Environment Committee on May 19th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Welcome to meeting number 33 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

Today we are studying Bill C-12, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. I won't go over all the procedural rules because they are quite obvious.

I ask witnesses to address the committee through the chair. When you are not speaking, your mic should be on mute.

This afternoon, we have five groups of witnesses with us. We have, as an individual, Robert McLeman, professor in the department of geography and environmental studies at Wilfrid Laurier University; from Climate Action Network Canada, Caroline Brouillette, policy analyst; from Équiterre, Marc-André Viau and Émile Boisseau-Bouvier; from Mothers Step In, we welcome Dr. Kelly Marie Martin and Laure Waridel; and from Pulse Canada, we have Corey Loessin and Greg Northey.

Each group will have five minutes for its opening remarks. Then there will be two rounds of questions from the members of the committee.

I will be following the order on the list I have here.

Mr. McLeman, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Prof. Robert McLeman, Professor, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Wildfrid Laurier University, As an Individual]

Take you very much.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen

I'll be making my presentation in English but will be able to answer questions in French.

Thank you.

First of all, I would like to thank the committee and the committee members for this opportunity to address Bill C-12, which is probably one of the most important public policy initiatives to be undertaken by the Government of Canada in many years. I hope that my comments and the written brief that I provided earlier will be of some help in further refining the bill and will lead to its adoption and implementation.

I am an environmental scientist by training, but from 1990 until 2002 I was a Canadian foreign service officer. I served at Canadian embassies and consulates in the former Yugoslavia, India, Hong Kong, Seattle and Vienna, so I have some practical experience of how federal policies are acted upon once they're implemented.

I left government about 20 years ago and I have since been a researcher and a professor, specializing in the study of the human impacts of climate change. I was at the University of Ottawa before, and now I am at Wilfrid Laurier.

In particular, I specialize in studying how climate change affects human migration, displacement, and what is often referred to in the popular media as “environmental refugees”. I was nominated by the Government of Canada and am currently serving on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, where I am a coordinating lead author for a team of 13 scientists from around the world who are currently assessing the impacts of climate change on human health, well-being, migration and conflict. What I am going to say now reflects that.

Decisions taken by governments today, including through this bill, will have a tremendous influence on both our well-being and our economic prosperity for decades to come, and failure to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 will have consequences for our children—including my own—and grandchildren—yet to come, I hope—which can truthfully be described as catastrophic. Just allow me to give a few brief examples.

We're currently entering into a drought spring in western Canada, with all the challenges that presents for farmers and for urban municipal watershed managers and so on. If we do nothing to control our greenhouse gas emissions, the current trajectory of what we will see in the second half of this century is an up to 500% increase in the frequency of those severe droughts that we've seen in the Prairies every 20 to 30 years—the big ones—in western North America.

For every degree Celsius that we warm the planet from today, we increase by about 50% the risk of severe or catastrophic flooding, which affects many of the constituencies represented in this group today. The World Bank has estimated that by the year 2050, a business's usual emission scenario could lead to as many as 140 million people displaced from their homes, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa, Central America and South Asia. To give you some context, right now the annual number of people displaced worldwide is about 21 million people, so we're looking at a sevenfold increase by 2050.

Last year I was approached by the community of Tuktoyaktuk for advice and assistance on planning the relocation of that community, because by 2050 the town site will no longer be viable because of flooding, permafrost loss and erosion.

The point is that these are not hypothetical risks. These are things that are happening or that will happen. The good thing is that they are avoidable if we take action, such as through Bill C-12.

I wish to draw the committee's attention to three specific points in the brief I submitted.

First, with respect to clause 16 of the bill, there is no consequence for failure to achieve the emissions reductions targets that the minister sets. Essentially what happens is that the minister is told to formulate a plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions; if that plan fails, then the minister is instructed to make a new plan. That is how governments in this country have dealt with greenhouse gas emissions policies since we signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. We set targets; we make plans; we miss them; we come up with new plans, and the circle repeats itself. I think committee members will recognize that we need to avoid that situation in this bill.

