My next point is not finished: what we see at the end may not be what we envisioned at the beginning. That's the hypothetical. We'll wait to see what happens, because clearly the government will table it when it's done. My guess is that it'll be more comprehensive than what we've seen before.
There are an amazing number of ways to do non-tariff barriers. It reminds me of the sale of North American cars in Korea—an example of a non-tariff barrier is that your taxes are audited every year if you buy one. That's what happens to a Korean in South Korea who purchases a North American car in that country, but that's the auto sector.
When we talk about science-based—we bandy the term about, and it's my favourite term that folks use when they come here—it's always wonderful. It makes it sound as though we have lots of knowledge when we use it. I'm not saying that folks who use the term don't have knowledge; some don't, some do.
Based on that, what happens if you get into the multilaterals that Kathleen is talking about, rather than bilaterals, and the multilateral decision is based on science that we don't like? Now what? If the science becomes a matter of, “You know what, we don't want an LLP, and we don't want GM or GME or GMO”, whatever way we want to discuss that because that's the multilateral, what do we do next?