Yes, absolutely, the more we can do on harmonization with the U.S. and reducing those transactional costs.... Our prices are hinged directly to U.S. prices. Every time you add a transaction cost or a different cost, it costs the Canadian cattle and pork industries, but in this case, when you look at the feed ban....
But I also want to come back to the tolerance issues, when we're looking at the symptomatic issues underneath, which don't necessarily stand up when you look purely at harmonization. In the U.S., for instance, they're creating a tolerance whereby they can vacuum out the brain as part of their procedure. In Canada, we don't have that tolerance. We have to condemn the whole skull. So suddenly we still have another 25 to 30 pounds of additional material that they don't in the U.S., all because of a tolerance difference between the two.
You have to get back to that solutions-based approach: does doing this actually achieve anything more than doing that? That's why, first, it's the firm principle of harmonization, which we in the round table agree with, but secondly, it's back to how you put in place appropriate tolerances and looking at what the actual outcome of doing that is.