Thank you very much. You are right on time.
I have quick question for either Mr. Cosbey or Mr. Charlebois.
It's interesting because the conversation is premised on whether we believe there's something to be done to support the sector in decarbonization or reducing emissions. I'm not hearing any of the testimony to say that it's not the case. The question becomes how you go about doing that.
Mr. Charlebois, you talked a lot about that, about green incentives, investment from the government. We're seeing a lot of that in the United States with the IRA. Carbon pricing is one tool. There are other tools. There are regulatory tools. There are government subsidies. All of that comes with a cost, either a cost to the producer or a cost to the national treasury, maybe a cost to the consumer. Then, of course, doing nothing on climate has its own cost.
Beyond CBAM, because, Mr. Cosbey, you've said that you think that's unrealistic—I think that's fair—is there ever a way that we're going to be able to reconcile the competitive advantage that Canadian agricultural already has from an emissions-intensity perspective in certain goods...or to be able to reconcile countries that are choosing to try to work with industries to reduce emissions that inherently have one of those cost factors? Do you ever account for that, or are we just going to decouple this conversation altogether and really that doesn't come into the fore?
That's what I want to get at. If you have 30 or 45 seconds each.... If not a carbon border adjustment—fine, because it's too complex—do you see a club system where countries that are actually choosing to do something get together and say, we're doing something, whether it's regulatory, subsidization or some form of carbon price? The countries that are not, are they subject to a tariff, or is this just decoupled completely and we never really account for that, either competitiveness or the true cost, in some form, of trying to reduce emissions?