Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue No. 40 - Evidence - Meeting of December 7, 2017
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 7, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8 a.m. to study the potential impact of the effects of climate change on the agriculture, agri-food and forestry sectors.
Senator Diane F. Griffin (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I welcome all of you to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I’m Senator Diane Griffin. I am from Prince Edward Island. We’ll start with the clerk and work our way around the room.
Kevin Pittman, Clerk of the Committee: Kevin Pittman, clerk of the committee.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
[English]
Senator Doyle: Norman Doyle, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: We have our two witnesses, so go ahead and introduce yourselves, please.
Ellen Burack, Director General, Environmental Policy, Policy Group, Transport Canada: I am Ellen Burack, Director General, Environmental Policy, Policy Group.
Marcia Jones, Executive Director, Legislative Analysis and Development, Policy Group, Transport Canada: I’m Marcia Jones, Executive Director, Legislative Analysis and Development, Policy Group.
The Chair: Thank you for accepting our invitation to appear here today. It’s great to have you. At this point I’m going to ask you to make your presentation. I think the clerk has given you instructions that it’s to be seven to 10 minutes in length, and then we’re going to allow people to ask questions after. When we do that, I’m going to ask the senators to keep their questions concise so that everyone can get their opportunity to ask their questions. Of course, if the witnesses could keep the answers concise, that would be great.
Go ahead with your presentation.
[Translation]
Ms. Burack: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for inviting Transport Canada to speak to your committee today.
[English]
I would like to begin by quoting Minister Garneau, who said:
Transportation plays a critical role in the Canadian economy by enabling Canadian products, services and people to access key markets, thus creating prosperity and economic opportunities. . . . A modern, safe, secure, reliable and environmentally responsible transportation system is essential to our economic wealth.
In a world and a country that is moving to address climate change and achieve deep greenhouse gas emissions reductions, the transportation sector that accounts for some 24 per cent of these emissions in Canada features prominently in climate change policies. Almost exactly a year ago on Saturday, the Prime Minister and provincial leaders agreed on the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. This is Canada’s action plan to meet our emissions reduction target, increase resilience to the changing climate and reap the benefits that can be derived from the transition to a low-carbon economy. The plan includes a pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution and measures to achieve reductions across all sectors of the economy, including transportation.
In 2016, Minister Garneau outlined Transportation 2030, the government’s strategic plan for a national transportation system that aims to create a safe, secure, green, innovative and integrated transportation system that supports trade and economic growth, a cleaner environment and the well-being of Canadians. Our actions under this plan are consistent with those in the pan-Canadian framework and show that it is possible and necessary to both grow the transportation sector and protect the environment.
While each mode of transportation faces unique challenges, each mode is advancing efforts to achieve efficiencies and improve the environmental performance of the transportation system.
Overall, transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions have been stable over the past decade, with decreases recorded for air and marine modes and increases for rail and road transportation.
For marine transportation, Canada has adopted a number of measures to reduce air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from ships, developed at the International Maritime Organization.
For example, the Energy Efficiency Design Index requires vessels on international trade that were constructed after January 2015 to meet energy efficiency targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, International Maritime Organization member states are working to develop a comprehensive strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships. Transport Canada has also worked with Canadian ports to develop emissions inventories and identify opportunities for efficiency and has supported shore power technology projects to allow ships to plug in while in port.
The aviation sector has been improving fuel efficiency through measures under voluntary agreements with the Government of Canada since 2005. Compared to 2014, Canadian air carriers improved their fuel efficiency by 0.8 per cent in 2015. This represents a 1.5 per cent average annual improvement from a 2008 baseline.
Significant progress is also being made to address international aviation emissions at the International Civil Aviation Organization, including the finalization of a carbon dioxide standard for new airplanes and a carbon offsetting and reduction scheme for international aviation that ensures carbon-neutral growth from 2020. Under the scheme, operators will be able to use sustainable aviation fuels to reduce their carbon offsetting obligations.
With respect to the rail sector, the current memorandum of understanding for reducing locomotive emissions between the Railway Association of Canada and Transport Canada builds upon the success of previous agreements dating back to 1995. The agreement currently extends until the end of 2017, and discussions are under way with the industry about next steps.
The sector has improved the efficiency of its operations through various approaches such as making improvements to matching horsepower to the tonnage being transported, reducing network congestion and increasing train velocity. The latest annual report published under this memorandum of understanding shows the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions from freight rail operations in 2014 improved by 3.6 per cent compared to 2013.
In the on-road sector, Environment and Climate Change Canada is continuing its work to implement emissions standards for post-2018 model year heavy-duty vehicles and engines, with proposed amendments to the existing regulations having been published in March 2017. In addition to this, under the pan-Canadian framework, the government will be working with provinces, territories and industry to develop new requirements for heavy-duty trucks to install fuel-saving devices like aerodynamic add-ons.
The pan-Canadian framework also underscores the significant risks that climate change impacts pose to communities, the health and well-being of Canadians, the economy and the natural environment, in particular in Canada’s northern and coastal regions, and indigenous peoples.
Actions are being taken in all regions and across all modes of transportation in anticipation of future climate conditions. For example, railway companies are undertaking vulnerability assessments of areas at risk; vessel operators are using electronic navigation services, radar and satellite technology to provide near-real-time ice charts, images and forecasts.
How our transportation adapts and becomes more resilient to the changing climate will be critical to Canada’s long-term prosperity as a major trading nation and to Canadians’ quality of life.
All of this work is complemented by the work of provinces and territories to support efficient transportation and trade corridors. This year, Ontario, New Brunswick, Alberta and British Columbia developed action plans that incorporate commitments and/or funding for infrastructure improvements that facilitate efficient multi-modal transportation or ensure transportation infrastructure is resilient and adapted to the effects of the changing climate.
The federal government, provinces, territories and industry are working collaboratively to support our long-term transportation objectives. This collaboration is absolutely critical to our collective success.
[Translation]
Thank you again for inviting us to speak to you here today. We’ll do our best to answer all your questions. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation.
