It gets down to a market power question. We analyzed this a number of years ago. It changes if we have access to a large number of U.S. plants bidding, because then the market power is quite different from when they don't.
Captive supply is one of those things where there are good things about it and there are things that aren't good. If you happen to be one of those people who is on a formula system and developing contracts where you are able to forward-price your cattle because you're on a grid and you produce them to certain specifications, to be honest that's the type of innovation we want to encourage.
From time to time they will own more cattle on feed. If you happen to be the custom feeder who's doing that work and keeping your feedlot full, you'd be doing that differently from the person who is selling cattle the same week they're pulling cattle out of the pen.
It's never a completely simple question. The big debate in the U.S. when we went through this is that they would essentially be taking billions of dollars out of the ability to put cattle on feed if they limited packers from owning cattle.
I think the question always gets back to how you make sure in that environment that you can effectively create a competitive bidding environment. Certainly the rationalization we've seen in the packing industry is to make sure we have U.S. plants bidding actively at the same time as Canadian plants so no one plant is able to exercise over-influence on a market.