Thank you.
Again, I just want to assure that we're thinking more globally and make sure that the multilateral trade agreement that we already have is able to help us and help others around the world determine what's a trade barrier and what's not.
The difficulty with carbon adjustments spread all over the world is how you determine equivalency. Who is going to arbitrate that? We've already experienced a lot of that with the EU. We don't do it their way; therefore, they won't allow something in. It's not based on science particularly, and I feel and I sense that is going to happen in this case, and it's going to get worse. We need a WTO to be able to be strong and have wording and maybe an agreed chapter on this. I don't know what it is, but it needs to bring some semblance of commonality and rules around this so that trade is not impeded.
I want to branch off just a little bit, if I may. This feels and looks like it's protectionist, and it's happening all over the world. This is an example of a protectionist type of adjustment. You could call it a corrective adjustment, but I will call it protectionist, because traders will look at it as protectionism if it impedes their ability to trade.
We're experiencing that right now with canola with China. A protectionist measure by Canada triggered a venomous attack on our industry, and farmers are going to pay dearly for Canada's decision to put tariffs on China. Farmers don't deserve that. That is a big issue. That's an example of what we want to avoid.