Senator Doyle: We were in Halifax recently for committee meetings, and we had a professor come before us from Memorial University to talk about exactly what you’re talking about. She mentioned that the 17 OECD countries have an average of about 12.5 tonnes per capita of greenhouse gas emissions. I think we are up around 20.1 tonnes, she said. Is that a concern, namely, that we’re not at the same level as the OECD countries? Do you see that as changing any time soon? Do you think we can manage to get up around the same levels as these 17 OECD countries? We’re significantly below it right now in our GHG emissions. We’re about 8 tonnes below the per capita average. Is that a problem? Do you see that changing any time soon?
I don’t know if that is a fair question for you.
Ms. Burack: I would make a couple of observations about that. Different countries’ greenhouse gas emissions reflect their different challenges. In Canada, we have an extremely renewable electricity grid, whereas electricity is often the major portion of many of those European countries’ emissions. Transportation is a quarter of Canada’s emissions because of the size of the country and because of the climatic conditions in the country. It obviously takes more fuel to drive a vehicle in the winter because of the additional systems that need to be running. So having a cold, snowy winter increases our greenhouse gas emissions.
The pan-Canadian framework looks carefully at the emissions profile in Canada and targets the measures in there to address the specific challenges in Canada in order to bring greenhouse gas emissions down significantly.
It’s not necessarily productive to look at a kind of per capita approach because so many issues such as weather, geography and other things come into play when one is looking at what the per capita contribution to emissions is.
Senator Doyle: I don’t know whether your department would be focused on it, but I have a question on carbon pricing. We hear a great deal from stakeholders across the country that there is a problem with competitiveness in, say, the agriculture industry, the transport industry or what have you. When you consider that there is no harmonization at the international level for carbon pricing, I don’t know if the provinces are looking at that to have some kind of harmonization of carbon pricing at the international level to make competitiveness across the country fair and reasonable in the transport sector or agriculture or what have you.
Has that been looked at? I know back in April the Atlantic premiers had a council meeting. I think it was on their agenda that they would be looking at harmonization of carbon prices. Is it a concern of the Transport Department?
Ms. Burack: It’s important to remember that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change are the leads on the question of carbon pricing. Certainly Transport Canada is interested in the impacts on transportation of any of those policies. I can say that those departments are looking carefully at the implications for competitiveness of this suite of policies as they roll out.
Senator Doyle: In the transport sector, with respect to GHG emissions, a lot can depend on the mode of transportation. Some people have mentioned using engines that are fuelled by natural gas. Does natural gas have the heft that’s needed to move bulk shipments, say, of grain and that kind of thing? Have you looked at how natural gas can be used in these locomotives?
Natural gas doesn’t seem to be able to provide the same kind of pulling or the heft that’s needed as diesel would. Is that a factor you’re looking at as well?
Ms. Burack: Our understanding is that natural gas does have the capacity to be an effective fuel for rail.
Senator Doyle: Okay.
Ms. Burack: A number of companies in Canada and the U.S., for example, have been doing some testing of that. One of the main reasons that they have not yet moved in that direction is strictly a question of cost. The price of diesel has been sufficiently low as to not generate an incentive for them to experiment further with natural gas so far.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I also sit on the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. A lot of work is being done on autonomous vehicles. On May 26, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada announced that the Government of Canada, in collaboration with the provinces, territories and industry, will develop a national strategy to increase the number of zero emission motor vehicles on Canadian roads by 2018.
Could you share your comments on that? What steps have been taken to date to achieve this goal?
Ms. Burack: Thank you for the question. Discussions with the provinces and territories are ongoing.
[English]
Since that time that Ministers Bains and Garneau announced an advisory committee, that committee has met many times. It was quite representative of stakeholders across the country and has been providing advice to provinces and territorial officials, as well as federal officials. Discussions are under way between jurisdictions as to what might make sense in terms of a zero-emission vehicle strategy. Ministers have committed to have a Canada-wide strategy in 2018, and that is still on track.
The federal government has already made significant investments and identified resources to support growing infrastructure for vehicle recharging if it’s electric and for hydrogen fuelling if it’s fuel cell electric. About $80 million to date and two successive budgets have been dedicated to that, as well as some level of public education. As well, Environment and Climate Change Canada’s regulations with respect to light-duty vehicles already provide some incentive for automakers to have zero-emission vehicles in their fleets.
Certainly across the country it’s recognized that jurisdictions everywhere need to do more, and certainly in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec a lot has been done. Manitoba recently announced their plans with respect to zero-emission vehicles. Even in Saskatchewan’s plan this week they talked about the provincial fleet and looking at zero-emission vehicles there.
So there is quite a bit of momentum on this topic and extensive work under way.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: I imagine that Tesla’s announcement of their heavy-duty electric vehicles adds more interest in having new vehicles that can transport agricultural and forestry goods. Do you think the federal government is moving toward a possible ban on the sale of vehicles, such as diesel or gasoline-powered vehicles? I think France, England and Norway have announced their intention to eliminate the sale of gasoline-powered vehicles.
[English]
Ms. Burack: It’s true that many international jurisdictions have announced targets of 100 per cent zero-emission vehicle sales for their passenger and light duty fleets by anywhere from 2025 to 2050. Certainly what kind of long-term target makes sense in a Canadian context is something that is under consideration.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses. My question is also related to transportation vehicles. I want to talk about ethanol-based biodiesel. To burn the same amount of energy to produce biodiesel saves 120 per cent of GHG emissions. What are the drawbacks of ethanol use in vehicles? Is there any draw back?
Ms. Burack: For the vehicles themselves?
Senator Oh: Yes, or the lifespan compared to electric vehicles. Do you have any idea?
Ms. Burack: I don’t believe there are any implications for the vehicle itself to using biodiesel. The manufacturer’s warranty still applies, and there is no effect on the vehicle in terms of the use of biosourced fuels. Certainly from a life-cycle perspective, in a country like Canada where, for the most part across the country, our electricity grid is quite clean, an electrified passenger vehicle is an improvement from an emissions perspective over almost any other kind of vehicle. Similarly, if hydrogen is produced from clean electricity, a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is comparable to an electric vehicle.
I’m not sure if that answers your question.
