Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today and providing your insights.
My questions are for Mr. Webb.
First off, thank you very much for the work GIFS did on some of the analysis of Canadian agriculture and our carbon footprint compared to other parts of the world. I think those results are staggering in terms of showing the global standard that we've set in Canada compared to other jurisdictions.
I think the position for leadership and government in Canada should be to be encouraging the rest of the world to get to where Canada already is when it comes to fertilizer use, efficiency, precision agriculture and all those things. We have an incredible story to tell, and your work is certainly helping us to do that.
In regard to your testimony, you said that agriculture is different from the “built industries”, as you put it, which are going to be under the jurisdiction of a new CBAM in the EU and perhaps in other jurisdictions. My questions for you are going to be similar to those I had for our department heads.
My concern with a CBAM is that although there may be the best of intentions—we've all heard the analogy of how the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions—this could be another example of a non-tariff trade barrier, where there's going to be that protectionism in other jurisdictions. In your opinion, what are the potential detriments to this if there is not a very clear standard or regulation outlined in terms of what other jurisdictions would be asked to meet to access those markets?
I know that agriculture is not included in the EU plan that is coming out in 2026-27, but if that were to be expanded to include agricultural products, how critical is it, first, that there's a very clear set of regulations or set of criteria and, second, that those jurisdictions make science-based decisions so that if we do meet those criteria we access that market?