Government Operations Committee on July 29th, 2026

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I was on a fact-finding mission last week with the Standing Committee on National Defence to assess our equipment, our operational readiness and the impact of cost increases. Of course, we talked about NORAD.

So when this came up in the media, of course people in my region pointed out that this wasn't happening in Quebec, but who paid the $6.4 billion? All Canadians, including Quebeckers, paid for it.

So I wanted to know if we could see the terms of the agreement. While it's true that media outlets were not exactly contradicting each other, they didn't have the same information. What's unfortunate is that of course the Parliamentary Budget Officer doesn't necessarily need a request from a department or committee to shed light on the matter. That's one thing. However, how is it that, after all the time it has taken to get to this point today, we're being told, through points of order, that now the information is available? That's all well and good, but I still have lots of questions.

Are the clauses purely descriptive? How is the $6.4 billion going to be repaid? Is that set out in the agreement? I don't know; I haven't seen it yet. It was just released. For example, is there a priority regime for payments? Do we have any guarantee of a return on our investment? Will all the tolls go into an American fund? Will everything have to be renegotiated, because...? Well, we've heard it all before.

We just got a bit of information. If a meeting hadn't been called under section 106(4) with a motion on the table, I have a feeling that we wouldn't have discussed this at all, and we wouldn't have been able to get to the bottom of this.

I totally agree that some things could have been changed for this meeting. What is absolutely crucial, however—since this is what democracy is all about—is that parliamentarians, at least, be informed of the details of the agreement, out of concern and respect for taxpayers. They want the facts. Many Quebeckers are on holiday, but I can tell you that they'll be back at work soon and I'm already hearing from some folks. They're telling me that I need to be sure, as an MP, that the negotiations are fair. I tell them that they have no more information than I do. I get it as the Prime Minister shares it.

We've been getting most of our information so far from the media, but parliamentarians should be in the know. At this point, I don't have any details about the agreement, but I do have lots of questions. Once again, decisions are being made, but we only find out about them after they've been announced, thanks to the opposition. People often say that all we do is oppose everything, but that's what democracy is all about. It is about striking a balance, because the Government of Canada is not a private company.

I'm an entrepreneur. I can do whatever I want with my own money, but when I use public funds, for example, when I use the budget I'm given as an MP, of course it's a completely different matter. That's why there are safeguards in place. That's why we have a Parliamentary Budget Officer. Personally, I think it's crucial that we get to the bottom of this. We can discuss how to go about it, but seriously, if this is coming to light today with a majority government in place, it's because the opposition brought this information to light. Are there really things we're not supposed to know?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

It's Mr. Gill, and then it will be Mr. Danko.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm going to try to keep it pretty simple today, because maybe I'm missing something. If I am, I look forward to an explanation.

The Prime Minister recently said that Canada is “in a stronger position” today than it was a year and a half ago. How are we stronger? I'm looking at the record, and I'm having a little trouble getting there. Let's go through it slowly.

The United States put pressure on Canada over the digital services tax, and Canada dropped the tax. The same thing happened with Canada's retaliatory tariffs. All the elbows-up rhetoric—poof—was gone...not the rhetoric, just the tariffs. The same thing happened with the so-called Netflix tax. There was pressure from the Americans, and we made concessions on that too. I'm not sure about you, Chair, but as a former cop, I see a pattern here.

Then we get to the Gordie Howe bridge, in my riding of Windsor West. This one shouldn't be complicated. Canada paid for the bridge, Canada financed the bridge and Canada built the bridge. It cost $6.4 billion. It's our bridge, our money and our risk.

When the bridge was finished and we were ready to open it, President Trump allegedly got some inducements, as reported by some newspapers in the U.S., from the owner of the Ambassador Bridge, and he said, “Nope, you're not opening the bridge anymore.” He wanted compensation, so Canada went back to the negotiating table.

Apparently, these were the technical issues the Prime Minister talked about when the bridge didn't open in June. Then after the negotiations or technical discussions, we came out with 15 years of payments equal to 50% of defined net revenues going into a U.S.-controlled fund, along with new provisions around the tolls. That's yet another concession. I'm sure we all see the pattern of concessions.

This is the part where I need some help. What did we get? The Americans applied pressure, and we made concessions. What did they give us?

