Thank you, Mr. Cannings.
There's just one quick question from me.
Mr. White, we can see whether your Internet issue has been resolved.
I think it's been very clear from the testimony that the complexity around a border adjustment mechanism is going to be very difficult for agriculture, both in an importation sense and even exporting. That's fine. What's your view, though?
Mr. White, your organization, through grain growers and through others, has goals of trying to reduce emissions and continue to drive sustainability. That has costs.
Mr. McCann, you've talked about more carrots and maybe fewer sticks, but that has costs to the taxpayers in this country and to the government treasury. How is that accounted for?
We've also heard, and we know, that Canadian agriculture is competitive in an intensity sense in carbon. Is it your view that we just don't account for that internationally, that Canada is not able to have a competitive advantage in that conversation, or that we should simply continue to subsidize heavily to get environmental outcomes without ever having that accounted for by countries that are not doing the same internationally? Is this a club approach, with a club of countries that are doing something and they're not subject to, perhaps, some type of tariff, and then countries that are demonstrably doing nothing should pay?
If I were to talk to farmers across the country, they would say, “I understand it's important to environmental sustainability, but I don't want to be undermined competitively in the world.” How do we square those two things? If there's not a carbon adjustment mechanism, is there any leadership? Is there any kind of consideration? Are we just trying to decouple those two things completely?