I would add two points in terms of the merits of the science approach.
In all real terms, in the absence of a science approach we would have no recourse mechanism. Under the World Trade Organization, in fact, because the WTO recognizes the science-standard organizations that Paul referred to, it is through that WTO process that the science foundation becomes the merit of a WTO challenge. Of course, that's not Canada's preferred approach--we would prefer to deal with these issues bilaterally whenever possible--but in those cases in which Canada has engaged with the WTO, whether it was the salmon case with Australia or the hormone case with the EU, in all circumstances it has been the science foundation that dictated the outcome of the WTO process, and when we were found to be in compliance and others weren't, those decisions went in our favour.
There is the recourse reality of having a science foundation. It is vitally important, as Paul says, to make sure there is a sound foundation.
The other component, though, which is equally important for Canada in terms of our exports, is the fact that it does allow for reciprocity. If we jointly recognize the science, it gives a predictable competitive market for our industry because they understand the requirements that will be placed upon them and they can then bid and develop their programming accordingly. I think it enhances the competitiveness and the predictability of the international marketplace to some extent, and from an import perspective it also allows us to demonstrate, as we've talked about earlier today, that the standards we're going to apply for you to get in to Canada are the same standards that we're applying within Canada. It is a level playing field.