If I may, I'd like to answer that in three parts.
First of all, we constantly look at new innovation for the marketplace. We're constantly trying to introduce new technologies that better serve Canadian production agriculture, be it chemistry, trait development, or biologicals.
With respect to what it would mean to us financially, imidacloprid has a very broad label. It's used extensively for everything from fleas and ticks in your dogs and cats to control of wireworms in wheat production in Saskatchewan. It is a generic product. It's supplied by many people in the marketplace, which is an advantage for growers. It's a very affordable product. It represents good economic value for growers.
What would it mean to us if it were phased out? More importantly, I think, is what would it mean, as Pierre said, to the reputation of Canada when we have a very safe, efficacious product that's been in use for 20 years with no reported negative environmental impact, but it's decided to be phased out by this country? What would that mean to the competitiveness of Canadian agriculture and to the reputation of the PMRA as a regulatory agency?