Debates of Dec. 9th, 2016

Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we asked a question in question period about the health care escalator being cut by the Liberals, so my question concerns health care costs, in particular the cost of pharmaceuticals.

We know that CETA will increase the cost of pharmaceutical drugs in Canada. I wonder if my colleague would elaborate on what that would mean for his constituents if, for example, seniors and people with long-term needs are forced to pay higher health care costs because of pharmaceuticals and do not have private insurance to cover that or do not get it through their employers. What will it mean for people in his riding who have to pay higher pharmaceutical drug costs?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very pertinent question.

There are two important points to make. For months and years now, we have been talking about health transfers, and we were already talking about them during the previous Conservative government. We always heard the same answers assuring us that there would not be less money. However, we know that if there is not less money, that means the amount transferred is the same, but year after year, the same amount will end up being worth less and less.

The first thing to point out, and this is not in dispute, is that when the health care system was established in Canada, 50% of the funding came from the federal government and 50% from the provinces. Currently, about 20% of health care funding comes from the federal government and is sent to the provinces. If that is not a clear demonstration of a gradual pull-out by the various federal governments, I wonder what is.

Regarding the system in Quebec, everyone is covered by a drug plan. Of course, for the first prescriptions of the year patients practically pay full price until they reach the guaranteed threshold; after that there is a kind of user fee. It is x dollars per prescription. Even with this low cost, since it is supported by the community through a drug plan, there are still people in my riding and around Quebec who have to make a choice, or at least ask themselves the question. Can they afford to renew their prescription this week, or instead will they have to go without groceries or transportation, which is often public transit?

The impact is direct and affects everyone.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my NDP colleagues and I have many concerns about Bill C-30, An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures.

Since the beginning of negotiations with the European Union to conclude a trade agreement, I have had the impression, like many of my colleagues, that things are being hidden from us. A few years ago, on the occasion of a trip with the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, the Canadian delegation, of which I was a member, had the opportunity to discuss this agreement, which was then in the negotiation stage, with certain European parliamentarians, who were very clearly much better informed than we were.

It seems that the Conservative government of the time wanted to reveal absolutely nothing to its parliamentarians, even to the members of its own party. However, the Conservative and Liberal members quickly decided to accept this agreement without even knowing its details. For the New Democratic party, the fact that Canada intends to open its trade borders to Europe is too important for us to contemplate it lightly. That is precisely what the government is asking us to do.

Even though the NDP is in favour of strengthening our trade relations with the European Union, major concerns persist and many questions remain unanswered regarding the proposed agreement. For one, the government is asking us as parliamentarians to ratify an agreement even though certain European states have clearly indicated that the investor-state clauses will have to be amended or removed before the agreement is ratified.

We all remember that last October the regional government of Wallonia prevented Belgium, and hence the European Parliament, from signing the agreement, and then agreed to sign on the condition that it retain its right to refuse to consent to its ratification if its conditions are not met. So we are being asked to ratify the draft of an agreement which is not even final yet, and to disregard the concerns raised on the other side of the Atlantic, even though, at the same time, certain concerns are also being raised in Canada.

We are not going to give the government a blank cheque to finalize the last details of the agreement without being able to examine it in greater detail before it is implemented.

To add to the absurdity of all of this, I would like to remind my colleagues that 42% of Canada’s exports to the European Union go to the United Kingdom. In fact, the concessions Canada made when negotiating this agreement were based on the assumption that the United Kingdom would be a full party to the agreement. However, the Liberal government failed to reassess the net benefits of an agreement with Europe without this major trading partner of Canada’s, which could withdraw following Brexit.

Also, and I would like to talk a little in greater detail on this point, we are being asked to approve an agreement that creates a major breach in supply management and puts many farmers, particularly dairy farmers, in insecurity.