Senator Oh: Yes. In which direction is our country going: biofuel, diesel or electric cars? When I travel overseas, I see that we are way behind on public transportation. For instance, with buses, I’ve seen other countries set up with electric buses running. They have big charging stations so that when the buses come back to the depot, they can recharge and then go out again. But we don’t have that kind of transportation being used over here yet. I think we are a bit behind compared to other cities around the globe on GHG emissions from any vehicles.
Ms. Burack: It’s important to know that in the context of the pan-Canadian framework, Environment and Climate Change Canada is working on a clean fuel standard, the details of which will be developed over the coming year or so, but that will be designed to create incentives in the marketplace to drive towards the cleanest and the lowest-emission fuels.
Of course, we live in a federation where provinces and their creations like municipalities have control over what they do with public transit. However, Infrastructure Canada’s public transit funding does take greenhouse gas emissions into consideration as they consider the projects being proposed.
Senator Oh: I think the federal government should take the lead on which direction we are going. Otherwise, our country is so wide across that you have different energy sources being used. It should be standardized. Transport Canada should control the direction of the blueprint into the next century that we’re heading into. I think that would be more efficient in the long-term running of transportation against climate change. That’s my comment. Thank you.
The Chair: I was waiting for the question, but it was a comment.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Ms. Burack. I would like to ask you two questions. To reduce greenhouse gases, we still need the flow of shipping. In eastern Canada, in the winter, ice slows down the flow. It takes ships a lot longer to sail. Last year, I believe, a supply ship on the north shore in Quebec was caught in the ice for three days because there was no icebreaker to help them. I think the government is aware, but does it intend to fix the old icebreakers? We want to reduce greenhouse gases, but if the ships cannot move, if the flow of traffic is compromised because we do not have icebreakers — and they are caught in the ice for three days — this will not help reduce greenhouse gases. Does the government intend to repair or at least acquire new icebreakers to improve the flow of navigation on Canada’s east coast, particularly with respect to ships coming from the Great Lakes and the Port of Montreal?
[English]
Ms. Burack: I am sorry. I don’t have an answer to your question. It’s not within my area of expertise. If the committee wants, we can find the answer to the question and send it to the clerk.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much. My second question is about the carbon tax. Can you give us an idea of the timeline? All those who will be affected by the carbon tax hear about political ideas and projects. They want more details. Financially speaking, farmers need to know what the carbon tax is going to cost them and whether they will be getting the help they need. This tax will have an impact on agricultural production and, in business, you cannot prepare a budget if you do not know the ins and outs associated with this future tax. I think the bankers who finance farmers want to know how much it will cost.
Here’s my question: Do you have any idea of the policies that will be put in place to help farmers assess the costs of the carbon tax?
[English]
Ms. Burack: As I mentioned earlier, issues related to pricing carbon are more appropriately directed to the Department of Finance and Environment and Climate Change Canada. For example, in British Columbia, where a $30-a-tonne carbon price already exists, we know there was an impact of 4 cents per railcar mile that translated from that carbon price to shippers; so there is some experience in terms of what carbon pricing means to those using the rail system, for example.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Transportation is key for farmers and their goods. Do you intend to provide farmers with concrete help since the transportation of goods is essential in their work? Will programs be put in place to support farmers in transporting their goods?
[English]
Ms. Burack: I don’t believe that is a question for Transport Canada.
Senator Tardif: Good morning. I know that Transport Canada has supported research to make the railway system more adaptable to cold weather in the past. What other research priorities is Transport Canada looking into in order to meet the risks of climate change and to have better adaptation practices?
Ms. Burack: One thing it would be worth mentioning is that in Budget 2017, more than $16 million was identified to start doing risk assessments of key federal transportation assets, to look at the impact of the changing climate on those. Part of the benefit of doing that with federal assets is the learning opportunity of what that means for the broader transportation network. Those are activities that will be ongoing for the next number of years, and that’s a key part of what we’re doing to look at the resilience issues for the transportation system related to the change in climate.
I would also mention, in case members are not aware, that Transport Canada and Natural Resources Canada released, earlier this year, an enormous work on the resilience and best practices across the country related to the transportation system and the changing climate. That’s available online. It looks region by region at what some of the challenges are mode by mode and does case studies of what the best practices have been in terms of identifying the challenges and making changes to adapt to the changing climatic conditions.
Senator Tardif: Do you work with your provincial counterparts in order to share the information and the research that you gather?
Ms. Burack: Yes.
Senator Tardif: In regard to the railways, I’m from Alberta, so I know how critical the railways are for shipping the wheat. I know we had a particularly difficult year in 2013-14 with a bumper crop. How did it affect the railway cars? Has it improved the system? What feedback are you getting on having changed the railway cars to better adapt to cold weather?
Ms. Burack: I’ll ask my colleague to respond.
Ms. Jones: Thank you for the question. I wouldn’t say that any research has fed into a response to the 2013-14 grain crisis. Certainly that time period highlighted the need for more reliable and predictable service with better capacity to adapt to bad weather. That year had an extraordinarily cold winter, so that contributed to the situation.
That’s a part of what Bill C-49, the modernization of the transportation act, seeks to address. It will require railways to lay out their winter contingency plans in advance in a public document for shippers’ review, as well as their plans to move grain for the upcoming season. This exercise will encourage the parties to turn their minds to adaptability and to take the necessary steps to meet the challenges of winter or any climatic changes.
Senator Tardif: Thank you for the explanations.
Senator Petitclerc: I want to hear from you because we’ve had many witnesses, but we don’t hear a lot about international cooperation or sharing. I don’t know whether this is something that you do. I’m curious to know if it exists.
I understand, of course, that when it comes to transport and climate change, we do want to take care of what is going on in Canada, and we have that responsibility, but obviously it is a global challenge.
I’m curious to know whether there’s any spontaneous or organized sharing of data, best practices or technology with countries such as Australia and New Zealand, but it could be something else. Does that or should it exist? If so, how is that organized? What is the role of Transport Canada? A very wide question.
Ms. Burack: A great question. We are involved across many modes in a lot of international conversations, both to develop common standards where that makes sense and to share best practices and discuss the challenges we face.