Please don't tell me that we got the bridge open. I'm happy the bridge is open. People in Windsor are happy that the bridge is open, because we already paid $6.4 billion for the bridge. That's like buying a car from a neighbour who owns a dealership, paying cash for it, bringing it home, paying the neighbour every year because he finally agreed to give you the keys, and them coming inside and yelling at your wife, saying, “Hey, I got a great deal.” Nope, you did not. You paid twice.

Tell us this: What did Trump originally want? We know he talked about half ownership. Canada didn't give him that. That is great. We will give credit where it's due. What else did he want? How much revenue did he want, and for how long? What kind of control over the bridge was he looking for? What did Canada say no to or counter with? What did the Americans give up? How did we end up with 50% for 15 years?

These aren't trick questions. This is basic negotiating. What did they want? What did we want? What did they give up? What did we give up? Then we can compare the two. That's it.

Let's follow the money. Canada spent $6.4 billion. How much are the 15 years of payments expected to cost? There has to be a number. You don't negotiate a 15-year financial agreement without doing the math—at least I hope you don't. What's the number? Will this delay Canada's recovery of its investment? It probably will, and if so, for how many years? Will it be five, 10, 15 years or more?

Canada borrowed the money. Canada is carrying the financing debt and the servicing cost for that debt, but when these new payments were calculated, Canada's financing costs weren't deducted the way the Prime Minister claimed they were going to be. Canadians will carry the debt, and somebody else will get the revenue before the debt is accounted for.

Again, who negotiated that? If I lend you the money to build a store, and then you tell me somebody else will get a cut before you repay what you're supposed to owe me, I might have a question or two for you.

Then we get to the 2012 agreement. The new agreement says that the old agreement will stay in place, but President Trump said the old agreement is basically null and void going forward—on the day we had the ribbon-cutting ceremony, no less. Who is right? Is it the Prime Minister or Mr. Trump? More importantly, what did Canada do? Did we call them? Did we write to them? Did we contact Michigan? Did we say, “Hold on. We have an agreement, and we both signed it”? Are we going to go again and renegotiate this now?

These are simple questions. We need answers for them. We need written assurances. If we have written assurances, table them so that the committee and parliamentarians can see them. If not, then why not?

Here's where I'm losing the plot. We made new concessions to get the bridge open. Almost immediately, we're debating whether the original agreement protecting Canada's investment is still secure. What exactly did we settle? This is where the bridge becomes a bigger part of the story. The digital tax was followed by pressure, and Canada backed off. The retaliatory tariffs were followed by pressure, and we backed off again. The Netflix tax got pressure, and we backed off. The bridge was followed by pressure, and Canada backed off again. Now we are facing more tariff threats.

I want to understand the strategy here. Maybe there is one. Explain it, because right now it looks like this: Washington applies pressure, Ottawa caves; Ottawa announces that as being progress; Washington comes back with another demand; Ottawa makes another concession; and then the Prime Minister tells Canadians we are stronger somehow. Stronger how? Are there fewer tariffs? No. Is there more certainty? Not really. Is there better access to the U.S. market? Nope. Is there more security for the auto sector? Nope. Is there more investment? Sadly, no. Is there a more secure CUSMA? You must be kidding.

Just give me one of those things, so I can bring it back home and tell my people, “This is what your Canadian government got for you.” If Canada is stronger, I'd love to see that, based on these strategies and arguments that are being given.

What is the new strategy of the government if things don't change? Is there a plan B? President Trump hasn't exactly been subtle. You don't need binoculars to see him coming. He tells you what he wants. He applies pressure. He threatens tariffs. He waits. Why do we keep acting surprised when he does exactly what he told us he was going to do? It's like me during my policing career when I would pull somebody over for doing 140 in an 80 zone. When I'd hear, “Officer, I didn't realize I was speeding”, I'd say, “Sir, the odometer is right there. You should have looked at it for a change.”

At some point, you have to look at this and say that Canada has leverage. We have energy. We have critical minerals. We have steel, aluminum, autos and manufacturing. American factories depend on Canadian supply chains. American workers depend on this relationship too. Let's use it.

