I was going to add that there are messages for the administration versus messages for Congress. The administration has to implement the law that Congress has given them, and so many of our fundamental problems are with the law itself.
For the administration, I think you can try to move them to understanding what this law is, that it is a marketing initiative and not a food safety issue. Some of the comments we've heard from some of the brand new administration officials, suggesting that this is about food safety, are moving this issue in the wrong direction. We think they need to be brought around on that account.
For the Congress, I think it's fair ball to remind them of what an important customer Canada is for their exports. I certainly agree with Jurgen that this law is damaging them in terms of their production by adding costs that make them less competitive, but we also buy an awful lot of their meat, fruits, vegetables, and other products.
In fact when you go to be briefed by them, the embassy will probably give you some graphs that show that every Canadian eats approximately $470 worth of U.S. agriculture exports every year. I can't recall the number, but I think it's about $55 of Canadian agriculture exports that every American eats every year. So the trade balance is about 9:1, on a per capita basis, in their favour.
Ultimately, I think the only way we will probably get the law changed is through a WTO action and a ruling against them. But it's about greasing the wheels along the way, to help them understand that they will ultimately have to change the law, and to condition them as to why.