Sure.
Very briefly, the one-on-one bilateral agreement sets up rules on things including origin, phytosanitary measures and other arrangements that work only for that market. As a business, if you have a supply and production chain that, say, goes into other countries—Japan, Singapore or Australia—and you want to use goods and services from a wider array of economies to make you more competitive as a business, you run into problems with having to retool things to work just with Indonesia. That creates yet another set of rules, and yet another set of bureaucracy and paperwork.
The strategy that we're seeing other countries pursue is to move to regional agreements, whereby that cost of compliance is then spread out amongst several economies. We have a progressive trade agreement, which I know is important to the country, to this government and to many members of committee—I think all members of committee—and the ability to do that on an individual bilateral basis will also be more challenging. For all of these reasons, we have a very good high-level agreement. That agreement is attractive to countries because it has Japan, Canada and other markets. My point is that when you have the option to increase a large-scale multilateral progressive agreement, that's where you should be putting your resources. A bilateral agreement may give tariff benefits to one or two major companies, but for smaller businesses, SMEs that we want to grow, I would argue that expanding the trans-Pacific partnership agreement is the way to go.
I forgot to note that the U.K. Parliament is now holding hearings about their joining the CPTPP, so that's the type of agreement we want to focus on.