It seems like those work groups are the cart after the horse. We could have had work groups to inform the decisions versus having work groups to try to reverse or defend the agriculture positions. It puts us in a very difficult position because the agriculture committee is reporting back to Parliament to say how this lines up with health considerations, how it lines up with Dominic Barton's report saying that we have this huge opportunity that could be addressed through the technologies that your companies and organizations are working on, but it feels like the legs are getting taken out from under us a bit.
There are nods of the head, which go on the record as nods of the head.
I'm really struggling with this, because there is science that needs to be brought forward. Do we have enough time to get that science on the table and will it make a difference in the final decisions? If you'd been into the work groups and with the progress, we haven't had a lot of time to develop science.
I'll also say that the University of Guelph said to me that they don't have an alternative in the pipeline. I thought that because this decision had been made it must mean that there was an alternative in the pipeline, and they said in order to go through regulatory approvals there's no way that we'd be able to match the phase-out period with the development of a new product.