I would just add to that by explaining a little bit about the risk that we perceive.
Our view is that the TPP ought not to constrain the kinds of activities we're talking about, both our current integrated service model as well as potential expansion into other lines of business.
There are those who take a different view. The private courier industry has been engaged in a long-running campaign to eliminate competition from postal monopoly providers, any involvement in the private sector courier market at all. That was manifested in the long-running UPS versus Canada dispute under NAFTA. Canada won that claim, but they won it by a margin. There was dissent.
There's no doctrine of precedent in these trade regimes, and similar rules are now implemented in the TPP and expanded upon. The possibility of another UPS-type claim is real, in our view. UPS or other companies like that may well take the view that the TPP changes the rules. We think we ought to win such a claim, but there is that possibility. That possibility looms large when Canada Post is in the process of really re-envisioning its mandate and the ways in which it will be able to deliver on its mandate of providing universal service across a vast geography like Canada.
The current government is engaged in this review, looking at other opportunities and exploring options. Now we have the TPP, which adds to NAFTA, and not only in the rules affecting postal providers. It also opens up the possibility of complaints from a number of other countries as well as private industry in those countries.
Finally, the existence of this risk in our view is a real concern, because it can be used as an argument to freeze policy development. We're already seeing this to some extent in the debate surrounding future directions for Canada Post, those arguing that the TPP will—