Second, there are now specific milestones with respect to emissions reduction targets in the bill. It simply says, here are some years for which the minister shall set some milestones and move forward that way. We already have targets set by the Government of Canada. We already know what the final destination is. It's 100% reduction in current emissions by the year 2050, so I think it's quite simple at this point to put the targets right in the bill and proceed quickly to making the actual action plans.

Finally, just to wrap up my presentation, what is missing from Bill C-12 is a formal mechanism to ensure that the provincial governments and the territorial governments are actively involved in the formulation of plans and in the implementation and execution of those plans. Consultation is not enough. We've seen that. I am not naive. I recognize that simply getting the provincial governments and the federal government to agree to something, let alone act upon it, is a big task, but the fact that it's a big task doesn't mean to say that we should not be attempting it and insisting that it be done.

I also recognize that the challenges to reducing greenhouse gas emissions will fall more greatly on certain provinces and sectors than on others. At the same time, the benefits of a transition to a green economy in terms of the innovations, the technologies, the economic benefits and the general improvements in well-being will also fall disproportionately to those sectors and provinces that have the greatest accomplishments.

The reality is this: The world is transitioning to a low-carbon economy, and Canada is either going to be left behind or it's going to be a part of it, and I encourage us, through this bill, to be a part of it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. McLeman.

Now we will hear from Caroline Brouillette, from Climate Action Network Canada.

Go ahead, Ms. Brouillette

[Caroline Brouillette, Policy Analyst, Climate Action Network Canada]

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for having us.

Today I am speaking from the unceded lands of the Kanien'keháka people.

I represent Climate Action Network Canada, which is a network of more than 130 organizations, including labour, development, faith-based and indigenous groups, as well as the key national and provincial environmental organizations working on climate change across the country.

Canada has been setting climate targets for decades and has failed to deliver on every single greenhouse gas emission reduction commitment it has ever made. Canada is the only G7 nation whose emissions remain well above 1990 levels and whose emissions have continued to rise since the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2015. If we missed target after target, it wasn't because those targets were too ambitious or unattainable—quite the contrary. It is because of the critical lack of climate governance in this country.

Bill C-12 is a chance for us to rectify the situation, but it has to be amended. Working with our members and colleagues from Ecojustice, West Coast Environmental Law and Équiterre, we have submitted a briefing note to the committee that outlines, under five headings, recommendations to reinforce Bill C-12 and to make it a more robust piece of climate accountability legislation. Those headings are: ambitious short-term action, medium- and long-term certainty, credible and effective plans, accountability and science and expert opinion.

On Monday, you heard my colleagues discuss a number of those headings, all of which are equally important. Today I will focus my remarks on ambitious short-term action and accountability.

To limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the critical threshold beyond which we expose ourselves to the most disastrous and irreversible impacts of climate change, we must completely decarbonize the economy by 2050. This long-term objective is important, but so is the path we take to achieve it. To reach this temperature-related objective, we must flatten the curve of greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions as soon as possible, and that means we must start work now. To borrow an analogy that committee members will remember, studying in advance rather than cramming the night before the exam is the right strategy for better results.

Consequently, the lack of an interim target for 2025 is troubling. Bill C-12 should at least establish a control point before 2030, provide that plans include modeling that reflects emissions for every year, including 2025, and require regular reports on progress achieved starting in 2023.

While carbon budgets were not the approach chosen by the drafters of this bill, international examples have clearly shown the benefits of a budgeting approach to facilitate choices that have an impact on emissions. CAN-Rac still believes Canada would benefit from such an approach, but in the absence of carbon budgets, Bill C-12 must at the very least require plans to show annual emissions projections if it is to come close to having the efficacy of the international examples.

Now let's talk about accountability, an essential component of responsibility. Legislation elsewhere in the world clearly defines who is responsible for meeting targets and how those targets are to be met. As in any financial undertaking, someone must be ultimately responsible for ensuring that all measures adopted to meet commitments are adequate.

This element is still missing from Bill C-12, and the minister should be required to demonstrate that, taken together, the measures outlined in the plans will make it possible to achieve targets. The choice of words is also important in describing legal obligations. The language chosen should avoid references to obligations "to try" and instead establish obligations "to achieve" results.

