International Trade Committee on June 26th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, technicians, for getting us going. Good show.

Welcome, witnesses, media, guests. I first want to commend the three parties for working together to pull this special meeting together on such short notice. Today our meeting is about the tariffs on steel and aluminum, and the repercussions for maybe both countries, and for workers and companies that deal with them.

We have two quick motions that we have to deal with right off the bat. In order to pull this meeting off, we have to go to the treasury to look for some money. Can somebody pass this budget for bringing witnesses here to this meeting? It's because this is outside of normal meetings.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

We also have another motion here.

Ms. Ramsey, do you want to deal with it so we can get that done?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Because this meeting came together so quickly and we weren't able to have as many folks here as wanted to appear in Ottawa, I'm asking that we allow for briefs to be submitted to the committee by July 31 from anyone who feels they're going to be impacted, and then we will report these findings back to the House in a report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Very good. We've done this before. It would be nice to have a limit on how big the brief could be. Remember we did this with the TPP?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

It could be five pages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

We'll add that “five pages” to it, and we want it by the end of July.

(Motion agreed to)

Now we can get right into the meeting. At this morning's meeting we will have three sessions, with five witnesses in the first round, and then four and four. Of course, we're going to get all of the witnesses in to speak for their five minutes. How much time the MPs have for dialogue will vary, but we're going to try to have as much dialogue as we can. It's very important that witnesses keep their remarks as short as they can, to under five minutes, and then we can have that dialogue.

Without further ado, I think we'll jump right into it. We have with us Sean Donnelly.

Sean, you're first up if you can. You are from ArcelorMittal Dofasco. Go ahead, sir.

[Sean Donnelly, President and Chief Executive Officer, ArcelorMittal Dofasco]

I'm the president and CEO of ArcelorMittal Dofasco in Hamilton, Ontario, with 5,000 employees.

First of all, thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of ArcelorMittal's Canadian operations, not just Hamilton, on the impact of tariffs on Canadian businesses, corporations, and workers. I'll tell you a little bit about ArcelorMittal in Canada broadly.

ArcelorMittal is Canada's largest steel manufacturer, shipping more than six million metric tons of steel annually and directly employing more than 8,000 people in seven business units in 15 different facilities throughout Ontario, Quebec, and Nunavut. ArcelorMittal Dofasco in Hamilton, of which I'm president and CEO, is Canada's largest flat rolled producer, shipping more than four million metric tons each year to customers in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico from our Hamilton, Ontario, facilities. ArcelorMittal Long Products, based in Montreal, is Canada's largest long products producer, shipping more than 1.8 million metric tons to all three NAFTA countries each year.

ArcelorMittal Tubular Products based in Woodstock, Ontario, ships more than 120,000 metric tons to those same countries as well. Collectively ArcelorMittal Dofasco, our long products, and tubular products ship nearly 30% of their total production to the U.S., to customers in the automotive, construction, general manufacturing, energy, and consumer packaging sectors. That's more than 1.7 million metric tons of steel. ArcelorMittal also has significant affiliated steel operations throughout the U.S. and Mexico, and these facilities ship to Canada as well.

I'll tell you a little bit out the steel industry. It's an extremely capital-intensive industry. Between 2016 and 2018 ArcelorMittal's Canadian steel operations will have spent approximately $1.7 billion Canadian on strategic capital and maintenance to sustain our businesses. Our current and planned strategic capital projects are at risk given this current trade environment. That's more than $750 million Canadian in investments for projects that are currently planned to be completed in the 2020-2021 time frame.

In order to continue with our investments, our shareholders require us to demonstrate adequate returns, and obviously this is difficult given the competing jurisdictions we're dealing with in the U.S. Our investment returns are influenced by two major business risk factors in the current climate. One is obviously the U.S. section 232 and our retaliatory tariffs, and the goal must be to permanently eliminate the tariffs between the two countries.

Second is low-priced offshore imports. We must be able to operate in an undistorted market-based competitive environment. Canada's response to past and future threats from unfairly traded and diverted offshore imports is critical.

