As I mentioned earlier on the efficiency questions, we've heard that too, and we've certainly seen it in the testimony that people bring to the committee.
I think in general what I've taken away from the discussion is that the programs have been relatively well received, and perceived to be fairly effective, but there are some issues of transparency and making sure that people get answers quickly so that they can make decisions to do other things. There's certainly an issue of complexity.
Governments, especially in complex areas, do a lot of due diligence on innovation programming. I can give you the example of simply purchasing a new piece of capital equipment; it's a pretty straightforward program. If you have a contribution for that, if it looks like a biodiesel-producing operation, you can fund it. In areas where there's high risk, you have to look at the entire company fairly comprehensively, or the entire capacity of the science performer. Do they have the management capacity to carry this off? Do they have the technical capacity? Is the technology feasible? Is there a market opportunity? These things take time.
What we've done is that we had two very successful programs--clusters and DIAP, if I can put those together--and then another program called Agri-Opportunities, and we had--