Let me add, first of all to agree, that yes, our mandate for the negotiations from the government is very clear on these points , and it does mean that Canada has both offensive and defensive interests to advance in the negotiations. But that's not unusual. All countries have offensive and defensive interests in the negotiations, and during the four years that I was ambassador for Canada in Geneva, I never heard any of my colleagues apologize for having offensive and defensive interests, so I never did.
With respect to supply management, as Gilles has said, we are in an unusual and extreme position, and typically what the chairs of negotiations do—it's what their job is—is propose the compromise that members won't propose by themselves. That explains some of the textual proposals of the chairman in agriculture as well.
What I have not noticed yet, frankly, is a softening at the negotiating table—maybe Gilles has—as a result of and flowing from the economic crisis. Certainly, there have been new calls from leaders and from ministers to move forward in the negotiations and to conclude, but at the negotiating table thus far, that flexibility has not really been seen.