Thank you, Chair.
I'll take your points maybe in reverse order. In terms of the notion that agriculture both creates problems and has benefits, absolutely, and we talk extensively in the audit about that. For example, we use the example of carbon sequestration. If soils are well managed, they can in fact sequester carbon. So there's very much a recognition throughout the experts in this field that it's both about problems and benefits.
In terms of studies that have shown the increased impact, one of the things we also note in here is that it really is a mixed picture. I have a specific reference I can give you: paragraph 3.7. If you look over the last 20 years, some things have gotten better and some things have gotten worse. On the soil example, one of the success stories in Canada is how soil conservation has improved in the last 20 years. But equally well on the negative side, if you look at some of the nutrient-loading issues, nitrogen phosphorus runoff, there's been degradation.
The nature of the problem is really, as we say in this chapter, that the department has to be in a much better position than it has been to show how its expenditures, $370 million each year, are actually impacting both the good and the bad.