Very briefly, I think the European legislation is now enforced and has been enforced for several years. It has set the standards internationally in terms of what could be done. Because Canada is a developed country at the same level as Europe, it could be done as well. It exists in Europe, so it could be done as well.
To answer the question very briefly on genomics--and it's a very difficult question that you asked my colleague on the panel, to explain genomics in three minutes--I want to say that environmental groups are in favour of genomics and want to understand how plants and genomics function. The problem and the confusion that lots of people have is that the Canadian legislation is much broader than international definitions. If you look at the biosafety protocol, it refers only to genes that actually transfer from one organism to another one. The Canadian description is a “catch-everything”, which creates huge confusion, and it's damaging for everybody. We have some growers there who are actually suffering from that confusion. It confuses the public. We put biotechnology and everything in there.
For example, my own organization, Greenpeace, is not necessarily opposed to marker-assisted selection. That has to do with the element that is important because it's different. I'm not saying there's no problem or that we do not need to study it. But I think we should also look at that aspect.
If you ask me what kind of improvement I think we could make, it would be to adjust Canadian regulations to match internationally recognized standards of the definition of a GMO. That would really resolve some of the issues--not all of them, but I think it would be one point.