Right now, the government's negotiating posture reminds me of a cheap lawn chair. It looks sturdy sitting there. Then when somebody puts a little pressure on it, it falls immediately. There goes another leg. Somehow, the press release the following day says that the chair is stronger than ever. Nope, it's lying in the grass.

Maybe that's a bit unfair. Maybe our negotiators fought like hell behind closed doors. Maybe the Americans demanded 10 things and Canada stopped nine of them. If that's what happened, tell us. I'll congratulate them personally and say good job. That's exactly what this committee should find out.

If the members opposite shut the study down today, then I have another very simple question: Why? Yes, you have the votes; you can shut us down, but you can't shut down the facts. You can't make the tariffs disappear. You can't make concessions disappear. You can't make the uncertainty disappear. You certainly can't make President Trump disappear.

Closing our eyes doesn't solve the problem. It's like a pigeon sitting in a tree who sees a cat, closes his eyes and pretends the cat has disappeared because he can't see it anymore. The pigeon may feel better, but the cat doesn't really care. It's going to have that pigeon for lunch. That's really my concern: Are we going to be lunch?

I don't want Canada fighting with the people of the United States. They are our neighbours. They are our friends. They are our family. They are our biggest customer. I want the government to succeed with them.

Let's face it. The Americans show up looking for American interests. We should go out there looking for our interests—for our workers and our families, not somebody else's. Our job is to look after our folks, not after the first threat and not after the second concession, but every single time.

Let's make this very simple. Since the Prime Minister took office, what has Canada given up, what has America given up and what has Canada got? If we're really stronger today, just show us. That's all. There's nothing to it. Walk us through it, and we'll be happy with that explanation. That's what I'm looking for.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

We'll go to Mr. Danko and then to Ms. Desrochers.

Mr. Danko.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate this opportunity to talk about some really good news for Canada, which is, of course, the opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge. It brings extremely significant economic uplift and new trade opportunities for Canada and the United States.

Of course, this bridge is not about toll revenue. It's never been about toll revenue. It's always been about building the trade partnership between Canada and the U.S. and enabling cross-border trade. I think the Windsor-Detroit crossing carries a third of all the trade between Canada and the U.S., so this is a tremendous good-news story for Canada and for the United States.

As we're back in Ottawa, it's interesting to hear opposition members pontificate about their opinions of what it took to get this bridge open. The word “pontificate” is interesting, because it refers to the pontiff, the Pope, who is named after the Roman root word, the Latin word, for bridge. Obviously, Rome is known for its roads, but naming the Pope after the Latin word for bridge also speaks to the importance of bridges to the economic success of the Roman Empire.

The members opposite talked about some of the questions they have about the agreements. To state this again on the record, both the original contract, which was signed in 2012, and the new agreement in principle are publicly available. The terms of those contracts are actually fairly simple and straightforward. They're spelled out publicly and published on the website for the Gordie Howe International Bridge.

I think the member opposite actually did a fairly good job of explaining the terms of those agreements, but very briefly, the original contract had a profit-sharing provision once the debt and the bridge were paid off. In approximately 50 years, 50% of toll profits will go to the U.S. and 50% will go to Canada. The new agreement in principle simply adds a revenue-sharing agreement with the U.S. for the first 15 years, whereby 50% of the net toll revenue, excluding operating expenses, will go to the American fund. The terms of those contracts are publicly available and are fairly straightforward.

I was watching the construction of this bridge, which began in 2018, as a civil structural engineer. In particular, being that I'm a bridge design engineer, it was a really interesting project to watch the construction of.

This is truly a global megaproject. The size, the significance and the importance to the Canadian and American economies put it on a global scale. To have it built in our own backyard and to see the construction were really special. From a professional standpoint, it was gratifying to see the technical expertise and all of the work that went into building a global landmark.

In total, I think almost 16,000 individuals, a very strong union workforce, built this bridge. I believe it took over 20 million hours of construction to build and used 75% Canadian steel. The construction phase alone had a significant economic impact for Canada. I also note that construction started in 2018 and carried on through COVID. It was a really important economic driver and work opportunity for Canadians during the COVID crisis, because work carried on to make sure this project was built and completed.

I have a few quotes to share from statements that have been made by Premier Doug Ford, by the Governor of Michigan and by the Laborers’ International Union of North America's vice-president, Joe Mancinelli.

