In response to Mr. Burney, I respect that position, but I would say that it's not universally held.
It's unanimous with the people I've talked to in the auto sector. They do believe that the ability to have snap-back provision of the tariff is a superior retaliatory measure than leaving it simply open. In fact, the auto industry executives I've talked to prefer the snap-back provision. I think it's a question of fair comment as to whether the provisions we've negotiated, as opposed to the Americans, are better or worse. That's a subjective call. I think there's fair comment and perspectives on both sides.
On the 10-year provision in terms of the U.S., I think the parties recognize that with phasing out of tariffs and having provisions that deal with surges over a 10-year period, that recognizes that the industry will adjust. Over a period of time, like a decade, I think everybody assumes that the auto producers will make the adjustments necessary so they'll be able to competitively deal with each other. The concept of surges after the agreement because of tariff reductions won't be the cause of problems, and the industry will be able to respond.
I can see where the respective parties sit on this. It's our view that the KORUS provision of having a specified 2.5%, where in our case it would be a 6.1% snap-back on auto, will help to protect the Canadian auto sector.
I'd urge all members to support it.