To conclude, a strengthened Bill C-12 has the potential to end our cycle of broken climate promises and forge a path for Canada towards a future that is healthier, more resilient and more just, and that prioritizes abundance and well-being for all. We ask all parties to work together to strengthen and adopt Bill C-12 quickly. If you, committee members, and your colleagues in the House rise to the challenge, history will remember you as the parliamentarians who ushered in a new era of climate accountability in this country.

Thank you very much.

I will be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Brouillette.

Now we have the two representatives from Équiterre.

Gentlemen, will you be sharing your five minutes or will one of you be making the presentation?

[Marc-André Viau, Director, Government Relations, Équiterre]

We will be sharing our time, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's fine.

You have the floor, Mr. Viau.

[Marc-André Viau]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and distinguished members of the committee.

My name is Marc-André Viau, and I am the director of government relations at Équiterre. I will be sharing my time with my colleague, Émile Boisseau-Bouvier, who is our climate policy analyst.

First, I would like to say a few words about our organization. We have been in existence for more than 25 years, and we have more than 150,000 members and supporters. We have expertise in climate and energy policy, mobility and food and consumption systems at both the Quebec and federal levels.

Together with the Quebec Environmental Law Centre, from which you'll be hearing when the next panel of witnesses takes our place, we recently defended, before the Supreme Court, the position that the federal government has jurisdiction over the carbon pricing system in a manner consistent with the jurisdiction of the provinces.

We thank you for this opportunity to discuss Bill C-12. I will begin with a brief reminder. The first climate accountability bill was introduced nearly 15 years ago. For all kinds of wrong reasons, the bill that the House of Commons passed at the time, Bill C-311, didn't receive royal assent in 2010. Consequently, one might say we've already missed the first milestone set forth in that bill, which was a 25% reduction in greenhouse gases from 1990 levels by 2020.

I hope we don't miss our rendezvous—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I think we've lost you, Mr. Viau.

[Émile Boisseau-Bouvier, Analyst, Climate Policy and Ecological Transition, Équiterre]

Mr. Chair, I can continue if my colleague is having problems.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

All right. We had stopped the clock.

Then I turn the floor over to you, Mr. Boisseau-Bouvier.

[Émile Boisseau-Bouvier]

Thank you very much.

I'll continue where my colleague unfortunately left off.

This time, we hope we don't miss our rendezvous with history. Some changes will have to be made to ensure that's not the case.

The purpose of our presentation is precisely to propose improvements to Bill C-12 to guarantee that better mechanisms are put in place to achieve our targets.

We have submitted a brief together with our colleagues from Ecojustice, West Coast Environmental Law and Climate Action Network Canada. We invite you to consult it for more details.

As you heard on Monday, we have established that five pillars are needed to firm up Bill C-12. First, we must act quickly and have ambition. Second, we need medium- and long-term predictability. Third, we must draft credible plans and reports. Fourth, we need robust accountability mechanisms, and, fifth, planning must be guided by the advice of experts and the best available scientific data.

We wish to draw your attention to the last two pillars.

The fourth pillar is very important because of our unfortunate tendency to fall short of our targets. The accountability mechanisms provided for under Bill C-12 as drafted are weak, even nonexistent. For example, the bill establishes no obligation to align the measures proposed in the plans with the necessary reductions to achieve the targets. Consequently, we believe that, to solve this part of the problem, the government must focus mainly on absolute GHG emissions reductions, not on carbon credits or future technologies.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't conduct research and development, but rather that we should base our decisions on what currently exists, not on what we would like to see in an ideal world.

In our brief, we ask that Bill C-12 ensure that 90% of efforts to achieve carbon neutrality focus on absolute reductions and that there be a demonstrable alignment between established targets and measures proposed in the climate plans.

The fifth pillar is equally important. Canadians must be confident that decisions are based on the best available scientific data, not on political compromises.

Science helps remove politics from decisions, which can at times be emotional and polarizing. The result is better governance. For example, the United Kingdom's climate change committee, which was established under its climate legislation, is wholly independent and bases its decisions on the most recent scientific evidence. It works. The committee's opinions are respected by all parties, despite changes in government, and the United Kingdom is in a better position than Canada to achieve its GHG emissions reduction targets.