Supply management strikes a market balance. It allows dairy producers to collectively negotiate prices and plan total milk production in order to meet consumer demand. Unlike what is happening around the world, Canadian dairy producers can sell the product of their hard labour at stable prices, which are not subject to market fluctuations. This ensures that Canada’s dairy industry is one of the only self-sufficient agricultural industries that do not depend on government subsidies to survive.

Opening another breach in supply management will mean fewer and fewer guarantees for many products in terms of income stability, and this is particularly true in the case of family dairy farms.

The Conservatives had promised a $4.3-billion compensation package to supply-managed farmers who will be affected by the Canada-Europe agreement and the trans-Pacific partnership.

The Liberal government, for its part, decided to create a $350-million fund for dairy farmers. According to the Dairy Farmers of Canada, that amount is not nearly enough to compensate the industry considering the losses it will suffer under the agreement with Europe:

CETA will result in an expropriation of up to 2% of Canadian milk production; representing 17,700 tonnes of cheese that will no longer be produced in Canada. This is equivalent to the entire yearly production of the province of Nova Scotia, and will cost Canadian dairy farmers up to $116 million a year in perpetual lost revenues.

In other words, the funds announced are not nearly enough to make up for the losses that Canadian dairy farmers are going to suffer under this free trade agreement.

It is important at this time to talk about the situation facing the smallest dairy producers and family farms, which are on the verge of extinction.

I met with Viateur Soucy in June during a protest here, in front of Parliament, calling on the government to protect supply management and farming. The protestors were worried about diafiltered milk coming into the country and the impact of the trans-Pacific partnership and the agreement with Europe on dairy farms.

At 73, he drove his tractor to Ottawa with dairy producers from across Quebec and other regions of Canada. In Nouvelle, in the beautiful Chaleur Bay area of the Gaspé, the Soucys have been running a family farm for three generations. When Viateur, the eldest son of Ovide Soucy, took over his father’s farm with one of his brothers in the seventies, he decided to turn it into a dairy operation, because he saw it as an opportunity to provide his family with a stable income.

History has proven Mr. Soucy right up to now. Significant investments were made in modernizing the farm, the herd, machinery, new fields to feed the herd, and especially in production quotas, which, as we all know, are far from being allocated.

As long as the integrity of the supply management system was maintained, he was guaranteed an income. Mr. Soucy had an opportunity that most farmers do not, that of being able to keep his business in the family. Obviously, it is always easier to find someone to take over if they can be convinced that they will have a stable income if they put in the work, and of course on a farm, that means a lot of work. Mr. Soucy was lucky enough that one of his sons, Mikaël, took over the farm in 2004.

Today, Mikaël is the one who is dealing with the stress brought on by the decisions of this government and the previous government. When we spoke to Mikaël, he was not very happy with the government's decisions. We asked him what he thought of the compensation announced by the Liberals. Unfortunately, I cannot quote exactly what he said here because he was really unhappy.

Basically, he said that the revenue that farmers would lose because of this agreement would seriously impede their cash flow and that asking producers to invest and go further into debt was not a logical solution. He also asked us to ask the government a question. I will quote him here. He said, “I would like to know how long the government is going to string me along. Do I need to sell now or should I wait until my farm is no longer worth anything and I go bankrupt?”

That gives us some idea about his state of mind. Having a stable income is one thing, but once he has paid his overhead and his employee, that is, when he can manage to find one, he does not have much left to pay himself. If his income gets cut even further, what will be left for him? No wonder he is stressed and frustrated.

There are fewer and fewer family farms in Canada. It would be great if we could protect them. The problem is that if we allow a breach in supply management and compensate producers for their losses, this decision could be overturned by a change in government.

Given the number of promises broken by this government, you have to wonder whether someone might wake up one morning and say that the government has changed its mind and is going to withdraw this compensation. Who knows, maybe a lobbyist will pay $1,500 for access to a minister and ask for the whole thing to be cancelled.

