Debates of April 21st, 2016

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy Industry

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is a serious issue in my riding.

Producers would come to me about this issue every week before and after the election campaign, and they still do today. I set up a committee with them to monitor the government and to ensure that it fixes the problem.

We are here to represent our producers and our constituents. People put their trust in us to find a solution to their problems. They do not want us to continue importing concentrated American milk. The rules are being circumvented to replace our producers' milk.

I am very proud to represent my constituents. I will rise on their behalf in the House at every opportunity I get.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will take this time today to share with my esteemed colleagues in the House a major problem affecting many of Canada’s dairy farmers, including quite a few in my own riding of Richmond—Arthabaska.

First, I appreciate that this is a complex issue for some, and that the government is working with the Border Services Agency, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and the Canadian Dairy Commission to solve the problem.

However, it is now time for the government to act, to address once and for all the ambiguity surrounding the problem of the inappropriate use of certain milk proteins, namely diafiltered milk, in the compositional standards for cheese.

I may not be a farmer or an agricultural expert like my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière, who by the way delivered quite a speech and masterfully answered questions from the other members before me, from the other side of the House, but one thing is certain: I am very much aware of the magnitude of the repercussions from the inappropriate use of milk proteins for dairy farmers across Canada.

Furthermore, during the recent election campaign and since my election, I have had numerous meetings with associations, farmers, professionals, retailers and Canadians interested in the issue to gain further insight into the problem.

To the many stakeholders listening in, I gave my word that I would do my level best to put as much pressure on the government as necessary to resolve this issue once and for all.

I realize that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food might have a hard time getting the Prime Minister to understand how important this issue is, particularly considering that there is no mention of agriculture in either the throne speech or the budget. This deliberate omission, combined with the government's lack of interest in this file since coming to power, makes it clear that this issue is not exactly at the top of into the government's agenda.

I will therefore do my best to provide a clear, detailed, concise summary of the reasons why the Prime Minister, or at least his Minister of Agriculture, must show leadership on this file.

First of all, the use of milk proteins has a negative impact that is destabilizing the dairy sector, a key sector in Canada's economy. With $3.6 billion per year in tax revenue and 215,000 full-time equivalent jobs, the value of Canada's dairy sector to our economy is incalculable.

Diafiltered milk imports cost Canada's economy more than $200 million per year. In central Quebec, 835 farms are losing an average of $15,000 each. These farms employ 5,600 people directly and indirectly.

When we take a closer look at what the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Producteurs de lait du Québec or the Union des producteurs agricoles are asking for, we realize that their request is far from being excessive or unreasonable.

I wholeheartedly support their demands and I call for quick action on this matter. All they want is for current regulations to be enforced, which means treating diafiltered milk as what it is: a dairy ingredient in cheese that cannot go beyond a certain percentage in the product.

Currently, we have a strong system thanks to supply management, which is based on three important pillars: a farm gate price that ensures a fair price for farmers based on production costs; a milk supply that matches the demand, commonly referred to as “quotas”; and import control based on tariff quotas.

When those three conditions are met, the dairy sector can perform adequately and its viability is ensured without any additional financial support from the government. This is especially important when we consider the deficit the government is running.

However, when one of the pillars becomes unstable, the whole system becomes vulnerable. That is exactly what is happening right now. The third pillar, import control, is starting to crack.

As I mentioned at the outset, I appreciate how complex this issue is for some and that there are many stakeholders involved. That being said, I think the government has held enough consultations and it is time to act.

In addition to the numerous consultations held with farmers and the multitude of presentations made on the subject, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food studied the specific matter of milk protein on March 9 and heard the following witnesses:

Dominique Benoit, senior vice-president of institutional affairs and communication with the Agropur co-operative; Alain Bourbeau, director general of the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec; Caroline Emond, executive director of the Dairy Farmers of Canada; and Peter Gould, general manager and chief executive officer of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario.

What I conclude is that consultations are all well and good, but sooner or later, action is needed. The time has come to take action.

On behalf of all dairy producers in Canada, the farmers in my riding, and consumers who are being misinformed by the government in this case about the ingredients in the products they are consuming, I urge the minister to provide direction immediately on this issue.

It is time to stop this dishonest practice regarding Canada's system of supply management once and for all and reassure Canada's farmers that the government is there for them and the next generation does not need to worry about being abandoned.

