I have two quick points. First, regarding the order, CBAC actually gave you the answer on that. We need more transparency. Canada publishes virtually nothing when we review things. In the United States, they put most of it in the federal registry, so there is a process. It's just that somehow justice has got us tied up so that everything the firms produce is now deemed to be commercially confidential. Many of the firms say they'd rather have the regulator release it. If they release it, it looks as though it's not the same stuff. It's that question of providence.
Let me go back to the first question, which was about how we know what the government should do around these new releases. You'll remember that I said you could lead, follow, or get out of the way; well, one way of leading is a moratorium, but that has significant effects, and you have to know you are right: if you make a mistake, the government is going to be held responsible for stalling a technology that might have been valuable.
A second model is to follow. The introduction of canola is a good example of that. The canola industry worked with the proponents and the new technology. They worked with the grain commission. They worked with the scientists at Agriculture Canada and NRC. They went out and positioned it in an identity-preserved system that contained it until they had regulatory approval in Japan, which was their key foreign market at that point. That's the second model: follow.
The third one is get out of the way. I'd argue that's what happened in wheat. The federal government didn't really say anything about wheat. They were just mum. It was the producers, 206 NGOs, the Wheat Board, and a whole bunch of others who said, “Look,”--as they might do in the alfalfa case--“we don't want that technology at this point in our marketplace”.
So you have stages of options. It's not moratorium or nothing. If there is a will, there is a way of managing the safe introduction or the rejection of a technology through the marketplace.