On the second part of that question, I think there's sometimes a temptation for policy-makers to try to cheat the system, so to speak, in terms of getting a policy outcome they want. If you were to put feedstock restrictions on where you could buy commodities, taking any of the liquidity out of the corn market by saying that no American corn or corn from other places could cross the border, you would artificially inflate the price of corn in Canada. Yet the output from these ethanol plants, or the livestock that would be eating corn, or the starch facility would all have NAFTA-protected outputs that would have to compete against plants in the U.S. that didn't have an artificially high input cost, and you would see the value-added industry in Canada go bankrupt.
So if you think it's not good for farmers to have free trade and have commodities like corn crossing the border, it's really not good for farmers to have the value-added agricultural industry shut down because of an artificial trade barrier.
It is policy-makers, I think, in a way, sometimes trying to not address the real issue--which was identified by the last questioner--which is a vastly different level of support for primary agricultural producers in the U.S. and Europe than exists in Canada. It's trying to push onto the market the role that government is playing in other countries. I don't think it works well.