I'll tell you a little bit more about section 232. As we all know, on June 1 the U.S. imposed these punitive tariffs on imports of certain steel and aluminum products from Canada at rates of 25% and 10%, respectively. The Canadian government has proposed retaliatory tariffs on steel and aluminum and other products beginning July 1.

The goal of the Government of Canada in its retaliation process must be reciprocal and proportionate. It also must encourage key industry stakeholders in Canada and the U.S. to increase pressure on the U.S. administration to permanently eliminate the section 232 duties. How can we do this? We recommend the Canadian government implement the 25% duties on steel products listed in table 1 on July 1, with exclusions before or after on a strictly limited and verifiable basis. Initial omissions should be considered only in verifiable instances where either no Canadian production exists or where there is a narrow requirement for cross-border inter-company transfers of steel product to support Canadian operations. After the tariffs are in effect, exclusion should be contemplated only through a prescribed exclusion process and only where an included product cannot be reasonably sourced either domestically or from an alternative international jurisdiction. Any such process must be conducted transparently and in full consultation with Canadian steel producers and users, very similar to the process in the U.S. currently.

This approach supports a path forward for the permanent elimination of the duties while, one, mitigating the competitive disadvantage to Canadian steel producers resulting from the U.S. imposition of 25% duties on Canadian steel; two, providing opportunities for substitution of U.S. steel product with Canadian steel product; three, ensuring that Canadian steel prices are not artificially suppressed due to the tariffs against Canada—even with Canadian retaliatory duties, Canadian steel prices will still be below U.S. steel market prices, benefiting consumers—four, resulting in U.S. steel companies paying duties on their Canadian shipments; and, five, in response to the tariffs, steel manufacturing customers on both sides of the border continuing to lobby the U.S. government for either complete elimination of the section 232 duties, or for reciprocal elimination of duties, for example, in the automotive sector.

Currently the U.S. 25% duty on Canadian steel shipments is being shared by Canadian steel producers and their U.S. customers depending on commercial terms and circumstances. The Canadian 25% duty versus the U.S. would create a similar commercial dynamic with the U.S. steel industry and its Canadian customers sharing those costs. The policy alignment on duties may assist in getting back to the negotiating table to conclude a strong, fair, and effective NAFTA agreement.

Without the strict Canadian application of 25% duties, we suggest there will be further weakening of Canadian leverage and prolonging of the U.S. 25% duties.

With regard to offshore imports, we've seen an increase in low-priced offshore imports into Canada diverted from the U.S. since it imposed the dumping trade actions in 2015 and 2016. We reacted with a recently filed dumping Canadian trace on cold rolled steel against China, South Korea, and Vietnam, and we're looking at filing at other targeted dumping actions. However, the U.S. section 232 duties against the entire world on all steel products pose a significant risk for increased low-priced offshore steel being diverted into Canada from all countries and in all products.

We're already seeing evidence of this in the market as Canada is currently the most open steel market in the world. Without government action via safeguards, we expect these imports to continue to disrupt the market negatively. I think we've seen the EU announce their safeguards, which will be effective in the next few weeks. We applaud the government for implementing the trade remedy modernization legal and regulatory changes, increasing the funding for CBSA, resourcing the alignment of our marketing regime with that of the U.S., and looking into the safeguard mechanism. This unprecedented time requires unprecedented measures, and the government must now begin the implementation of steel safeguards to mitigate Canadian steel trade risk. The combined financial impact to the Canadian steel operations of the U.S. section 232 duties and low-priced offshore import penetration is in the millions—many millions—of dollars. Left unmitigated for a prolonged period of time, this combined impact could result in reduced production, potential shutdown of operating lines impacting over 1,000 direct jobs and over 4,000 indirect jobs in Ontario and Quebec with significant implications for the ROI on current projects and impairment of future facilities investments. Prior to the imposition of section 232 and the offshore import penetration, ArcelorMittal Dofasco was one of the most financially successful operations in North America. That is no longer the case.

In conclusion, it is key for the government to, first, implement strong retaliatory measures against the U.S. not because we favour tariffs but as a path forward towards reciprocal elimination of such duties and free market access to the U.S. and Canada. Second, it must implement global steel safeguard actions to enable a competitive and undistorted Canadian steel market.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I'm available for questions now or after, Mark.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.

