are listed as priority partners in our priority markets assessment under the global markets action plan. That is also the other area in which we have done the assessment.
I guess the answer that I can give you is. This assessment is coming at the TPP from a variety of different angles. It's an assessment that is ongoing as the negotiations are ongoing. As I mentioned, Mexico and Canada joined, and then Japan joined. It is a fairly organic process that we have in the TPP.