I will give you some examples. Rail in Canada is actually rail in North America. We work very closely with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This isn’t necessarily using greenhouse gas as an example, but we recently developed locomotive emissions regulations with respect to clean air contaminants. We worked very closely with the U.S. on developing those standards. The standards already were in place in regulations in the U.S. We brought in standards to match, because it’s a very integrated market. We discussed with them new technologies, how the rail system might be improved for its efficiency and therefore improved fuel efficiency as well, et cetera.
In the case of marine shipping, we’re very active at the International Maritime Organization. I mentioned a few initiatives that we have taken collectively there in terms of setting standards. There is a standard for new ships. The engines need to be a certain fuel efficiency. We’re working on a broader strategy with them. Included in that, what are our ports doing to reduce emissions? What are the best practices there, and how do we spread those best practices around the world?
Similarly, at the International Civil Aviation Organization we have developed a carbon dioxide standard for new airplanes. We’ve developed a carbon offsetting system for international aviation so that operators actually need to offset a portion of the emissions from the flights that they are making around the world. There is a lot of activity, even on things that I would say are purely domestic.
Regarding zero-emission vehicles, we are working closely with a number of jurisdictions in Europe, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France to understand what they’ve done, what they’re thinking of doing, what we’ve been thinking about and to make sure that we’re not reinventing the wheel, to use a transportation analogy.
Senator Petitclerc: In your view, are we leading? Where is Canada in the world in terms of effort and results? Are we the best that we can be?
Ms. Burack: It’s a difficult question to answer from my perspective. As with everything else, there are probably places where we lead, places where we are not in the lead. From a greenhouse gas perspective, Canada is currently seen as one of the more ambitious jurisdictions internationally.
The Chair: I really appreciated all the information you gave us about where good progress is being made. In regard to the Paris Agreement and Canada’s commitment to the Paris Agreement, how confident are you that the transportation sector will meet its share of the target?
Ms. Burack: The pan-Canadian framework doesn’t attribute a share of Canada’s target by sector. I’m very confident that the commitments that are made in there on transportation are being aggressively pursued and that we will succeed in achieving those objectives that were set.
Senator Oh: My question is going back to air transportation. Is there a worldwide body that keeps an eye on all the planes? There are thousands of airplanes flying around the world every minute. Now they are all wide body, big engines with more fuel used. How much is airline pollution costing in terms of emissions controls and GHGs? Do we have any idea?
Ms. Burack: Yes. With respect to aviation, there are two kinds of emissions. One we consider domestic. That is the emissions associated with flights within a jurisdiction; so for a flight from Toronto to Vancouver, the emissions would be considered domestic. A flight from Halifax to London, England, would be considered international emissions.
We do have very clear numbers about domestic aviation emissions. For each mode of transportation we have a breakdown of the emissions from those modes. Also, we have a number from the International Civil Aviation Organization of international emissions, so divorced from each country’s domestic.
International emissions are around 2 per cent of the world’s emissions. International aviation emissions are in that 2 per cent range, more than Canada’s emissions.
Senator Oh: Is Canada sitting on any kind of international committee or body on this subject? Are we a member?
Ms. Burack: The International Civil Aviation Organization deals with all matters regarding international civil aviation. There are a number of groups there that are focused on environment-related matters, and, yes, Canada participates. Canada is a member of the International Civil Aviation Council, which is a group of 30 members that actually manage the organization overall, and participates on these environmental bodies. Canada was extremely active in both the development of the carbon dioxide standard for new airplanes that concluded last year, and the negotiation of the international offsetting system for international aviation, which also concluded negotiations last year.
Senator Tardif: To follow up on Senator Oh’s question, within the transportation sector, is there one that creates more emissions than another?
Ms. Burack: The highest emissions are from the heavy-duty vehicle or trucking mode.
Senator Tardif: What percentage would that be?
Ms. Burack: I don’t have the chart with me now, but I can provide it to the committee.
The Chair: That would be appreciated. Thank you. If everybody is finished with their questions, I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing here today. It’s been very interesting. Thank you.
We will now introduce the second panel. From Global Affairs Canada, we have Ana Renart, Director General - Market access for Global Affairs; Marie-Andrée Lévesque, Deputy Director, Government Procurement, Trade and Environment; Michelle Gartland, Deputy Director, Clean Technology; Judith Gelbman, Director, Environment Division; and Matthew Smith, Director of the Technical Barriers and Regulations Division.
Panel, I’m going to welcome you here today. It’s great to have you here. I’m going to turn the floor over to you to make your presentation. The clerk, of course, has told you that seven to 10 minutes is the guideline. Thank you.
Ana Renart, Director General - Market Access, Global Affairs Canada: Good morning. I’m not going to repeat introductions. Thank you for doing that.
[Translation]
Today, I have been asked to provide you with information on Global Affairs Canada’s measures to consider climate change impacts in its areas of responsibility. I have been also asked to focus on Canada’s approach to environment commitments in its international trade agreements, including in regards to climate change and sustainable forest management. The Trade Policy and Negotiations Branch is responsible for negotiating international trade agreements, both in a multilateral context such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), and in a bilateral or regional context like the NAFTA or the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).
We do this with the support of experts in other government departments in particular subject areas. Canada is firmly committed to the principle that trade and investment liberalization should not be at the expense of environmental protection. In line with this, Canada has negotiated environment provisions in all of its major free trade agreements since the original NAFTA.
These provisions are negotiated working closely with colleagues at Environment and Climate Change Canada as co-leads.
[English]
Our approach has evolved over the years. In the context of the current trade negotiations, Canada is pursuing a progressive trade agenda that recognizes the importance of international trade’s contribution to broader economic, social and environmental policy priorities. This includes enhanced ambitious provisions in the area of environment.
The objective of Canada’s environment provisions is to promote sustainable development and ensure that environmental protection is upheld in the context of trade liberalization. They also seek to create a level playing field for Canadian firms by ensuring that other countries do not lower environmental protections to encourage trade or attract investment.
