There are a number of problems with the clauses in the reservations, in that, as I mentioned, they were not complete carve-outs for the sector. They were conditional. There's also ambiguity in Canada's health care system as to what's public, what's private. So there is a concern about international health industries using the trade agreements to push back government policy. In fact, we saw a case launched recently by Eli Lilly against the Government of Canada under NAFTA, so these are not theoretical problems.
I guess what we don't understand is if there is this risk, why take it? We don't take risks with our law enforcement, a complete carve-out, so why is there a limited carve-out for health care? That's playing with fire. We don't understand why we'd want to take a risk, especially since U.S. negotiators are already on public record as disagreeing about what constitutes a public service in health care. I think we're asking for trouble in not having a much stronger carve-out for health care.