If we uphold the integrity of supply management, we avoid all these possible outcomes. When it comes to this agreement, there are still too many unanswered questions and potentially negative impacts on the economy and on Canadians for the New Democratic Party to approve it and support its implementation without amendments.

Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians, said, “Given the process could take another five years in Europe, what's the rush here other than another photo op? There needs to be a fuller public consultation process on CETA, just as the government has done with the trans-Pacific partnership.”

What is the big rush?

The Minister of International Trade often says, when talking about softwood lumber, that she wants an agreement, but not just any agreement. Well, that sums up quite well the NDP’s position on the Canada-Europe comprehensive and economic trade agreement. We want a good agreement, but not just any agreement.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with one of the things my colleague pointed out. Although it is important to have trade deals, it is of absolutely no use if they are not kept up or if we cannot resolve the disputes associated with them. The government has had over a year on softwood lumber and has accomplished nothing. As well, we have seen nothing on diafiltered milk.

If the government cannot even keep to the agreements we have, I have the same concern that if we were to enter into this European deal and there were disputes, that it would do nothing. Could the member comment on that?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, talking about such disputes between governments is one thing, but how the Liberal government will resolve them is another. As my colleague pointed out, we are seeing it with softwood lumber. It is not easy. The government has been in negotiations for quite some time and nothing is happening. It has been in negotiations with Europe for quite a while, and nothing is happening. As I said earlier, Canadian members of Parliament did not know what was going on. That is a huge problem.

The member also mentioned disputes. I would like to answer another question about investor-state disputes. For example, chapter 11 of NAFTA gives rights to multinational corporations without requiring anything of them. On the other side of things, it imposes obligations on states that have no rights. For instance, Canada loses its rights to protect the environment if a multinational wants to take it to court. This has already happened in Quebec with shale gas, for example.

This is a huge problem that needs to be fixed before the agreement is signed.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a further concern is that Newfoundland and Labrador could expect major losses in fish processing. Is the member concerned that the government has yet to explain how it will compensate Newfoundland and Labrador on these losses?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, we have talked about compensation for dairy farmers, but we have not said anything about the fishery. There are several members across the way from the maritime provinces, where the fishery is very important, but nothing is being done.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

There are 32 members.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

I am told there are 32 members, Mr. Speaker. These members should stand up and protect their constituents, people who are likely to lose jobs. People in the maritime provinces already have to leave home to work in other provinces, but this will be even worse. If there is no compensation, it will be total chaos.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague from Hochelaga perhaps elaborate on the negative effects that the comprehensive economic and trade agreement could have on pharmaceuticals and the cost of prescription drugs in Canada?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to that, it is very clear: there will be an increase in the cost of drugs.

A few years ago I met with one of my constituents living in government-subsidized housing. What the government paid him only covered his rent and just enough for food. He did not even have any money for subway tickets so he could try to find work or take a trip downtown. This gentleman needed prescription drugs. If he could not afford to take the subway, he could not afford prescription drugs either. Many seniors are forced to cut their pills in half because they cannot bear the full monthly cost of drugs.

This agreement hurts people in general. Many seniors are on medication and many seniors live under the poverty line, especially older women. This agreement will hurt women seniors. We need to fix this as well before signing the agreement.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, trade between Canada and Europe is already free. There are very view tariffs between Canada and the European Union, which raises the question of why we need this comprehensive economic and trade agreement. However, if we are to evaluate it as a trade agreement, then a logical starting point is to look at the current pattern of trade between Canada and the European Union.

In 2015, Canada exported $38 billion of merchandise to the EU and imported $61 billion of merchandise from the European Union. That meant a trade deficit of $23 billion. This imbalance means that if CETA functions as advertised and increases two-way trade, it will also aggravate our trade deficit. For example, a 10% increase in bilateral trade would increase our exports by $4 billion and would increase our imports by $6 billion. That would make our trade deficit with the European Union $2 billion higher, a subtraction from output and employment in Canada.