In the specific case of diafiltered milk, why are we allowing the use of milk protein in the manufacturing of our cheeses here in Canada when the United States will not even use it, even though that is where it comes from? If it is not good enough for them, why should we eat it?

It is just common sense. I wonder why I should even have to rise today with my NDP and Conservative Party colleagues to speak to this issue that seems so obvious and requires only the Liberals' political will to be resolved.

I entered politics to influence the development of our beautiful country and contribute in a constructive manner. I also have faith in our democracy. I leave partisan politics aside and act in the interest of the public and my constituents.

If we want our country to remain strong and prosperous, then we must provide appropriate support for the sector that is the foundation of every society in the world: agriculture.

We must provide our farming families with certainty so that they can continue to use their ingenuity to create a world-class agri-food economy for all Canadians. These individuals are hard workers who depend a great deal on the government's decisions right now, and for that reason it is essential to maintain their trust.

That being said, today it is time for the government to stop hiding behind consultations and start listening to the recommendations and taking action, because like it or not, a responsible government is in office to take action and not stall.

Today, farmers need to regain their momentum, and the elected members of the House have the power and the duty to help them do that by enforcing the existing rules.

It is the government's responsibility to do so and, as the saying goes, the government must walk the talk.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the words of the member. He indicated that he is here to advocate for the dairy industry's best interests and to do it in an apolitical fashion.

A Liberal member put forward an amendment that I believe would in fact be in the best interests of the industry. We could pass that motion if as many members as possible voted in favour of it.

If he is true to his words and believes that this particular motion, as amended, would receive broader support from the House, thereby giving more support to the industry, would he not recommend that the NDP give its consent and allow us to have a vote on this commitment?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that no amendment is required. What this motion calls for is quite simple.

It is simply a matter of enforcing the law. We have to ensure that the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency do their jobs and enforce the standards to ensure that milk is milk and milk proteins are milk proteins. It is not complicated.

All we need is some political will on the part of this majority government. It has every authority to make this change.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his answer.

I am pleased that the Conservative Party recognizes that the Liberals' amendment says absolutely nothing. Basically, they wanted to delete the motion and replace it with what the Liberals do best: empty words that say nothing.

I was perhaps hard on my Conservative colleagues this morning, but I will thank them for that in the hope, of course, that I will not be taken to task back home for such comments.

All joking aside, why does my colleague think the Liberals are trying to amend our motion so it no longer says anything? Why do the Liberals want to throw in the towel and not do what is so simple and what producers want: enforce the law?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words and especially for his question.

Honestly, I do not understand. I wish I had an answer to his question, but it makes no sense. This is extremely simple. All we want is for the government to enforce the law. Everyone here wants to work to ensure that our producers can earn a living and operate on a level playing field. We want our agriculture sector, which is the very foundation of our society and an economic driver across Canada, to be able to sustain us, provide jobs, and drive the economy. Right now, all we need to do is adopt this motion so that we can move on to other things. There are all kinds of other issues we should be working on right now.

I completely agree. We should not accept this amendment from the government.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska on his excellent speech and the work he does for dairy producers in his riding and across Canada.

Today, he had the opportunity to participate in this very important debate. Like me, he heard meaningless speeches by government members, who show no concern for this issue and never offered even a hint of a solution.

Can my colleague tell us what he thought about the speeches he heard from the government members?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

It gives me a chance to go back to the previous question. I was asked why I thought the Liberals wanted to amend the motion. I simply think that they are managing this file in a partisan manner and they want to drag things out, nothing more. They probably feel very frustrated that this did not come from them. Right now, we are at a point where we have to stop talking and start taking action. There is only one thing to do, and that is to make sure the law is enforced, period.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the joys of being a member of Parliament is that one gets to learn about issues that one might not otherwise be aware of if not for being in this place.

In my case, I have been learning a little bit about diafiltered milk, having met with the Dairy Farmers of Canada earlier this year, and now through this very well-worded, specific, concrete motion that has been brought to the House on how to actually fix this situation.

The problem, as I understand it, is that there are rules for the composition of cheese in Canada, but certain milk proteins, such as diafiltered milk, are being used and counted against the allotment for actual milk when in fact they are not milk.

How do we know the diafiltered product is not milk? It is because the Canada Border Services Agency says it is not milk and does not charge duties on it as it does on milk.

This is really just an instance of government needing to appreciate and understand its own clearly written rules for the importation of milk proteins. The government needs to recognize that and then follow through on it when it comes to the way our cheese is produced.