I'll start with Premier Ford, because he's been extremely supportive of and connected with the construction of this bridge and what it means to Ontario and Canada. Premier Ford, on the opening of the structure on Monday, July 27, said that, in his opinion, “The Prime Minister did an excellent job getting this deal done.” He said this agreement will allow approximately 300 billion dollars' worth of goods to move across the border, creating more opportunities and more jobs. Michigan is Ontario's number one trading partner, and it's critical for auto manufacturers and all manufacturers and the manufacturing sector. “He did an incredible job”, he said, referring to the Prime Minister.

If I move on to the Governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, on opening day, just last week, she said:

I'm proud to celebrate the opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge.... Built by skilled workers on both sides of the Detroit River, this bridge is an engineering marvel. It's also a symbol of the partnership that has defined Michigan and Canada for generations and [all the things that] we can accomplish...together.

Finally, I'll share a statement that Joe Mancinelli, the international vice-president of the Laborers' International Union of North America, or LiUNA, posted about the construction of the Gordie Howe International Bridge and the significant role that his members had in building this landmark structure. He said he is “So proud of the skill and perseverance of LiUNA members and workers across skilled trades played in this transformative build including our contractor partners and engineers! Truly impressive! Brothers and Sisters, ‘We built that!’”

Again, as a structural engineer, I visited the bridge with our Ontario caucus before it was open last summer. It is an amazing structure, and I hope all Canadians have an opportunity to travel across this corridor. I am genuinely excited as a member from Hamilton, Canada's industrial centre, to see the positive impact that this will have on trade across the country, particularly in manufacturing centres in Ontario, with Hamilton being Canada's steel town.

As an engineer, I know that when you get to look at a structure that you had a part in building or have pride in a job well done.... I'm just so happy for all the members of LiUNA and the workforce who had an opportunity to work on this structure. I hope they all get a chance to travel over it, see what they've done and, as Joe Mancinelli said, feel the awe of saying, “We built that.” As Canadians, we can all share the sense of pride that we built that.

That's the end of my remarks. If you can add me to the speaking list for a second time, I would appreciate that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

We now have Ms. Desrochers, and then we will have Ms. Rochefort.

The floor is yours.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank my colleagues for convening this important meeting. It is indeed important to discuss everything the opposition wants to talk about, so this is welcome.

I'd like to start by correcting a few points.

First of all, I know this was raised during the points of order, but the agreement has been released. The original 2012 agreement was made public quite a while ago. Also, the agreement in principle was released a week ago, on July 22. So, it has been released, and everyone can access it, including members of this committee as well as the opposition parties' research offices.

Second, it's ironic to hear some of my colleagues say that the Prime Minister is trying to mislead Canadians when, from the beginning of this meeting, they've been talking about gross toll revenues, when they know full well that we are talking about net revenues. We know they've read it. We know they're doing very good work and have done their homework. Now we're talking about toll revenues after operating costs have been deducted. The Prime Minister was very clear about that. Here we're talking about operating costs, which include things like maintenance, insurance, toll booths and snow clearing. That's the second point I wanted to correct. I want everyone to know exactly what we're talking about. We're not talking about the gross revenues that the bridge authority will bring in. We're actually talking about the net revenues after all the operating costs have been deducted.

The third point I want to correct is my colleagues' offensive insinuations that the Prime Minister tried to deliberately mislead Canadians. The Prime Minister has been very clear. He has clarified his remarks. He made it very clear that, throughout all the discussions, the agreement signed by the prime minister in 2012 has not changed.

I would ask my colleague opposite to let me continue. He's interrupting me, but I showed him respect and listened while he was speaking. It'd be nice if he could show me the same respect and listen to me. Thank you very much.

Half of all revenues will go to regional development for a period of 15 years. We've already discussed net revenues, so I won't go over that again. However, the agreement signed in 2012 remains intact and unchanged. That's important, because at the end of the 15 years, the agreement remains in place. It continues. That doesn't change. The bridge will still be owned by Michigan and the Government of Canada. The agreement in principle means that funds will go into an economic development fund to support trade between Canada and the Detroit region. I think it's important that everyone understand these points.