More specifically, it is essential that the targets and plans provided for under Bill C-12 be based on the best available scientific information. Clause 8 of the bill currently provides that the minister must merely take into account the best scientific information available in setting targets.

Relying on science also means that the advice provided by the advisory body must be based on the best available scientific data concerning credible paths to achieving carbon neutrality and meeting Canada's commitments under the Paris Agreement.

Yesterday the International Energy Agency announced that no new fossil energy projects can be authorized if we want to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. That's the kind of information that is essential to the credible decision-making that must be considered and conveyed by the advisory committee.

In conclusion, Bill C-12 has the potential to become the structural legislative framework necessary to achieve Canada's climate ambitions and targets. To ensure this actually happens, we invite parliamentarians to accept the amendments we have just discussed, which complement those proposed by our colleagues from other environmental organizations that have testified before the committee.

Thank you for your attention.

I will be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Boisseau-Bouvier.

We will now hear from the two representatives of the Mothers Step In organization.

Ladies, will you be sharing your speaking time or will only one of you make the presentation?

[Dr. Kelly Marie Martin, Doctor and Epidemiologist, For Our Kids Montreal, Mothers Step In]

It is I, Dr. Kelly Martin, who will be speaking. Dr. Waridel will answer questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. Go ahead, please.

[Dr. Kelly Marie Martin]

I am here today on behalf of tens of thousands of mothers, fathers and grandparents across Canada, represented by two national networks, Mères au front and For Our Kids. For Our Kids is across Canada from coast to coast, and Mères au front is in many provinces, with tens of thousands of people who are asking for climate change action.

We are here to ask you, no matter what your political party is, to take courageous action on the climate crisis. We desperately need a climate accountability act in Canada that will protect our children from the climate emergency, but Bill C-12 is not ambitious enough and we have concrete proposals to make it the bill our children need.

First and foremost, you must know that our population and our children are already dying from the effects of climate change. For instance, a 2021 publication from the Harvard School of Public Health shows that close to 900 babies die annually in North America as a result of particulate matter in our air, which is a direct result of burning fossil fuels. The evidence shows that increasing temperatures, heat waves and the emissions from burning fossil fuels not only exacerbate child respiratory illness and death but cause them.

If you have any excuses in your mind for not taking bolder action on the climate crisis, I invite you to let me walk you through one of the many cases I've seen in our pediatric emergency, of a perfectly well baby losing their life because they cannot breathe.

As wildfires rage through many of our provinces as we speak, droughts threaten our food security and farming livelihoods, and deaths from extreme heat events become more common, we as parents feel strongly that it is our job to be sure that you protect our children. This is why we are here before you today. We feel very strongly that four aspects of Bill C-12 must be improved if this bill is to protect current and future generations.

First, a key aspect is that our kids need a climate accountability act with real accountability to ensure that the incremental targets are met. This means an impartial advisory committee. The majority of this committee must be experts in climate science and exclude industry representatives. The committee, as it exists, must be reassessed. The U.K.'s climate accountability law, as one of the previous speakers said, is working. They have an arm's-length, truly expert-led advisory committee that can take action when government decisions threaten the commitments to targets.

Second, Bill C-12 must be a race to carbon neutrality. We need to go faster than what is proposed in this bill. The science about this is very clear. Reset the first target to 2025, with a clear plan from now until then. Canada is already 30 years late in meeting its climate goals, so deferring until 2030 sets us up to fail.

Third, Bill C-12 must be modified to ensure that every decision taken by the government goes through a climate test in order to evaluate how policies will impact our reduction targets. Because greenhouse gas emissions transcend jurisdictions and sectors, we need to ensure that all government decisions are in harmony with our climate goals.

Finally, it is the responsibility of the government, and that is you, to ensure intergenerational equity and to take actions that protect future generations. Our children cannot vote, but it is they who will be impacted the most by a bill whose present target would result in a rise in temperature of 3°C in their lifetimes. We are asking you to remember your obligation to their future as you work to change these targets to match the science.

