In the long term, the trajectory is that we'll see more countries dealing with trade-related carbon measures. A lot of those may be border carbon adjustments—CBAMs—or they may be different models. We'll also possibly see the U.S. do something, but it may not be as climate-driven, or at least as domestically rooted, let me say that. There are already half a dozen bills in the U.S. with different suggestions before the change in administration.
I think Ms. Cobden, whose testimony was referred to, was talking about a carbon intensity-oriented focus. There's another approach about implicit carbon, which says that we're causing our manufacturers to spend a lot in the U.S. even though we don't impose a price.
I think implicit carbon, from a trade law point of view, is much tougher. I think intensity-based approaches could work and be married with charging above an intensity level. That creates an opportunity for Canada to think about doing a regime that works with Canada's climate policy, with maybe a bit of adaptation, but that becomes somewhat complementary to a design in the U.S., even if the U.S. is using a design that doesn't necessarily credit others.
I think we are in a better place as people who have already cracked the tough nut of starting to measure, monitor, report and price carbon.