Sure. I can give you some examples from some of our member companies. For example, Syngenta has hired a wheat breeder, and Bayer has substantially increased their production.
One of the things they said to us before some of these regulatory changes happened, which I'll get into in a second, was that it was easier for them to develop a new seed treatment or a new fungicide than it was to develop a new variety they could use that would be resistant to the pests they were trying to control.
Bayer has taken a more optimistic view. CPS, which used to be Viterra, has also started to take a more optimistic view of cereals.
There were a number of things that happened, such as changes in the marketing structures and the opening up of some of the classes of wheat for delivery, for example. Another example is the broadening of the Canadian prairie spring class for milling wheat, which was a big step.
A really, really big step that was taken was the removal of kernel visual distinguishability as a requirement for wheat variety registration. You can now bring in stuff that looks like hard red spring but has better attributes and maybe stronger straw and a higher yield, so that was a very positive thing.
Bill C-18 in itself, just that promise that finally after over 20 years we were going to bring our intellectual property protection regime in line with that of the rest of the world, created a lot of optimism. It's more optimism than anything.
I know there's a lot of work going on now around things like drought resistance. They're bringing in new variety, new germ plasm, to increase yield for the fuel industry, for the ethanol industry, so it is a very positive, bright scene out there right now, if they can get around the rail problems—but that's another story—for the cereal industry in particular in western Canada.