Canada’s current approach is to negotiate environment provisions in a comprehensive environment chapter within the FTA, the free trade agreement. Key elements of this environment chapter include core commitments to ensure that trade partners maintain high levels of environmental protection and robust environmental governance as trade is liberalized and do not weaken environmental laws to encourage trade or investment.
Complementing commitments on environmental governance and regulatory measures, environment chapters also include provisions to recognize and encourage the role that business and non-government actors play in environmental protection in areas such as corporate social responsibility.
Our more recent FTAs and negotiations also cover an expanding range of issues aimed at addressing global environmental challenges. These include topics such as sustainable forestry management and climate change. Looking at CETA, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the EU, as a recent example, Canada and the EU established shared commitments in these areas to protect and enhance the environment while benefiting from increased economic activity flowing from liberalized trade.
CETA includes commitments relevant to addressing the priority issue of climate change. For example, CETA includes a commitment to facilitate and promote trade in environmental goods and services, including goods and services that can contribute to climate change mitigation and renewable energy. In addition, CETA includes a framework for cooperation between Canada and the EU on issues such as climate change.
Another feature of CETA is that it is the first of Canada’s FTA chapters to include provisions on the sustainable management of forests. This includes provisions to recognize the environmental, economic and social importance of the conservation of forests. It also highlights the importance of market access for forest products that are legally harvested and from sustainably managed forests and combatting illegal logging and associated trade. The CETA bilateral dialogue on forest products establishes a forum for Canada and the EU to discuss these issues on an ongoing basis.
Also relevant to promoting trade and sustainably produced products, Canada and the EU agree to encourage the development and use of voluntary schemes relating to the sustainable production of goods and services such as eco-labelling and fair-trade schemes. Like CETA, and while an agreement is not yet finalized, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP, includes a number of provisions in related areas. For example, there are commitments on encouraging the use of flexible and voluntary mechanisms to promote the environment while recognizing that these should be designed to avoid the creation of unnecessary barriers to trade; conservation commitments that include combatting illegal timber trade; promoting the legal trade in associated products and promoting sustainable forestry management; and commitments on promoting trade in environmental goods and services and on facilitating the transition to a low-emissions and resilient economy.
I would like to emphasize that Canada’s environment provisions in FTAs are in no way designed to serve as barriers to trade. On the contrary, they are intended to be good for business. By committing trade partners to effectively implement and uphold their respective laws, environment provisions can create a more stable, transparent and predictable context for Canadian companies. At the same time, Canada’s FTAs do not seek to harmonize environmental legislation, and preserve Canada’s right to regulate to protect the environment.
Further, commitments on climate change and environmental goods and services in our FTAs reflect Canada’s commitment to taking a global leadership role on clean growth and clean technology.
In Budget 2017, the government announced investments of $2.34 billion to support and grow Canada’s clean technology sector. This includes $15 million for Global Affairs Canada to development and implement an enhanced international business development strategy for clean technology firms to better access growing international opportunities in a timely manner, supported by our Trade Commissioner Service. This is part of Canada’s broader efforts to implement its commitments to the Paris Agreement and the development of the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change.
Canada is also contributing to $2.65 billion in climate finance as part of a global effort under the Paris Agreement to support developing countries transition towards low-carbon, climate-resilient economies, which Global Affairs Canada will play a key role in implementing.
Going forward, building on our long history of negotiating environment provisions in our FTAs, Canada continues to pursue ambitious and comprehensive environment chapters in current FTA negotiations, including NAFTA, in line with the progressive trade agenda. Canada promotes mutually supportive trade and environment policies in other international fora, such as the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment.
Canada is also engaged in the WTO pluri-lateral environmental goods agreement negotiations, the successful conclusion of which would benefit Canadians by expanding market access for Canadian exports of environmental goods that help address key issues such as climate change and increasing the availability of these goods for Canadians.
[Translation]
In sum, Canada has long recognized the principle that trade liberalization and environmental protection should be mutually reinforcing objectives. Moreover, fostering robust environmental governance as our trade relationships expand is important to ensuring long-term, sustainable economic growth and well-being.
Thank you for your time and we would be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding Canada’s environment commitments in its international free trade agreements.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. We are going to move into the question and answer session, and again I remind the senators to keep their questions concise, and I would appreciate concise answers from the panel so that we can get all questions taken care of.
With that, we will start with Senator Dagenais.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much to the witnesses for their presentations. I understand that we need to set targets to reduce greenhouse gases. You mentioned CETA. However, you know how competitive the agricultural, agri-food and forestry markets are.
How can we reduce greenhouse gases and remain competitive to respond to the market and our producers?
[English]
Ms. Renart: I would start off by saying that the main principle on which our trade agreements are based again is market access and promoting our goods abroad and getting access to other markets for our goods, but at the same time recognizing and upholding the principle that governments have a sovereign right to regulate.
Within our trade agreements we try to balance these two principles together, and so within our environment chapters we include this basic principle I mentioned and encourage countries to regulate in the area of environment and to abide by the regulations, the laws and regulations that they have, at the same time recognizing the importance of access in other markets. To ensure that regulations don’t become barriers to trade, we also have rules in our chapters, in our FTAs and under the TBT, the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, that put certain rules around the technical regulations, so always recognizing the ability to regulate, having a legitimate objective to the regulations and ensuring that they are not discriminatory so that the technical regulations apply to everyone in the same way, and finally, making sure those regulations are the least trade-restrictive measure possible to achieve that legitimate objective.
So we try to balance both things in our trade agreements, recognizing that we have the right to regulate but making sure as well that they’re the least trade restrictive as possible to meet that objective.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: There are a lot of ongoing discussions, whether regarding China, Europe, our neighbours to the south, or NAFTA. The discussions, which are very laudable, will eventually bear fruit.
However, what happens on the ground is not always consistent with the discussions being held, and some other stakeholders may be tempted to cheat at that time.
Do you think all those discussions will lead to something useful for Canada, in compliance with our greenhouse gas regulations? Did you find that some countries could cheat in the discussions?
[English]
Ms. Renart: That’s the reason we have the rules in place and make sure that they are clear and transparent and that people know what they are.
