There aren't really any structural differences between the two agreements.
As I mentioned, after the United States announced its withdrawal or its intent not to ratify, Japan brought us together to discuss at the ministerial level how we could continue this process and not let all the good work go to waste. All of us who were dealing bilaterally with the United States through these negotiations and the original TPP made concessions in areas that we would have preferred not to. In the case of Canada and other countries, these concessions were bilateral in nature because we were negotiating bilateral access between the United States and Canada. I think it's fair to say that Canada really championed the process through the negotiations over the past year to lift the suspension of issues and provisions that were really unfavourable to us, and they were less meaningful to other commercial partners among the group, given that the United States was no longer there.
That was a very prolonged negotiating process. Some countries didn't want to see many provisions suspended at all, because they wanted to keep the door wide open for the United States to join. Others felt that it was better to suspend the provisions based on the commitments that we undertook in the TPP that were really bilateral in nature, but the TPP agreement remains. It's incorporated into the CPTPP by reference. All of that still exists. All we've done is lift 22 suspended provisions until such time as we agree to bring them back, and we set up a different legal instrument to bridge the gap between the two agreements and to deal with such issues as accession and whatnot.