There are a couple of things.
The first question was how we picked those sectors. Those sectors weren't picked because we thought those were the sectors where the most value would be created, but we wanted a number of sectors that varied across a number of dimensions. You notice some of them are B to C sectors, consumer focused. Some of them are B to B, and they're more business focused. Some of them are products. Some of them are services. Some of them are more public services, such as education, and some of them are very commercial.
Really what we wanted to do was to have a variety, and that's how we chose them really. It was really meant to give us a flavour for how open data could work in a number of different types of sectors.
Clearly, there are lots of sectors we weren't able to do as part of the research, and as you said, that suggests there will be even more value potential there.
In terms of trying to size the approximate potential for Canada, it's probably not unreasonable to use the sort of metric that if Canada's economy is this much smaller than the U.S. economy, then potentially Canada would be in that level of magnitude. Of course I wouldn't put any precision around it, but I think that's reasonable.
The other thing to keep in mind is that these are not GDP statistics, because they include consumer surplus, which is not captured in GDP. It's important to make sure, if you're trying to compare, that you wouldn't say this has this much GDP impact, because, as I said, over half of that impact would be a measure that is not captured by GDP. I think that's a flaw in the GDP statistic as it turns out.