We also ensure that in the context of setting up the rules there are mechanisms where we can discuss, so if we feel that people aren’t abiding by the rules, there are committees and there are contact points and there are fora in which officials and experts can sit down and have a conversation about how these rules — or regulations, excuse me — are being implemented and try to solve problems or challenges as quickly as possible.
When that doesn’t work, we have rules on the settlement of disputes. So we have very clear mechanisms in our FTAs as well as at the WTO where parties can take their disputes or where they can take some of these challenges or where they don’t agree on the application or the implementation of particular measures to try to solve them.
I think I go back to the importance of having the rules, and that’s why we negotiate these agreements. Canada is an exporting country. Sorry, we are a trading nation is a better way of saying it. We are a trading nation, and we appreciate, we use these rules, and that’s why we negotiate them with other countries.
I hope that answers your question.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Yes. Thank you very much, Ms. Renart.
[English]
Senator Doyle: You’ve partially answered my questions, but I’ll put you through it again anyway.
While you’re monitoring the environmental aspects of our international trade agreements, the United States is down there. They’ve thrown out the baby with the bath water. America is becoming really lean and mean on trade agreements, but at the same time they’re scoffing at the international agreements on environmental issues and environmental change.
Given the environmental posture, for want of a better word, of our biggest trading partner, what is our attitude generally toward all that? How is our environmental work impacted by the fact that we share a common border with the United States? They’re down there. They don’t seem to care a whole lot about how much coal they burn or the fact that their GHG emissions are blowing over here across the border to us, and they’ve withdrawn from the environmental agreement, the climate change accord.
How do we look at that and how does it impact what we do here in trying to be good stewards of the environment? How do we get rewarded for it and at the same time ensure that we’re not — you know where I’m coming from. Maybe you can comment on that.
Ms. Renart: Why don’t I start off responding to that from a trade perspective, and maybe I can ask if my colleagues might have something additional they want to answer.
It’s not an easy answer, and I don’t know that there is an answer. I think it’s multi-pronged, our response. It has to be. Working with our partners, like-minded countries elsewhere in the world, to continue down a particular path that we feel strongly about for Canada within the context of our free trade agreements. I’m sure you’ve heard us use the words — trade officials use the words “progressive trade agenda.”
Part of the objective behind the progressive trade agenda is ensuring that everyone benefits from FTAs, so all segments of society are benefiting from it. So we’re including things in our FTAs that address other segments, small and medium-sized enterprises, women in trade, electronic commerce, that sort of thing. It also goes back to environment, labour, sustainable development, including provisions on climate change and the importance of those.
Our FTAs also talk about multilateral environmental agreements and further cooperation, promoting certain things like environmental goods and services. So we want to concentrate on some of these areas with other like-minded countries. Even if 100 per cent of the world isn’t on the same page, these are things that are important to us, and we want to ensure that within the context of what we do and where we can influence, we include the same sort of priorities and values.
It goes well beyond just trade agreements and trade policy, and I think maybe unless you have anything you want to add, Marie-Andrée, on what we do on trade agreements, maybe we can turn it over to my colleagues who will talk about other parts of the department and what we do there.
Marie-Andrée Lévesque, Deputy Director, Government Procurement, Trade and Environment, Global Affairs Canada: Related to the bilateral trade agreement, when we negotiated NAFTA, we also negotiated a parallel agreement. It’s about environmental cooperation in the North American context where it set out a very strong cooperation program, and we are active and engaged with the U.S. and Mexico on that.
Just going quickly, in the context of the NAFTA renegotiation, you know the three parties who are engaged on the environment front. Even when the U.S. published their objective for the negotiation, they did include a commitment to include a comprehensive and enforceable environmental provision.
So at the official level, I would say that we are engaged on those fronts, and we can build on a long history of cooperation with them.
Senator Doyle: Trade, and especially trade with China, is very much in the news right now. I would note that China, of course, has some of the worst city air pollution of anywhere in the world.
Is it now easier to insert environmental clauses in potential trade agreements with places like China? Are many countries doing that? In order to get a trade agreement, they will insert environmental clauses that have to be met in order for a trade agreement to be signed? Is that part of it all?
Ms. Renart: I won’t comment too much on the specifics of China because I’m not intimate with the details of the exploratory conversations we’ve been having with China, but maybe as a general comment what I can say is that all of our FTAs, all of our major FTAs, include environment chapters now and elements of our progressive trade agenda. So this is environment, labour and some of the other areas I mentioned, like small and medium-sized enterprises, provisions that address sustainable development and climate change, et cetera. This is a standard part of our FTAs, and it’s something that we include in all of our FTAs right now.
Of course, every FTA is two people or more, but you’re talking a minimum of two parties. Two FTAs will never look the exact same because it has to reflect the views and the objectives of both sides. While we maintain that there are certain core elements that we want to maintain in all of our FTAs, sometimes the words are a little bit different, but the core obligations remain. This is something important for Canada that have we included in our FTAs for many years.
Judith Gelbman, Director, Environment Division, Global Affairs Canada: Aside from the trade question, if I could just speak to the bigger dynamics in terms of the U.S. and China in the international climate change discussions.
One of the things that we’ve noticed since the U.S. announced that they were going to pull out of the Paris Agreement is that there hasn’t been an impact on the momentum of the international commitment to implement the Paris Agreement. Other countries are really stepping into the breach, including Canada and, frankly, China as well. I think China sees a really important domestic need for them to address air pollution. They’re taking fairly dramatic steps internally, and they’re looking at all kinds of options internally to address climate change and pollution and other environmental issues.
So you see that on the international stage the momentum is continuing. We’ve had some really good achievements, like the Kigali agreement under the Montreal Protocol to address greenhouse gas emissions. That is a big issue in Asia as well. There are so many different angles, and in terms of taking environmental action, we’re pursuing and the globe is pursuing all those opportunities.
At the same time, there is the American government and then there are state governments, non-government actors in the United States and cities, for example. Cities in the U.S. have a huge impact on the global environment. There’s a commitment on the part of mayors, governors and industry leaders in the U.S. that is really making a big difference. Our government has been working with them to keep the momentum going with the U.S.
