Mr. Fiander, do you think that.... It's not a matter of being in favour of the deal or against it. It's bound to happen because of....
Isn't the problem how we are going to take care of people, because there will be disruptions? Newfoundland is a good example. People have been living in fishing communities on beautiful coasts and they now live in ATCO trailers by the river. It's not a choice they should have to make. If they decide they want to save money for establishing their kids and have a decent retirement, they can make that choice and I commend them for doing it. But they shouldn't be forced to do that.
When we think of a trade deal, do you think we should look at how the different groups might suffer inconvenience, and that we should not back off on small elements in the deal? Sometimes it could only be the wording. The softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the U.S. was built on one word. Instead of saying “in comparison to the U.S. market“, it said “in relation to the U.S. market“. That cost us 450,000 jobs and nearly a billion dollars. In my riding the five biggest employers have shut down their mills, and that's years after the dispute. We have to look at the details and take care of the people affected.
Can you speak to that?