On the first question, the bill you are bringing forth is important for Canadian farmers. There needs to be some mechanism in place for evaluating that kind of harm before a product gets out, because it spreads in unexpected ways, as Terry has talked about.
There are two levels. There are products that are developed in Canada, and it's easier to bring in this kind of regulation for products developed here. As soon as you're dealing with products that would be sold into Canada, you have to start worrying about trade disciplines--WTO and NAFTA obligations.
I don't have a simple answer for this, and I knew you were going to ask me. In fact, it's the kind of research that people like myself, as political scientists who are concerned about these issues, really need to move into more. There are certain countries in the world where they do this kind of examination of social and economic harms and benefits, but it shouldn't be in the safety regulation system. Even though we have many problems with the health and environmental regulation system in Canada, it should be separated from questions of economic and social impact. But there is still room for analysis of economic and social impact.
The Canadian Wheat Board, back in 2003-04, really put forth a third pillar of cost-benefit analysis as part of the overall regulatory system and a way of hopefully catching Roundup-ready wheat before it was approved in Canada. There are certainly a lot of bodies in Canada that would see this as being in their interest--including some of these farm organizations--and can work with you to develop and answer exactly what that mechanism should look like. It would probably be related to the variety registration process, which is really where these kinds of issues were considered before.
Maybe I'll leave the other questions to these guys.