Senator Doyle: When you say “stepping into the breach,” do you mean we will do a little bit more with the various states, for example, to ensure that the targets are being met and that kind of thing?
Ms. Gelbman: Yes. We’re looking for opportunities to introduce renewable technologies where appropriate, looking for ways to introduce energy efficiency, all kinds of measures and initiatives that are out there. Then it’s stepping into the breach to continue the dialogue and keep the global momentum going.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Thank you for your presentation. I think your efforts to promote robust environmental governance for sustainable economic growth are commendable.
You mentioned that you want to ensure enhanced coherence in international environment and trade standards, as well as improved information exchange and transparency in your negotiations. What steps have been taken so far to ensure that environmental requirements do not vary according to the trading partners and create non-tariff barriers?
[English]
Ms. Renart: I’ll go back to some of the comments I made earlier about the principles we see that environment and trade are mutually supportive. Canada has been negotiating environment provisions in our FTAs for about 20 years, and we just don’t see what we have done. They’re not technical barriers to trade. They don’t become non-tariffed barriers.
The commitments that we negotiate ensure that every party has robust environmental rules domestically and that they follow those rules. They are not designed to service barriers to trade. Our FTAs will contain specific recognition of an obligation that recognizes it is inappropriate to establish or use environmental laws or any other measures in a manner that would constitute a disguised restriction on trade. The core provisions are designed to respect the sovereign rights of parties to establish and maintain their own levels of protection.
I go back to some of the rules we have around technical barriers to trade: have a legitimate objective, apply the measures in a non-discriminatory fashion, and ensure that they are the least trade-restricted measures to address that legitimate objective. The rules are designed around allowing strong environmental protection but having disciplines on technical regulations so that they don’t become real barriers to trade.
With respect to your question on transparency and how we know this is happening, what progress there is, we have notification requirements in all of our FTAs as well as at the WTO under the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement. Whenever a country wants to introduce a regulation that may affect trade, they have to notify it to all WTO members — under our agreements, it’s to each other — and notify it at a time that is early enough in the development of the regulation that we can still comment and affect it. If Canada wanted to establish a new standard on whatever issue it is, we would notify it at the WTO and give them enough information that people can comment. If other countries have comments, we’re obligated to take those into consideration in the development of these regulations.
So there’s transparency and there’s a discussion process around it to try to ensure that they don’t become technical barriers to trade and non-tariff barriers.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: I am asking the question because, in our study on international trade, some witnesses said that, in the CETA negotiations, certain companies could use labelling or certification programs as ways to impose non-tariff barriers. Have you noticed a situation like that?
[English]
Ms. Renart: Some of our more recent FTAs, specifically the CPTPP, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the agreement with the EU, Ukraine, Honduras, Panama, have included provisions on voluntary measures to enhance environmental performance. The provisions commit parties to encourage the development and use of voluntary and incentive-based measures for environmental protection. The intention here is to signal the important role that voluntary and incentive-based measures can play in achieving environmental outcomes, and they encourage parties to use cost-effective mechanisms as complementary to regulatory measures.
We have included provisions that encourage the use of these voluntary schemes, but at the same time, the rules regarding labelling are still governed by the rules around technical barriers to trade, the TPP agreement and TPP rules in our FTAs. So again they’re designed to prevent technical regulations, including those related to labelling, from creating unnecessary barriers to trade.
A lot of these mechanisms — again going back to encouraging the voluntary nature of them rather than mandatory nature, and making sure that they’re clear, transparent and people know what they are. This goes back to the transparency and sharing of information, and our view is that having these clear rules is conducive to trade and helps businesses because then you know what the rules are and what you have to meet. This is important, going back to the mutual supportiveness of environment and trade. There are always ways the two can work together and not become more burdensome than they need to be.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: You mentioned it once or twice, but I would like to hear what you have to say about the mechanisms or the ways in which you assess the progress and results of all those agreements in environmental terms. Is that done anyway? If so, how, and using what criteria? Is it possible to see the impacts and results achieved?
[English]
Ms. Renart: At Global Affairs, we undertake studies that look at the impacts of the agreement after the fact. We look at the economic impact where trade has increased, where it has changed, and we publish these reports on the Internet. We look at a little bit of that.
We also do environmental assessments of our free trade agreements. Before we enter into an FTA, we look at the potential impact. We take that economic analysis that we do beforehand and translate that into potential environmental effects.
Before we enter into the FTA, we do that. It’s a process that negotiators are involved in. We think it’s important for the negotiators to do it because then it’s top of mind. If I’m the negotiator on trade and goods, for example, and I have done that pre-assessment, I’m going to keep that in mind when I’m at the negotiating table.
Our environmental assessments have various stages, and there is also a final assessment. Once the agreement is negotiated and it’s in place, you take a look at what you’ve negotiated and do a final assessment on the effects on the environment of that FTA. It’s a process that starts before you start negotiating to afterwards. Then the analysis continues on the effects of the FTA, and that goes across the board.
Does that address the question?
Senator Petitclerc: It may be too specific. I appreciate that you do it before so you have a baseline, and then you continue doing those assessments in all different aspects, including environment.
Ms. Renart: Yes.
Senator Petitclerc: When you do that, is it through quantifiables or does it go by sector? I’m sorry. Maybe it’s a little too vague.
Ms. Renart: When we do the assessment, we do it chapter by chapter. We go through goods and do an assessment of services. When you increase trade, what is the effect on the environment? There is an assessment that goes across all aspects of the agreement and what the potential impact is.
It’s done by all negotiators. It is done by committee as well. It’s all of the negotiators, the people who are doing it, and involving our experts at Environment and Climate Change Canada, and they put it all together. There’s one at the end of the negotiation as well. It’s something that goes from the beginning through until the end.
Then the impacts of the trade agreement are assessed periodically after the agreement is in effect. I know recently we’ve updated the impacts on the economy of the Korea FTA that was recently put online. We periodically will put these up online and update the effects.
Ms. Lévesque: The only thing I would say is it’s a novel element under CETA. We committed to a review and to monitor and assess the impact of the implementation of the agreement on sustainable development. Of course, CETA is just starting with a provisional application, so this has not started, but this is a novel thing that we included in CETA.
