Thank you for the question.
I guess my perspective on that, honourable member, is that, as have you--and I'm sure most other members around the table--I've heard, over the last four years now, the pain of individual producers, with what this has done to them and what it continues to do to them. The one message I hear repeatedly from the producers, whether it's in the barns at exhibitions, in county meetings, or in provincial meetings, is that they need to be sure that when they buy and feed their animals, the system is protecting them, because when the system fails, the pain is felt by the individual producer. That has been a very clear message and a very clear motivation from day one in managing this circumstance.
While we acknowledge that there may be trickle costs in the short term, we are working diligently to create alternate markets, as has been referenced here. We believe the designation of Canada internationally, by the World Organization for Animal Health, as a controlled BSE country opens up new markets to us. It expands existing markets to us and maintains domestic confidence that what we're doing is the right thing. It also allows us the opportunity to pursue other uses of SRM material, to create an international standard that would allow for trade in feeds from which SRM has been removed from production, to put value back into the carcass.
Others can speak to the research that's being done in other areas to find alternate use for the material. Again, some of those will not be immediate, but we believe, as has been said, that the longer-term market recovery and the longer-term interests in the industry's economic recovery will be accelerated by this.
Others may have a view as well, honourable chair.