We're going to Mr. Volpe from the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association.

Go ahead, sir.

[Flavio Volpe, President, Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association]

Thank you.

I'll give you just a quick piece about the APMA. We represent over 230 companies, 95% of independent parts production in Canada, 96,000 employees in Canada, 42,500 in the U.S., and 43,800 in Mexico. We're here to talk about the section 232 duties on steel and aluminum, but I'm going to put them together with the threat to the automotive and the automotive parts sectors.

The threat is based on the powers conferred by the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 through which Congress granted to the President the power to impose tariffs for national security reasons. The definitions are wide. I think it's important to remember that the power is repealable by Congress. Whether this Congress has the gumption to do so or not is a different matter altogether. Their implementation and usage are challengeable in international trade court, and certainly by commercial entities in U.S. district court, where we can seek injunctive relief. Many of us are considering that option if it comes to that.

Steel and aluminum are critical ingredients in the most valuable mechanical structural parts of a car. Stainless steel and other specialty steels used in automotive tooling are not available in Canada in the required quantities. That said, steel buys for volume Canadian parts are directed by OEMs, and Canadian-parts-production-directed buys essentially use Canadian steel and American steel. We are not a threat from a practical point of view to the American steel industry and steel interests.

Unconventional negotiating tactics are the main issue. I know that's stating the obvious, but this U.S. administration is conflating section 232 with NAFTA, and it doesn't appear to have any bias to U.S. automakers or U.S. parts suppliers. They're actually antithetical to the Detroit three. They're antithetical to the major American parts manufacturers. They are speaking directly to what they think is the automotive worker past, present, or future. Their doctrine appears to be disruption while they're stalling competition to the benefit of their current investment prospects. I was supposed to meet Larry Kudlow at the White House two weeks ago and then he had a heart attack the day before, so I met his staff. His staff said to me that we'll get through this, but it's all related. They don't hide the fact that they're conflating it; they tell that you to your face. Now, of course our response has to be Canadian-centric, but I think we can't be naive enough to think that they're going to put it on to paths because we say they should.

Canadian trade expansion continues, and, in our opinion, sometimes with no regard for details, thereby hurting the auto industry at a time when we're under the gun in NAFTA. Cars and parts are big and they don't travel cheaply. What works in PowerPoints and in talking points fails in life. We're having discussions now about a hurry-up offence for ratifying TPP and are having other discussions where the currency that the trade department is using is content levels in automotive. Those are the same content levels that the Americans are asking us to raise and on which they are pounding us with section 232. The section 232 tariff, a 25% tariff on cars and parts, would cause what we like to call a “carmageddon”. The industry operates on single-digit margins and it would grind to an immediate halt with a 25% increase in price. A $32,000 car—that's an average price here—would immediately be unsaleable at around $40,000.

The first customer is not the U.S. customer, not the final customer; it's the dealer, and dealers are not going to take delivery of inventory that is going to put them underwater. If dealers don't take delivery in the U.S. of cars made in Canada by U.S. automakers, those U.S. automakers are going to stall production. There's only a finite number of cars they can put on the front lot. When they do that, they're going to stop buying from Canadian auto parts suppliers, and Canadian auto parts suppliers are going to stop buying resins and stainless steel from American sources. There will be an immediate grinding to a halt, and an immediate impact on the market cap of public companies, and giant operational hits on private companies.

The economic stability of Ontario is at risk, but equally of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Alabama, and New York. That action by itself would send those regions into recession immediately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Sir, would you mind just wrapping up if you can?

[Flavio Volpe]

I'm wrapping up right now. There's a lot of debate, and certainly a lot of debate within the auto parts constituency, on how to respond to the section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminium. While we have submitted applications for exemptions based on very strict protocols like the ones that Sean talked about, where availability isn't there, I think we need to be firm and resolute in our response on steel and aluminum. Otherwise we're going to get punched right in the nose on auto parts and cars.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Mr. Volpe.

The worst thing about being a chair is having to cut people off, especially when they're on a roll. I'll just remind the MPs and witnesses that when the red light goes on, you're on your last half-minute, so if you could just get your thoughts together, that would be good.

