Thank you for being here today.
I would like to pick up on that thread about the side letter and, in particular, on auto. It's no surprise to any of you sitting here that auto's quite unhappy with this deal in our country, aside from Japanese auto, I would say. The CVMA, the Detroit Three, APMA, and Unifor have been outspoken about the risks and losses. I come from Ontario, from the auto capital of Canada down in Windsor-Essex, so it's of grave concern to us that this deal has been signed now.
When you talk about the manufacturing sector, in the original analysis that came out from GAC, there was an acknowledgement that it would harm this sector. Then with regard to the continuation on to what we see in CPTPP with Japan, I think it needs to be noted that for every one vehicle that Canada exports to Japan, Japan exports 900 units to Canada. They are one of the most prohibitive markets in the world to us. It has been said by these groups that the side letters you just mentioned with Malaysia and Australia are insignificant when viewed in this broader context.
My question today really is about the manufacturing sector. How did we arrive at these weakened provisions? Why did we not spend more time at the table to secure a better deal for manufacturing?