The economic models that were used to argue for CETA simply assume balanced trade and full employment, but we know that those assumptions are unrealistic in the real world. Furthermore, these models do not take into account, and indeed the government has made no effort to take into the account, the consequences of Brexit. The United Kingdom was the only major European economy with which Canada ran a trade surplus.

In 2015, we exported $16 billion to the U.K. and imported $9 billion from the U.K. Of course, the United Kingdom is no longer part of the European Union. Therefore, if we look just at the remaining EU countries, we find that Canada exported only $22 billion of merchandise to them, but imported $52 billion. What this means is that taking the United Kingdom out of the equation, we imported more than twice as much as we exported to the rest of the European Union. Indeed, with those countries, we suffered a trade deficit of $30 billion.

In this new scenario without the U.K., a 10% increase in bilateral trade would boost Canada's exports by only $2 billion and would increase our imports by $5 billion. That would make our trade deficit with what remains of the EU $3 billion higher, an even larger subtraction from Canadian output and employment.

In terms of trade flows, it is not at all clear that this agreement could deliver a benefit to Canada. Even if we imagine that CETA does boost Canadian output and employment, we should remember that it will also make it easier for European companies to bring in temporary foreign workers. There is absolutely no reason to expect that any potential increase in employment would actually benefit Canadian workers.

Another major problem with CETA is that, as I suggested at the start of my speech, it is not really about trade. In fact, one of the negative consequences of this deal would be to extend the duration of patents on pharmaceuticals. Now this is the opposite of free trade. Extending patents is actually more restrictive of trade and it would have the consequence of driving up the price of pharmaceuticals for provincial health insurance plans as well as for individual Canadians.

Perhaps the most controversial element of CETA is the investor-state provision. In order to try to get the deal through, the government did water down these provisions somewhat, but the question we need to ask is why there is any need for investor-state provisions in CETA. Do Canadian investors not have confidence in the European court system? Do European investors not have confidence in the Canadian judicial process?

Of course, investor-state provisions have their origin in the North American Free Trade Agreement. Canadian and American investors had doubts about the Mexican judicial system. Those doubts may have been well founded, but what is important to note is that since NAFTA came into effect, its investor-state provisions have not been used principally against Mexico. They have been used principally against Canada, against our country.

I think it is worth reviewing some of the NAFTA chapter 11 cases that have been brought against Canada. If we go back to the 1990s, there was the famous Ethyl case, in which an American corporation sued Canada for trying to ban a gasoline additive, MMT, that was already banned in the United States. Ultimately, the Government of Canada gave in on this. It had to pull the regulation and also pay the company $13 million U.S.

There was the more recent case of AbitibiBowater, which had received rights to water in Newfoundland and Labrador to operate pulp and paper mills. When the company closed the last of those mills, the provincial government tried to retake those water rights. AbitibiBowater sued Newfoundland under NAFTA. How could it do that? AbitibiBowater is a Canadian company. It simply registered itself in the United States so that it was then able to avail itself of NAFTA's chapter 11 to sue our Canadian government.

In the end, the federal government paid AbitibiBowater $130 million to resolve the case, essentially to compensate it for the loss of water rights that it was not even using.

The most recent case I will mention is Lone Pine Resources. This is an Alberta oil and gas company that registered itself in Delaware and is suing Canada under NAFTA over the Province of Quebec's ban on fracking. It is claiming $250 million in compensation.

We see that in all of these cases, and there are many other examples, what is happening is that a foreign company is using the investor-state provisions to challenge a democratic law, regulation, or public policy that might arguably impinge on some opportunity to generate future profits.

However, the full extent of the damage cannot really be captured by specific cases, because for every case where there is actually a dispute under NAFTA, there are many other cases where the government has decided not to go ahead with a new regulation or not to strengthen a public safety standard for fear of one of these investor-state challenges, so these investor-state provisions also have a chilling effect on public policy in our country.