The bridge is open. It opened two days ago. My colleagues talked about the fiscal impact. About 7,500 vehicles crossed the bridge in the first 12 hours. That's a lot.

The fund will support investment in initiatives to encourage and increase traffic along this corridor. As I think my colleague mentioned, everyone is well aware of the vitality of this corridor and its importance to members on both sides who are from that area. Seventy billion dollars' worth of trade between Ontario and the United States each year... Much of that will cross this bridge. Three hundred billion dollars' worth of trade currently crosses the Ambassador Bridge every year.

That bridge needed to be modernized. Now users have modern facilities that will allow trucks passing through the region to be processed much faster. It also means much safer facilities, which will make it possible to detect the transportation of illegal goods. I think that's also important to note.

There's all of this. My colleague, very rightly so, talked about the marvel of this piece of engineering, about all of the work and the workers who contributed to this, and about how that contributed to our economy during the years of construction.

I think what's interesting here is that we're hearing from the other side about continued criticism of the government's actions. However, I have not heard what they would have done differently, given this context.

How long would you have been willing to keep this bridge unopened—one year, two years, six months?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Excuse me. We have a point of order.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

It's on relevance. She has not spoken to the motion. I've been patiently waiting for her to address the motion itself. Instead, she seems to be shadowboxing someone else.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Albas.

We always allow wide latitude for that, but perhaps we can get to the motion itself.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you for that latitude, Mr. Chair.

The bottom line is that this was the best course of action for taxpayers in the current context. The agreement in principle, as the members can see.... Going back to the motion, I know the motion is calling to see all the clauses. It's been public since July 22. Again, I invite my colleagues to go online and read it. It also explicitly preserves the 2012 crossing agreement between Canada and the State of Michigan, which are the two joint owners of the bridge, as we expect the net revenue to be modest or even negative at the beginning.

This is a good-news story. Even with a good-news story, my colleagues are incapable of cheering for Canada. That is pitiful. That is very sad. Instead, we're going on a wild goose chase to try to create a story that paints us as not having Canadians' backs. More importantly—I'll get to my bottom line, and then I'll let my colleague take the floor—the full cost of the bridge will be recouped. The sooner we open the bridge, the sooner we can start recouping those dollar amounts.

The opening of the bridge provides certainty for the thousands of SMEs that are relying on an additional trade corridor and that want, in these very uncertain economic times, certainty. I'm sure you have businesses in your ridings. We do. We hear it all the time. We can deal with what we know. We can deal with the tariffs. It's hard, and we can deal with them, but we need certainty, and this provides that certainty.

What would they have done differently? What are they putting on the table? How long would they be willing to not provide that certainty to the Canadian SMEs that rely on this?

With that, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll go to Ms. Rochefort, please.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this issue today. I must share with you that I was on holiday.

When I first learned of the 2026 agreement in principle, I will admit that I was confused. I can therefore appreciate why there has been a misunderstanding, but for me, the confusion disappeared completely once I recognized that there were two separate agreements that work together.

The first agreement, the 2012 Canada-Michigan Crossing Agreement, remains fully in force. That's an important point that's been made that deserves to be repeated. That agreement established, back in 2012, the ownership, the governance and the financial framework for the Gordie Howe International Bridge. Under that agreement, Canada collects the total revenues and applies them to the operation of the bridge and the repayment of Canada's approximately $6.4-billion investment. Once Canada's investment has been fully recovered, the agreement specifies that net operating revenues will be shared equally between Canada and the State of Michigan. In other words, the concept of sharing future net revenues is not new. It has been part of the project's financial framework from the very beginning.

The second agreement, of course, is the 2026 agreement in principle. Rather than replacing the 2012 agreement, it builds upon it. In fact, it explicitly states that nothing in the agreement in principle amends, modifies or supersedes the 2012 Canada-Michigan Crossing Agreement. Instead, it commits both governments to developing the arrangements necessary to implement new commitments, including the establishment of the United States-Canada economic development fund.

I think it's our job as parliamentarians to look at all of the various documents. Read together, these two documents tell us two things. First, the 2012 agreement remains the legal foundation of the project. Second, the implementation arrangements of the 2026 agreement in principle must be consistent with that existing framework.

With that context, I would like to touch briefly on two or three points. The first is why the bridge was necessary. I think it's necessary to touch on that and why that decision has proven to be the right one.

