Very briefly, I would state that it has to be borne in mind that the Health of Animals Act and its relative enforcement relate to a subset of diseases. It talks about reportable diseases. Canada benefits from a framework whereby agriculture is a jurisdiction shared between the federal government and the provincial governments. The provincial government deals with a number of diseases that are not dealt with under the Health of Animals Act because they are not reportable federally. It is that integration, I would say, that is very valuable in Canada because it gives a much broader coverage than this particular act does in isolation.
The existing provisions of the act, as you say, do take into account issues around contamination and toxic substances, but do not speak to how they are introduced. It's back to a comment I made, perhaps before your arrival, that when we look at the risk pathways that are involved and whether these risks in fact are low-probability events with high consequences, the vast majority would fall into that category. Therefore, again, we have to ask whether adding this additional tranche, if you will, of risk mitigation is going to be sufficient to mitigate those who advocate on the farm from introducing—inadvertently, accidentally or deliberately—a situation to the farm that's going to be detrimental to animal health or animal welfare.