If I can just complement that, the construction or the architecture that's done multilaterally on the services is quite different from how the goods and agricultural products are treated. In the first two, when the WTO, let's say, makes a decision to cut a barrier or a tariff, it applies across the board to all members of the WTO, whereas on the General Agreement on Trade in Services, when it was entered into, when it was first created, there was a fair degree of opposition from developing countries, because, quite frankly, they didn't understand the impact of this whole new services regime. So the WTO agreed that countries are able, unlike the other two market access issues, to take on commitments on individual items of their choosing; therefore governments, including our own, are completely within the bounds of the GATS to take an exception on culture or on the issue of health, which you mentioned, or a couple of those other issues.
Obviously, it makes for tougher negotiations; if you have a long list of exemptions or you're not prepared to take on commitments, other governments aren't necessarily going to open doors on areas of services that the Canadian government will want to take the offence on. So it's obviously a quid pro quo. But there is protection, legitimately so, offered to all country members of the WTO to take exceptions upon issues that they deem important for their own national reasons.