When the government fails to do that, as it has been, it means that there is competitive pressure to use the cheaper product. It is cheaper because it can be imported without being subject to the same duties as other milk. When that is counted against the quota for milk, it means that Canadian milk, which would otherwise be used for that purpose, is at a competitive disadvantage.

Therefore, all we are asking is that the rules be fairly enforced so that Canadian producers can sell the milk they produce, milk that actually meets the requirements, and get the economic benefit so that those dollars that are being spent can be reinvested in Canadian communities instead of shipped out to the United States. I think that is a laudable goal.

Incidentally, this is why I am often concerned when we talk about larger trade agreements, and there is mention of those here. It is because those agreements tend to tighten the noose, whether it is on Canadian producers in the agricultural sector or on other Canadian workers. In similar ways, those agreements create competitive pressures that either price those Canadian goods out of the market or cause the work and the jobs essentially to leave Canada.

Although it works in a different way, we are seeing something similar in the TPP with the provisions on temporary foreign workers. There are pressures created by allowing companies to bring in workers who can be sent back at any point by their employer and who are therefore concerned about complaining about their wages or working conditions. In this way, downward pressure is created on the expectations of Canadian workers. It is just one more way in which certain kinds of trade agreements end up not benefiting Canadians.

They are not benefiting Canadians, or at least Canadian workers and producers. There may be some few Canadians at the top who make obscene amounts of money because of market access, but if it is not being spread around, I have not only wondered about it but I have also not been able to answer the question of why we should get excited about supporting agreements that may produce enormous amounts of wealth for a select few Canadians while putting many other Canadians out of work or forcing them to work for lower wages and lower benefits.

I think this point is important when the government says that it wants to support supply management. Certainly we heard for a long time from Liberal members in the Canadian Wheat Board debate that they were supporters of supply management for Canadian wheat farmers. However, it is not just about what legislation one brings to the House, but also about what else one is doing. One's right hand has to be talking to one's left hand, and vice versa.

Here is an example of a government that says it supports supply management but then turns a blind eye to the enforcement of its own regulations, the practical implication of which is to undercut Canadian supply-managed producers. If the Liberals want to say they support supply management, that is one thing, but if they want to do something about it, they could pass this motion and follow through on it, because that is what supporting supply management really looks like. It looks like undertaking to do things, particularly the easiest things, which in this case means that the government should enforce its own regulations to make sure that it is not putting Canadian producers at an unreasonable competitive disadvantage.

That is why I was disappointed to see that Liberals members are not standing to support this motion. My understanding is that it was one of their election commitments. They said that within 100 days of being elected, they would solve this problem because it is an easy problem to solve and just requires enforcing.

Members can imagine how they came to have it as an election commitment because when this kind of thing comes into a war room, people are discussing it and saying, “So all we have to do is enforce our own standards? Yes, make that promise. That is an easy one. We can do that. That is no problem.”

I do not understand how it became so difficult to enforce just because they won the election. It was an easy commitment to make, because it is the right thing to do. It is a matter of simply enforcing regulations that are already on the books. It is mysterious to me why we are not already doing that.

In case members are worrying that I am going on at length and they are going to have to listen to me for a full 20 minutes, I would like to let you know, Madam Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Windsor West. I will put the members in the House at ease by letting them know that I will be splitting my time and that this is not a 20-minute speech. I could go on, but I will not.

However, when one is making a good argument about something important, one needs to make sure that everything gets said and that it gets said well. Sometimes it takes time to do that. Thankfully, today it will not take too long, because I know the member for Windsor West is excited to make good arguments as well.

What is really the issue is one of those things that boggles the mind, because it is simple. It was a clear election commitment. It is about enforcing regulations that are already on the books. We already have the capacity to do this. It simply means keeping money in Canada and standing up for Canadian producers instead of standing up for American producers and allowing that money to go elsewhere.

We have heard from producers themselves that this is something they want. My understanding is that not only the producers who make the milk but also those who make the cheese want it. Everyone is on the same page. The only people who are not are the American producers and the Liberal government.

I just do not understand how they are the ones getting together on this issue. Why do the Liberals not stand up and vote with the rest of Canadians who are concerned about this issue? Then we can move forward and talk about all the many other issues that need to be discussed.

With that, I will finish.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, part of the challenge we face is that for the last decade the law has not been enforced. The official opposition can cry all it wants about this, but it is literally crying over spilled milk. If it had done anything on this file in 10 years, we would not be having this dispute today.