We're going to move right over to the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association.

Mr. White you have the floor.

[John White, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Automobile Dealers Association]

Thank you very much.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much for inviting us today. I'm very pleased to be here on behalf of the men and women who work in your local new franchise car and truck dealerships. The Canadian Automobile Dealers Association represents more than 3,200 dealers. We employ over 150,000 Canadians, and our members last year sold over $115 billion in goods.

In our opinion, there is no greater threat to the health of the Canadian economy than the looming trade uncertainty between Canada and the United States, and more specifically a 25% automotive tariff as threatened by the U.S. President. Let me say this plainly: steel tariffs and retaliation measures while significant and negative for the retail automotive market are minimal compared to the tsunami-like economic downturn that will occur should we be subjected to a 25% tariff, or even lose NAFTA.

During the 2008-2009 global financial crisis, the Canadian automobile market decreased to a level of 1.4 million cars. In comparison, last year the market represented two million cars. Now, in our view the effects of 2008-2009 economic situation would pale in comparison to what our members and the Canadian economy would face if we ended up with a 25% tariff on our cars as a result of retaliation. Given the threat, the TD bank issued a special economic report last week—and I'm sure you've seen it—on the auto tariffs scenario. In summary, $74 billion in exports stands to be impacted. They're estimating the job losses to be about 160,000 net positions. For our dealers, we estimate that could be 25,000 to 30,000 people, and of course there could be negative impacts on the Canadian dollar.

One of the things we're doing is working closely with our American counterparts at the National Automobile Dealers Association to highlight the downside of such punitive trade measures in the U.S. and to save us all from what we consider to be a destructive path. NADA is currently meeting with U.S. lawmakers, together with manufacturer and supplier representatives, to deliver a pro-consumer trade message to the U.S. administration. We need the press to get back to the bargaining table and secure a NAFTA agreement and avoid, at almost any cost, a trade war on automotive with the U.S. to save both sides of the border from a destructive path on this behalf.

I would like to hand over, if I might, Mr. Chairman, to one of our members, Bob Verwey from Owasco in Whitby, if I'm not out of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

No problem at all. Go ahead. It's great to see another Dutchman here today.

Welcome aboard and you have the floor.

[Bob Verwey, Sheriff and President, Owasco Inc.]

Dank je wel. I'm very honoured to speak with you today. I'm a little nervous. I'm the little tall guy here. As a Canadian though, I want to say thank you to all of you for being here and helping us out through this situation.

Owasco is a family-owned business. We have three automotive dealerships, a collision centre, our RV dealership, and an RV rental business, which combined employ 220 people. I am the past president of the Trillium Automobile Dealers Association, and we're also actively involved with the CADA and the Recreational Vehicle Dealers Association in its Ontario chapter.

My family and I have put everything on the line in investing over $30 million in two new facilities. The first store is the expansion of our business, which is the building of a new $15-million 41,000-square foot Audi store. Today our builders told me, “You're lucky to build this building now with steel purchases before the tariffs.” Prices of steel have been fluctuating by 20%, which has placed a hold on a lot of projects. We can't even price out the new jobs.

The second is the recent purchase of a 41-acre property in Clarington, where we're expanding our RV business through another $15-million investment in a brand new store. We're hoping to employ an additional 50 people. Our future expansion plans include four new businesses on this site, which we now have to place on hold due to the price increase and the economic instability caused by these tariffs.

Years ago many trailers and motor homes were manufactured in Canada, but today over 95% of the production is in the U.S.A. Although they might be assembled in U.S.A., about half of the aluminum and steel of these RVs is imported from Canada. Given the uncertainty, some motor home manufacturers have already implemented a 10% increase in pricing due to the tariffs, and we've been warned that there are more to come. This will be disastrous not only to our business but to the industry at large.

