It's a very good question. The challenge here is that both levels of government have spent a good deal of time in the last century-plus putting in a lot of public infrastructure to support agriculture research and food research, for the very good reason that it benefited society. But the point David just mentioned about the complexity and the variations means that government is going to have to look at how to take that infrastructure and evolve it so that there is more response to the marketplace, and at the same time make it much more innovative than it has been.
It may be that Cargill faces those costs, but a number of other companies may face far less cost. This is an area in which the marketplace should allow innovation to occur where it's best and is adaptable. Let companies learn from either failures in the marketplace or from what really does work.
There has to be a different balance from the one we've had in the past, but it's not going to be an easy one to shift, given our historic dependence on public access to agricultural—particularly primary agricultural—research and our very good success in the history of Canada at that level. But that's changing, given all the variety of products out there and what we could do genetically, or even with new crop varieties at the vegetable or fruit level—you name it.