This is the fight for our children's lives. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown us what happens when we put short-term economic benefits ahead of their lives and the long-term economic success of Canadians. The climate crisis is not different.

I believe that all of you, as members of different political parties, care about the future of our kids and your kids, and understand that our industry and economy have to change rapidly to compete internationally, given the reality of the climate crisis. Our kids are looking to you to ensure a livable planet and jobs in the new or the green economy that will sustain their generation in the future.

We are not asking for more than Canadians want, nor are we asking you more than you can deliver. Our children deserve your action and your protection. They need you to act as courageous politicians in this crisis to ensure them a livable future.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Dr. Martin.

We'll go to Pulse Canada, for Mr. Loessin's opening remarks.

[Corey Loessin, Farmer and Chair, Pulse Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and thanks for the opportunity to speak to the committee on behalf of 30,000 Canadian pulse growers. I am Corey Loessin. I farm with my wife and son northwest of Saskatoon. We grow peas, lentils, canola, wheat, oats and barley. We've farmed here for 30 years. My family has farmed on the same land for 125 years.

For the past year I've served as chair of the board of Pulse Canada. Pulse Canada is the national organization that represents growers, traders, processors and exporters of Canadian pulses, including peas, lentils, chickpeas, dry beans and fava beans. Our membership consists of grower organizations across the country, from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario, and also the Canadian Special Crops Association, representing over 100 processors and exporters of pulses.

Canada is the world's largest exporter of pulse crops. Our pulse industry is well established and continues to grow in terms of acres seeded and domestic and international demand. We export pulses to over 130 countries around the world, with priority markets in China, India, the EU and the United States.

In 2017, the pulse industry established a “25 by 2025” objective, an industry-wide goal seeking to provide 25% of our Canadian production into new, diversified markets and new end uses by the year 2025. Our strategy is to create new demand for Canadian pulses while finding efficiencies in the trade environment and continuing to keep existing markets open.

Pulses are very well positioned to take advantage of emerging global food trends that emphasize healthy and sustainable diets and food products. While sustainability may not be the leading factor influencing consumers' food choices, we believe it's going to become increasingly important as the world finds a way to feed a growing population with nutritious food from sustainable food systems.

At Pulse Canada we have two goals that drive our sustainability work. Number one is to create conditions so that growers, processors and exporters can seize high-value market opportunities resulting from global sustainability commitments. Number two is to establish the Canadian pulse sector as a leader in providing food and ingredient solutions that drive Canada's carbon reduction targets and demonstrate our industry as a global leader in fighting climate change.

With reference to Bill C-12, of course, if Canada is to capitalize on the tremendous opportunity in front of us, it must show some leadership at the policy level. Pulse Canada fully endorses policy that creates market-driven conditions for growers, processors and exporters to monetize commitments being made to global environmental sustainability. Pulses and pulse ingredients are some of the most sustainable foods around, due to their capacity to fix nitrogen, their water-use efficiency and their contribution to soil health. Thanks to the world-leading stewardship practices of our producers, Canadian pulses are a leader among sustainably grown crops.

As the conversation around sustainability grows, so does the expectation of Canadian pulse growers and the trade to realize and monetize the opportunity that exists. With Bill C-12, the government is seeking to outline Canada's path to achieving net zero by the year 2050. Canada's pulse industry will play a key role in achieving those targets.

There's real economic opportunity in meeting the global food demand for ingredients produced in a sustainable manner, and this demand has been created by the marketplace. Market-driven solutions are the way Canadian businesses will be able to remain competitive. It is important to each and every farmer who has the opportunity to meet this growing global demand on his or her terms as a small business owner.

To ensure that Canada's path to net zero is market driven, Pulse Canada is advocating for seats on advisory bodies to be allocated to Canadian agriculture—both farmers and representatives from the broader agriculture value chain. Government should look to the expertise our industry has already gained from having been involved in lowering emissions for the past several decades.

I can tell you that on our own farm we've seen tremendous gains being made in soil conservation in particular, and soil health.

