Thank you very much, Chair.
Just to finish up on that theme, I think that's an excellent discussion. Mr. Atamanenko mentioned he had been told that the discussion shouldn't even have been had. I don't think that's a fair thing to say. I think the problem at the time was that there was a bill attached to the discussion. It wasn't that the discussion shouldn't have been had; it's that a bill could have passed and actually changed the laws in Canada, driving a solution, when there hadn't been sufficient discussion or collaboration with industry.
I think Mr. Everson and Mr. White made excellent points in that the government does have a role to play, but the industry has solutions. The industry has a role to play too. They don't necessarily want a bill hanging there like an axe, and I think that's the problem.
Mr. Atamanenko and I had some discussions about perhaps bringing the idea to committee before it got moved forward in a bill, to have the debate and to have the discussion—much like we're doing now as part of a biotechnology study—but without necessarily having the constraints of a bill.
I do want to pursue a really interesting point. Mr. Vandervalk, you were talking about savings to farmers. This is interesting because I think one of the strongest arguments for biotechnology is that our farmers need to remain competitive. They need to lower input costs, they need to increase yields, but we talk about those at a macro level. I'm wondering if you might be able to give us something a little more detailed in terms of what you think biotechnology offers to the average farm in terms of efficiencies, savings that make a farmer more competitive.