This will have a national impact. More than two million, or about 15%, of Canadian households own RVs. They should buy more though. In 2017 the RV industry supported 66,000 jobs with $6.1 billion in total spending and $3.4 billion in sales and servicing of RVs. These tariffs will also have broader implications for service industries such as our tourist industry. For example, our motor home rental department provides summer employment for an additional 10 college or university students. Our rental fleet is over 90 pieces, with combined bookings of 5,000 nights and travel of one million kilometres each season. Most of these people—65% of our renters—are from out of the country. You can imagine the tourist dollars that are produced. Due to the tariffs, we'll have significant increases in the pricing of our units, which will decrease our competitiveness on the world tourism stage. People will go elsewhere; they won't come to Canada.

As business people, we take calculated risks. Doing that drives our country. If we have a downturn in the economy due to these tariffs, not only will it put the viability of our business in jeopardy but we will also have no pensions. There will be terrible impacts on our current and potential future employment as well. I look out my window and see the steelworkers, the carpenters, and the plumbers all busy on our new Audi expansion today. These tariffs will create a ripple effect reducing the work for all of these trades. Our salespeople will sell less. People will travel less. Our service departments will suffer. Unlike the temporary shutdown when the Leafs were in the playoffs and for one night our showrooms went quiet, these tariffs will create a long-term downturn. For the livelihood of my personal family and my professional family, my co-workers, we need to make this right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir.

Now we're going to move over to the United Steelworkers. We have with us Ms. Gingrich and Mr. Neumann.

You folks have the floor.

[Ken Neumann, National Director for Canada, National Office, United Steelworkers]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today.

In Canada, United Steelworkers represents 225,000 active members. We are the primary union of the steel and aluminum sectors, representing tens of thousands of members in those sectors across the country.

As an international union representing workers in both Canada and the United States for the past 76 years, the Steelworkers strongly oppose the May 31 presidential proclamation on the extended section 232 tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum. Our international executive board condemns this decision, noting the absurdity of labelling Canada as a security threat.

Canada and the U.S. must work jointly to remedy the real problem of steel and aluminum dumping, for which Canada is not to blame. Canada must provide immediate worker and industry support for those who are going to be affected. This government must also strengthen Canada's ability to remedy predatory and unfair trade practices, as well as use domestic policy measures to ensure the long-term health of the Canadian steel and aluminum industries.

The Canadian steel and aluminum industries ship about $16 billion in products to the United States every year. That represents 90% of all steel exports. Our exports to the U.S. account for over two-thirds of the aluminum industry's total revenue. At least 22,000 people in Canada are directly employed in the steel industry, with another 100,000 indirectly employed. The aluminum industry employs 15,300 workers directly, and a further 41,000 indirectly.

It has been estimated that 45% of the steel industry will face immediate and direct impact. Steel is typically ordered on a six-week cycle, so we will likely see the impact of the tariffs very soon. We are very concerned that the Canadian industry has already been harmed by the one-month delay in the imposition of the tariffs by the Canadian government. We also note that the tariffs will deeply impact certain communities that are particularly dependent on steel and aluminum, such as Hamilton, Ontario, or Alma, Quebec. The United Steelworkers believe that these tariffs will hurt not only Canadian workers but also American workers.

Our union demands swift and thorough response to mitigate the impact on these sectors.

First, we support the countermeasures announced by the federal government and believe that they must be comprehensive and immediate. Exemptions should not be granted. This is particularly important to protect products that are made in Canada and to bolster the domestic market. Any revenue emanating from the counter-tariffs must go to the industry most affected by the section 232 tariffs.

Beyond the initial countermeasures, the government must introduce comprehensive supports for the steel and aluminum industries similar to the worker supports for the softwood lumber industry, as well as those recently introduced by the Quebec government in support of its aluminum industries. Measures must mitigate job losses as much as possible, including immediate support to industries in the form of loans, loan guarantees, or expanded domestic market opportunities. We also advocate for worker supports through EI and ESDC.

Canada must address the crux of the problem affecting North American steel and aluminum workers—cheap imports of products with distorted prices from countries that are engaging in illegal and predatory trade practices. For example, bad international actors, such as China, prop up their steel industry, overproducing products that glut the international market. This is compounded by the cheap labour and poor environmental regulations that, along with currency manipulation, artificially lower the price of steel.

