Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When I read this, I thought “this is capital NDP protectionism at its finest”. I can't believe you would even propose this. When I heard my honourable colleague speak in the House eloquently about supporting the agreement, I was very excited and appreciated his support.
Reading this was very subjective and hard to define. As I said, it's very protectionist and the fact that “or threat of serious injury”.... When you're competing in a global marketplace, you want to have a level playing field and a mechanism in place. I agree with the fact that, with our accelerated dispute mechanism in place, it's going to help or even be superior, as has been indicated by others, as far as the snap-back provision is concerned.
I think my colleague across the way could maybe check out for sound reasoning the safeguard mechanism. Chapter 7 of the agreement provides for a transitional safeguard mechanism that applies to all products. I know with regard to how integrated our supply chain is....I heard six or seven times a car goes across the border, so any actual protective value snap-back would also cover Canada.
Since we have our panel of expertise here, I wonder, Mr. Chair, if I could call on our chief negotiator, Mr. Burney, to clarify. It seems to me there's some misunderstanding of the agreement, and my colleague has maybe muddied the two as far as the accelerated and the snap-back provisions go.