I can highlight the issue with some specific examples.
Within the food and drug regulations there is a definition for beer and there is a definition for ale, stout, and porter. They're the same, but there are two different definitions.
When you want to put a Belgian-style wheat beer or an India Pale Ale, it creates confusion for people who are reviewing the labels at the liquor boards across the provinces or even within the Canadian Food Inspection Agency—not confusion, but it requires extra clarification. If you have a product that you're ready to launch, you have all your labels already done and you've had it pre-approved, and somebody in one province says, “No, that doesn't meet the definition of a beer, you'll have to label it differently”, that's where you get into product launch delays.
Another example would be.... In the last couple of years we've seen a lot of innovation with Belgian-style beers coming on to the market—they use spices, for example. Spices aren't specifically listed within the beer standard, so if you put on your label somewhere that it's made with malt, barley, hops, and spices, all of a sudden that is no longer a beer, and that has issues for distribution, taxation, and all kinds of things. Then you're dealing with the regulators, or whoever is approving the labels or approving that listing of that brand: “No, it is a beer, and this is a very traditional beer. They've been making it for thousands of years and everybody thinks of it as a beer.” It's just the quirkiness of not having spices within the food and drug regulations that is causing difficulty.
We've found ways to work within the definition there now, but everybody acknowledges that it needs to be modernized to accommodate all the different styles that are coming on to our shelves.