We support recent measures to prevent offshore diversion from tariffs previously imposed on other countries, along with measures aimed at transshipment and trade circumvention. The trade union movement should be given the right to initiate trade complaints. We also appreciate that the government has increased the budget of the Canada Border Services Agency to identify and stop steel from glutting the Canadian market, but more must be done.

The imposition of these tariffs will lead to a surge in diverted products to our shores. In order to protect our domestic market, the government must launch WTO-compliant safeguard actions to protect especially vulnerable domestic products.

Finally, Canada must use domestic policy measures to react to price distortions that will result from poor labour, human rights, and environmental practices, including but not limited to countervailing duties.

Thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir.

Now we're going to open up the floor to dialogue with MPs. We have enough time for one round.

We're going to start, right off the bat, with the Conservatives for five minutes.

I understand that you're splitting your time, Mr. Allison and Mr. Carrie. Go ahead. You folks have the floor.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

I'm not sure you can split five minutes, but we'll do the best we can with that.

Six days ago Wilbur Ross told the Senate finance committee why all countries, including Canada, were included in section 232, and Mr. Neumann, you just alluded to that.

He went on to say:

The only way we're going to solve the global steel overproduction and overcapacity is by getting all the other countries to play ball with us.... And while they're complaining bitterly about the tariffs, the fact is they're starting to take the kind of action, which—if they had taken [it] sooner—would have prevented this crisis.

Given these statements and the committee's report on Chinese overcapacity and subsidies for steel, do you believe that the government took too long? Do you believe Mr. Ross when he says that if we had taken action sooner, we wouldn't be in this problem today?

[Ken Neumann]

We've been preaching for a long time in regard to dumping by various countries, and not just China. Our union has been very proactive. We have the right, in the United States, to file complaints as the trade union representing the workers and the communities. We don't have that access here. We just got some recent access.

To me, this is not something new. China didn't just expand its production to over a billion tonnes. This has been going on for some time. People have not looked at it. Now, because of the seriousness of the issue here, because Canada is now under the gun and we're now going to be attacked with 25% and 10%, everybody is raising that profile. But we've been concerned about dumping for some time.

We are currently dealing with it. We've had pipe come to Saskatchewan from another country, right past one of our facilities. In the meantime, that pipe is being produced in Saskatchewan, homegrown or homemade, whatever you want to call it.

I agree that this is a global situation where countries have to come together and deal with the cheaters, but don't blame Canada. Canada is not the cheater. You can't have a better neighbour than Canada, if you look at the decades of history, be it with the auto history or the steel industry.

You're right. We have to have laws that are going to protect the interests of our workers and our communities and the industries we represent. A lot needs to be done, but you're right that there needs to be some jointness to it. The fact is that we've been preaching about dumping for quite some time.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Okay.

Do you agree with Mr. Ross that if we had acted sooner, possibly we wouldn't be in this tariff situation that we are in today, whether it's with China or whoever?

[Ken Neumann]

Yes, I agree. We've been working at this, as I said a moment ago, for many, many years. This is not something new to us. Our union has done close to 100 trade cases in the United States and we've only lost six. This is on tire, rubber, glass, you name it—the whole gamut.

Fortunately in Canada we're moving towards that and we want to make sure that we have the ability to protect our members and the communities they work in.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Thank you, sir.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much.

That was what was disturbing last week, because I think Mr. Ross made it very clear that the target isn't Canada and that they don't see us as the security problem. However, they've been trying to get the world to work together to address the greater problem, which is the illegal Chinese dumping. Even the threat of these things is starting to affect people on the ground.

I want to pose my question to Mr. Verwey, because I appreciate your being the “little tall guy” and representing a business on the ground. You're the guy who takes the risks. The awareness, for me, is that this can go very bad very quickly—the uncertainty, the trickle-down effects. I wonder if you could comment on what effects you're seeing already. You mentioned some of them in your opening. What do you think the government should do now?

With the auto tariffs, as my colleague said, Mr. Ross stated that if we had done something earlier...and I know Minister Freeland was here last week and said she was actually in the meeting between Mr. Trump and Mr. Trudeau a year ago in Italy where this was brought up, but it's taken a whole year before they addressed it. If they're threatening auto tariffs now, can we wait a year before we take some action?