Thank you.
It's interesting, because I know Michael Geist very well. He and I have been on the opposite side of many issues, but I don't really disagree with him on this one.
The question you have to consider is the degree of threat that any retaliation clause represents. NAFTA had a retaliation clause. There was only one case in our history when the U.S. even threatened to retaliate. They didn't retaliate, but the threat was put on the table. That's the only case.
Yes, if they are still able to retaliate, I'm worried about that. I think we should all be worried about that. I would have felt far, far better had it been removed from the agreement, but it wasn't. I think on balance, when you have the strength of the cultural exemption versus the theoretical risk of additional retaliation, which we have never experienced in our history, I think it's work pursuing.
My greater concern is the limitations we've already agreed to and impose. We're kind of narrowing our cultural policy scope as we go through each of these trade agreements.