We have had all these problems with investor states in NAFTA. We do not have any problems or any real objections to the European judicial system, so why would we try to put investor-state provisions in the Canada-European Union trade agreement? It just does not make sense.

It remains possible that the European Union will not be able to fully ratify the deal for this reason. However, I think the point we should be considering is why Canada would want to impose more of these investor-state provisions on ourselves.

To wrap up, there is absolutely no case for CETA as a trade deal. If we look at it in terms of trade flows, it really would not be advantageous to Canada. Furthermore, the agreement has a number of other negative provisions, such as temporary foreign workers, such as extended pharmaceutical patents, such as investor-state disputes that have nothing to do with trade. That is why the NDP is opposing this bill.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously investor-state resolution processes are important, although it should be noted that if a country does treat foreign nationals in a way that is arbitrary, it can either use the resolution process or it can go to a court. It is important to recognize that here in Canada, we treat everyone equally and unfairly, and it is only when a government, whether it be provincial, local, or federal, treats a foreign company differently than it would a Canadian company.

Does the member say that we should actually treat foreign nationals less fairly than we do other Canadians? Or, should everyone operating in Canada be given the same rights to work under and to follow good laws? That is my question.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would start by pointing out that in a couple of cases I mentioned, it was Canadian companies that were reconfiguring themselves as foreign corporations in order to use the investor-state provisions. However, this is not really about discriminatory treatment. This is about public policies, laws, and regulations costing a company that happens to be foreign, or that is able to characterize itself as foreign, some kind of future profit opportunity.

The Canadian court system would certainly uphold the rights of foreign investors, and I think the European court system would uphold the rights of Canadian investors. What we do not need is to create a special tribunal process that gives special privileges to foreign investors.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed my colleague's speech. I think he has a very in-depth knowledge of not just this trade deal, but of many other trade deals. That is the kind of discussion we need here in the House, to hear the pros and cons of both sides that are well informed.

I had two things that struck me while the member was speaking that I would perhaps like him to comment on, if he cares to.

The first would be that, to me, it seems that when this deal was starting to be negotiated, Britain was in the EU. It was pre-Brexit. It was also before the election of Donald Trump as the president. It seems the world has kind of moved on from where we were when we were first negotiating this trade deal.

I wonder if perhaps by signing this deal, the Liberals are committing us to the past. The Conservatives certainly negotiated this deal under a different global setting. The Liberals kind of picked it up and are taking credit for it, but I wonder if they could have done a better deal, looking more at what is coming down the pipe. Trade with Europe is too important to get wrong

I am wondering if my colleague could perhaps comment on the Brexit side of things, how the world has changed, and how Canada might suffer if we sign this agreement.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is certainly correct that past Conservative and Liberal governments have taken the attitude that they should just sign any and all free trade agreements, without much regard for whether they are good deals, and without much regard for the actual provisions of those agreements. That is one of the ways we have been in trouble with things like investor-state provisions.

My colleague is also correct to note that there has been a shift away from this logic of free trade all the time and at all costs. There is a sort of re-evaluation of corporate globalization and what it means for working people. Rather than rushing ahead with this deal, I do think it would make sense for Canada to re-evaluate our position as well, and to re-evaluate our position in this changed world.

Certainly in terms of Brexit, as I pointed out in my speech, it removes from the European Union the one major economy with which we were running a trade surplus. The trade imbalance that Canada will suffer with what is left of the European Union is even worse, and the potential negative consequences of getting this deal wrong are even more dire.

My colleague has added some very good reasons to vote against Bill C-30.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, this side of the House is strongly in favour of CETA because trade means more growth, and more growth means more jobs, which is what this government is all about. We are thrilled to be signing this progressive trade agreement with our European partners. Our Minister of International Trade has worked so long and hard on this and, as a number of speakers have already mentioned, the other side of the House also put in a considerable effort on this trade agreement. It will deliver tangible growth and opportunities for our middle class. CETA will also provide a strong foundation for Canada and the EU to demonstrate leadership on an inclusive, progressive approach to global trade.