The point I would really like to make today in my remarks is why the agreement in principle strengthens, not weakens, the original vision for this project. Quickly, we've touched on some of the points about why the bridge was necessary. Basically, it was about preparing us for the future. Governments in Canada, and also Michigan and Detroit, recognized that one of Canada's most important trade gateways could no longer depend on a single international crossing. The question was straightforward: What happens if there are disruptions, whether because of an accident, severe weather or infrastructure failure? The list goes on. These threats remain today. Actually, they are all more reasons why we did the right thing by opening the bridge as quickly as we could.

Windsor—some of my colleagues live in that community and the surrounding communities—needed a different route that did not bring increased trucking and vehicle activity through its city streets. It needed one with direct freeway connections, modern customs facilities, greater capacity and public ownership designed to serve Canada's long-term interests.

Looking back, it was 15 years ago that the agreement was drafted. That was a long time ago, but that decision has proven to be remarkably forward-looking. When governments approved this project, few could have anticipated the changes that have taken place over the last few years. COVID-19 exposed the fragility of global supply chains. Geopolitical instability has reinforced the importance of economic security. Today, countries around the world are investing in resilient supply chains, advanced manufacturing and so on, as we are doing here in Canada.

That is precisely where the Gordie Howe International Bridge fits. It protects Canadian jobs. It strengthens the Canadian manufacturing sector. It supports our exporters. It improves the resilience of our supply chains. It enhances—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry, Ms. Rochefort. I have to interrupt you. There's a point of order.

Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Again, Mr. Chair, it's on relevance. I am trying to hear what members are saying and to give them some latitude, but we're not hearing about the motion. All they're doing is advertising the government's talking points on the bridge. It would be nice if we actually heard what they thought about things like democracy, transparency and the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's a valid point, Mr. Albas.

Can we get to the motion?

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I'm coming to my main point, actually.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Basically, overall, Canada built this bridge because it advances Canada's national interests. The fact that it also strengthens one of the world's closest economic partnerships is an added benefit, not the primary purpose. Staying closed was not and is not an option.

This brings me to the agreement in principle. From the very beginning, the Gordie Howe International Bridge was intended to be more than a construction corridor. Governments understood that while the bridge would create economic benefits across North America, the communities of Windsor, Detroit and their surrounding communities would experience the greatest impacts and therefore deserved to share directly in its success.

As my colleague John-Paul Danko mentioned, last summer I had the opportunity to visit the bridge and also the surrounding communities to see the impact of the bridge's footprint in that community, with the connection to the 401. The bridge has such a significant impact on that community. I was pleased to learn then that the concern for local communities had given rise to a community benefits plan and a local community group ensuring that local residents, indigenous communities, businesses and community organizations had a voice in shaping the project's legacy.

In my view, what Canada has agreed to in the agreement in principle builds directly on the original commitment. It recognizes that things are no longer as they were in 2012. We can now see and feel the impact of the bridge on the affected communities. It addresses what could not have been seen in 2012.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry. I have to interrupt you, Ms. Rochefort. There's a point of order.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I'm just wondering if there's anything in the member's notes relevant to the motion.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Yes. I'm coming to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I really have to get you to turn to the motion itself. We have a lot of other people who wish to speak to the motion, so I need to direct you to the motion. Thanks.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Basically, these are my final remarks. The United States-Canada economic development fund is not a departure from the original vision. It is its natural evolution. It takes the philosophy behind the community benefits plan and provides it with a long-term economic framework. In doing so, it helps ensure that the success of this bridge is measured by not only the goods that cross it but also the opportunities it creates for the communities that host it.

The original agreement built a world-class bridge. The agreement in principle builds world-class communities around it. Canadians expect us to stand up for Canadian interests. That also means those who live in the communities near the bridge. They also expect us to work constructively with our partners when doing so advances those interests.

Those objectives are not mutually exclusive. The Gordie Howe International Bridge proves that. The agreement in principle builds upon that success. It strengthens an already successful nation-building project by ensuring that the communities at its heart share in its long-term prosperity. For me, that's a very important concept.

For all those reasons, I support the agreement in principle and do not support the motion that's being presented today.

Thank you very much.