I appreciate that. I went to this because I actually agree. I think that on a farm—and obviously this committee deals with primary producers all the time—it's the first part that they do well at, as you've indicated. There's a tendency to want a period after that statement and nothing else.
I think you're correct in the statement. When I read through it, innate behaviour, for instance...we're not talking about how we rear them—and, quite frankly, without trying to be crass about it, we raise meat animals for slaughter for consumption. That's what we do. There's nothing wrong with that, by the way. It's what we do.
The second part, the behavioural piece of it, is the piece that I think, Mr. Wilkes, you see from your retail members via their customers. In my sense, there is a confusion coming from taking the innate behaviour piece of it and transposing it onto the idea that they're not well cared for. The reality is that animals are well cared for, if we look at the first part of the statement. It's the behavioural part that folks transpose onto that when they say we don't let them do something and therefore they're not well cared for. The reality, in my view, beyond the behaviour piece—and this is my personal opinion—is that the fact that they're safe, well-nourished, and looked after...from that perspective, it's true.
I wonder if you could comment on that, Mr. Wilks, as to whether you see it that way or in some altogether different way.