I would like to end by moving the following motion. I move:

That this question be now put.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible what we are debating.

In my speech, I just spoke about the problems we had. I was saying that we wanted an agreement, but as the minister on the other side of the House says, not just any agreement. We were told that we would be allowed to speak for as long as we wanted on this very important agreement for us, and then the government decides to stop debate.

I would like to know why it was decided to suddenly stop debate, when we are not even sure that the agreement will be signed five years from now. What is the huge rush?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, CETA has been a long time in coming. There has, in fact, been 10 years of discussion on this signature agreement between the European Union and Canada. It provides great benefits for both the European community and our country. It is going to be a very good thing for jobs and growth in our country.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is very disappointing. The Conservatives very much support trade deals and recognize how important they are. In fact, we were the party that actually negotiated and got this trade deal done.

It is unbelievable that the Liberals are squandering away the goodwill and the trust that had been established. It really begs the question of how much disrespect do they think this Parliament, this House, will be able to endure when they create this kind of poisonous atmosphere?

I am very disappointed in this. I really do not know what they are trying to accomplish, except to try to bully and push everything through that they can.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this does not end debate.

I would really go back to my main point. This is a very good deal for Canada. Our international trade minister has worked so very hard on this over the last year. The previous government did not get it done, but our government is getting it done.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly stunned and even shocked by the government's attitude.

We are not debating a small inconsequential bill, but an economic agreement with Europe, which is extremely important. The NDP considers this economic agreement to be very important. We have questions and concerns we want to raise because we want a good agreement.

I began a tour of my riding to meet with all the stakeholders in agriculture, including the Union des producteurs agricoles in my area and cheese factories like Fromagerie Saint-Guillaume. I will also be meeting with representatives of Fromagerie de Notre-Dame-du-Bon-Conseil and Fromagerie Lemaire in Drummondville. These people are terribly worried, because they will be hit hard.

What is the government's response to their concerns? It is going to shut down debate. That is truly a shame, and I am very shocked—not personally, but because the people I represent are shocked. People are saying that they are terribly concerned about the future of the dairy and cheese industries, and that the government's actions are totally unacceptable, an insult to all the people who are fighting and who get up every morning to work.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would just say what I have already said, that this is a very good agreement for our country, a very good agreement for the European Union, a very good signal to the world that we are not going to huddle into a protectionist shell but are free traders in this country.

I would congratulate our international trade minister for working so hard. It looked pretty dark there for a while, but our minister pulled it out of the fire. She was over in Europe doing great work on behalf of Canada. We are proud of her and this government.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed again that the government is trying to shut off debate on the bill, and the only reason I heard from the other side was that they are tired. I do not think that is what we are paid $170,000 a year to do, to stand up and say that we are tired and we do not want to debate important things like trade deals. It is shameful. It also shows the contempt the Liberals are showing for this House.

I want to put the bill in a bit of context, given what we have just seen here. When we check how many bills have been put through this House since the great Liberals came to power, there are 10. There are only 10 bills that have gained royal assent. Five of them have been money bills, so they have to pass. One of them was ordered by the court, which was the assisted dying bill. If we think about the amount of work the government has actually put forward in this place, it has been minimal, yet we are still seeing the Liberals move to closure, to cut off debate, and to say that they are too tired to debate these things, but where is the work we are supposed to be doing?

If I look back to the previous Parliament in which I was privileged enough to sit, the Conservatives were in power at that point. I really disagreed very strongly with a lot of what the Conservatives did, but at least they were organized. At least the cabinet knew what it was doing. I would stand up and disagree, vote against and argue. I of course argued against the many closures that were put in place, but at least Prime Minister Harper knew what he was doing. Now what I see on the other side—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!