Finally, please note that in Canada we export about 85% of the pulse crops we grow. There's more than one way to meet climate targets, and the correct path forward must take a broader look at how Canada meets its targets by supporting and expanding free trade. By investing in trade-enabling infrastructure and supporting agricultural exports, the government can ensure that Canada continues to be a key player in the world's net-zero solution.

In closing, I'd like to re-emphasize that the agriculture sector, and specifically the Canadian pulse sector, will be a major contributor to Canada's success on the path to net zero. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Loessin.

We'll go to our rounds of questioning. We start with our six-minute round, which will be led off today by Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome to all the witnesses. I thank you all for being here and sharing your thoughts and knowledge with us today.

I just want to pick up right from there, with Pulse Canada. I know that Saskatchewan is a huge producer of agricultural products, including pulse crops, like you mentioned. Mr. Loessin, we are very well aware of a company called Flexi-Coil. I spent 20 years at that company. One thing the company did was to innovate in air drill—air seeder technology—which allowed the zero tillage change to come to agriculture. It essentially was a market-driven approach to innovation that had all kinds of advantages, many of them environmental.

I guess I'd like to ask you just to reinforce or explain the importance of market-driven solutions to reducing emissions in the farming sector.

[Corey Loessin]

That is a great analogy. The move to zero till—through my career, really, over the last 30 years—has just been a tremendous benefit in western Canada. Soil erosion has gone from catastrophic, I would say, in the early 1980s, to almost non-existent today. That's all been market-led, as you mentioned. Farmers embraced that change in farming systems, really, as a result of technology being available and the market enabling them to adopt that technology.

I should also add that on our farm, in that same time period, our fuel consumption has dropped by approximately 50%, just because we are not using tillage to work the land anymore, so we make much fewer field passes, if you like.

Any time you can see an example like that, where there has been technology and market pull coming together to enable a system to adapt, and farmers embrace that system and employ it, it's just a success story. The same thing can happen, is happening and can happen further with regard to how emissions and crop rotations can further enhance the drive to get to a net-zero position in the future.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thanks. Your group has been very vocal for free trade agreements, to opening foreign markets. As you say, pulses are almost all exported out of Canada.

Buyers need certainty. I guess one thing I've seen that the Liberals have been really good at is adding uncertainty to businesses in Canada: for example, changes to the regulations on the natural resource development programs we've seen in the country.

Recently, the Liberals shifted the environmental goalposts on a few things. Carbon tax, for example, is now three or four times what it was originally supposed to be. Then, just recently, emissions targets have gone from 30%, to 36%, to 45%. Do these shifting goalposts cause problems for farmers? Does this lack of certainty cause problems for your overseas customers?

[Corey Loessin]

There are two points I could add there. Farming, farm business, is a long-term enterprise, so you have to plan for the long term. Many of the practices we employ are put in place for the long-term benefit. In our case, it's mostly about the soil. Preserving the soil is so important, so we have long-term strategies and methods to do the best we can over that period of time.

When things change, yes, you have to adapt, but when costs increase suddenly or dramatically, essentially the effect is that it restricts your ability to adapt. A lot of the adaptation to, say, zero tillage, like we mentioned before, did require considerable investment on behalf of farmers. If cost increases restrict the ability to adapt as needed, it slows that process down, I would say.

The second point about reliability to export customers, is that it's absolutely critical. We have a number of pieces of our export chain, if you like, that experience problems from time to time, and that always concerns our export customers. The more reliable a supplier we can be to huge markets like India and China, and I should add quality markets like the EU, the better off the whole industry is in both the short and long run.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I have one last question I want to ask you here. Canada is very diverse in terms of agriculture in different provinces. In Saskatchewan we grow a lot of lentils and peas; in Manitoba, sunflowers, etc. If we had the opportunity to strengthen this legislation through an amendment such as forcing the government to consider regional economic impacts, do you believe that would benefit farmers?

[Corey Loessin]

It would. In fact, it's really necessary. There are regional differences between my farm in Saskatchewan, a farm in Manitoba and a farm in Ontario. There needs to be ability to manage that on a regional basis to the best of the farmers' ability and the needs of the environment that you operate in. I think regional adaptation is absolutely critical.

Thank you.