[Translation]
It was related to your question.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
Senator Raymonde Gagné (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Acting Chair: I have a question for you. According to your remarks and the responses you have provided, Canada is seeking to become a world leader in sustainable development, showing that healthy economic growth and environmental protection can be complementary.
We know that global demand for energy continues to increase and we do not know when it will reach the limit. It is difficult to predict. Our municipalities, our provinces and the country are connected with the world. How does the Canadian government manage to lead the entire chain? As a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, I would like to hear your opinion on the agri-food and forestry sector.
[English]
Ms. Renart: Some of the specifics of your answer are almost more domestic in nature than what we do under trade agreements. I can answer at a high level, but some of it would be better — and I think AFC has come or will come, and you will also have Environment Canada attending as witnesses. That question may be better addressed by them because it really talks about Canada as part of the value chain.
[Translation]
The Acting Chair: In international trade, I understand it is much more restricted for agri-food products and forestry. However, does Global Affairs specialize in sectors where all the trade in the sector will be monitored?
[English]
Ms. Renart: I will answer this in two ways: one in our trade agreements and then maybe we can talk about trade promotion. Within our trade agreements, we do have our colleagues from AFC and Environment Canada and NRCan, as appropriate, to help us negotiate some of these things. The objective, for the most part in our trade agreements, is market access, to promote our Canadian goods and get access to other markets.
We do this in some areas. Sometimes we’ll have specific commitments by sector, and we look at it in two ways. One is the promotion, getting them abroad; and, second, in some of these areas we build sustainable forestry, sustainable agriculture, right into the agreement.
For example, in the CETA agreement, we did have some commitments on forestry and sustainability. Perhaps my colleague can talk about them. We will talk about what we have done in CETA on those two.
[Translation]
Ms. Lévesque: Under CETA — and this was one of the first times — in addition to having our main obligations, we have also integrated broader environmental issues. One of those issues is trade in the forest products industry. We have an article on sustainable forest management, article 24.10 of the chapter on trade and the environment.
It truly recognizes the importance of conservation and sustainable forest management for providing long-term economic and social opportunities, while recognizing the environmental value of the sector. Market access is also recognized as important for products harvested in accordance with the law of the country of harvest, but also according to the principles of sustainable forest management.
As a result, the parties have undertaken to encourage trade in forest products, exchange information and cooperate on initiatives to promote sustainable forest management and combat illegal logging. They have also undertaken to promote the effective use of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. They continue to cooperate in other international initiatives that deal with the conservation and sustainable management of forests. We have also established a bilateral dialogue on forest products. We have also added an item slightly related to agriculture and that is once again related to the trade in fisheries and aquaculture products. It’s still very similar to the other article on forests. Good practices in the sustainable management of the resource are still recognized. We plan to monitor, control and prevent overfishing. We are trying to work together to fight against what is known as illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Cooperation is also encouraged with our regional organizations to achieve good governance.
That was something new for Canada. It was one of the first times that new global issues were included in our free trade agreements.
[English]
Ms. Renart: If we have another minute, I think it would be useful for my colleague to talk a little bit about what we do with respect to forestry and trade promotion in particular, because there are some interesting things.
Michelle Gartland, Deputy Director, Clean Technology, Global Affairs Canada: I will reinforce what my colleagues are saying. Market access is a good thing for clean tech firms. In Canada we have around 820 to 850 pure clean tech firms. Those are the companies that have their own IP. Out of those, 87 per cent export. So these are firms that are export-savvy. They have to think about exporting from the inception, from the start-up phase, because the domestic market is so small. When we look at our cohort of clean tech firms in Canada, they’re up for that challenge.
A global list of the top 100 firms of leaders in clean tech was revealed. Over 11 of them were Canadian. This is punching above our weight for Canada. We have innovations for agriculture, forestry, air pollution control and transportation. We are a solid player across the board. The Trade Commissioner Service is ramping up and enhancing our efforts to ensure that we can support those.
This is a nice complement to the domestic efforts that are going on. In Budget 2017 we saw $2.34 billion go out to clean tech, so we’re ready and poised for our next cohort of clean tech firms to be ramped up and ready to come internationally. So it really complements the work of our negotiators and our trade policy colleagues.
Senator Diane F. Griffin (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: We’ve finished with the questions. I’d like to thank the panel. This has been a very interesting presentation. I wish you a merry Christmas.
I’d like the committee to stay a moment because we need to address the budget and the report associated with that.
We have a draft supplementary budget that’s been distributed to you. This is in relation to our fact-finding trip to the West that will occur in March. In the document you have, there are two pages related to the budget. Basically the explanation is given for each item, but I’d like to ask you if there are any questions related to it. There are the professional and other services. It looks like any typical budget related to a fact-finding trip: transportation, accommodation, living expenses and all other expenditures, which would also account for printing and rentals.
Would anyone care to comment on the budget?
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: I’m ready to move a motion:
That the budget application for the special study on the potential impact of the effects of climate change on the agriculture, agri-food and forestry sectors, in the amount of $159,814, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018, be approved for submission to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, following the final review by the Senate Administration and overseen by the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.
[English]
The Chair: Do we need a seconder? No. Okay.
Senator Tardif: That’s fine. I was going to second, but you don’t need it.
The Chair: Committee Kevin says we don’t need it. If you’re wondering why I call him “Committee Kevin,” it’s because I have a brother, cousin, husband, brother-in-law and a cat named Kevin. This is Committee Kevin.
Any questions regarding the budget? We’ll gather on March 18, and the meetings will be from the Monday to the Friday. We’ll be back in Ottawa on Friday night. It’s immediately after the March break.
Is the budget adopted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. We’ll action that. I want to take this time to wish you all a merry Christmas. It’s been a great committee to have joined, and I’m feeling very fortunate to have such a committee to work with. Everyone has got the best interests of agriculture and forestry at heart, and that also includes the general community in rural Canada. This is an excellent committee.
Thank you, folks, and have a happy New Year also.
(The committee adjourned.)