Absolutely. I think the one message here with regard to enforcement of penalties—and our overriding theme and how Deanna was presenting it—is that it's good to have a stick.
I think you need government's utilization of the stick in the supply chain, which is always a good thing. It keeps everybody honest. But make sure you're hitting the right person over the head with it. Also, make sure that those who are out there conducting themselves in an inappropriate manner are dealt with. If we're going to toughen the standards, let's make sure we're selecting the right targets to send the message to. Then, when you get specific within those sectors—Deanna brought up AMPs, tagging issues, and there are also some market issues—make sure the message is sent to everyone in the supply chain.
We are the small player in the food supply chain. We're an important player, but we're everyone's customer. We are the weakest link in the supply chain when it comes to leverage.
Therefore, when penalties are introduced, we say to government that it's not necessarily a bad thing. Regulation is not a bad thing, especially when it comes to this area. But let's make sure we're keeping everyone honest in the supply chain, that we're rewarding the good players and focusing in on the bad actors, and in this case, making sure they get out of there.
When you're dealing with biosecurity and animal welfare, you need to make sure that only the best of the best are in this business. It's too important, both for import and export, for the end-user, and in our area, for the animals' welfare.
We are, as the other member mentioned, very visible representation for animal welfare and animal safety in this area, so let's make sure that only the best are on the road with regard to transportation of these animals.