Now we find ourselves in the situation of having imports that are quite obviously in contravention of rules and we are trying to figure out how to exit from that situation, which was what the promise was. If we read what the promise was, we see that it was to resolve the issue. It was not as described by the member opposite.

I understand how they can draw the same conclusion as to the result we are trying to get to, but the process we promised, which is important, was that we would resolve this issue.

In light of the fact there are cheese producers in Quebec and in other parts of this country that are currently under contract and involved in trade where this really wrong practice has been allowed to be moved forward, do they not recognize that exiting out of this situation, rather than just simply enforcing a regulation and cutting off supply to cheesemakers and to the people employed in that industry, requires us to evolve a solution to ensure that we do not disrupt every company in the process and that we get to the right place in the right way, so that we have a permanent solution to this problem, rather than just simply throwing enforcement at the issue?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would say two things in reply.

First, a little over six months ago, if the Liberals were saying anything about this, it was that if the previous government was not enforcing it, that was a case for a new government. Canadians have a new government now, and I think they want some follow-through.

With respect to the promise, from what I have seen, I would say the Liberals have been masters, as they were in the election campaign—and we are seeing the truth of it now that they are in government—of putting a promise on paper. We have seen it with the Prime Minister saying about door-to-door delivery, “Do not pay attention to what I said. Go read the fine print on the website.” We have seen it with public servants, who had an expectation that they would be treated with respect through Bill C-5 and the removal of the legislative mechanism to enforce a solution, but the Liberals came back to the bargaining table with the same offer.

The Liberals have been masters of creating promises that in the letter were very limited but in the spirit and in the impression that they made in the minds of Canadians were quite significant.

This would be another issue on which I think they created an expectation and are now saying, “Read the fine print.”

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would say to the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona that one does not get to that stature without drinking a little bit of milk. Strengthen those bones.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, a lot of people in here know me for the work that I do on the defence committee, but from 2006 to 2008 in the 40th Parliament, I served as chair of the agriculture committee. I was a beef cattle operator before politics. Before BSE, I ran a livestock export company that predominantly moved dairy cattle. I can tell members that protecting supply management is critical to the success of our dairy farms right across this country. That is why our processors need to work with our dairy farmers to get the products they need rather than going in the back door and trying to violate the import system and bringing in derivative products as we are seeing right now and undermining our overall supply management system.

I am proud to support the motion that is before the House today.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to divine a question out of that and proceed to answer it.

[An hon. member]

Choose one.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the compliment. It is better than trying to create a compliment out of a question, so I appreciate being in the position of having to create a question out of a compliment.

[An hon. member]

A campaign promise.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

That heckle worked. I don't know what you said but it threw me off. Points to you, sir.

Madam Speaker, the problem is that our cheese is being watered down and the problem with the Liberal amendment is that watering down the motion is not the way to solve the problem of watering down the cheese.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before resuming debate, first of all, I just want to remind members that they need to talk to the Chair.

Second, there are people who want to get up and ask questions on this and I would really appreciate it if members could try and keep their questions short so we can get in as many questions as possible on this. I see there is a lot of interest. Please keep the questions as short as possible, otherwise I will rise and members will not get a chance to ask their questions.

Order.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, National Defence; the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, The Senate; the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, Justice.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to such an important motion for all of our country. The motion not only relates to the specifics of dairy farming, but it also relates to the trade agreement we are entering into and the welfare of Canadian citizens from coast to coast to coast.

It is important to note that we believe in trade, but it has to be responsible and fair trade. Those are key elements that are missing from the TPP on many fronts. It is also one of those things that could undermine generations of contributions, planning, and infrastructure development to create an industry that could be exposed to a system outside of Canada that has an advantage, but there is a disadvantage for us, because we take account of humane and environmental standards and have a system with the highest standards in the world.

We have a lot to be proud of in that system. It is about a country choosing one of the basic nutritious products and converting it into goods that Canadians can purchase and rely upon to be healthy, stable, and predictable. Canadians want to know that when they go about their purchasing, when deciding what to buy and when to buy. Now, that could all be turned upside down, and likely will be under this agreement.

I live in a border town. In fact, 40% of Canada's daily trade goes through my riding, the two kilometres along the Detroit River. There is the Detroit-Windsor tunnel, the CP rail tunnel, and the Ambassador Bridge. There is a hazardous waste ferry that crosses the river as well. Ironically, some of the goods and services we trade have to go through a hazardous waste materials check even if they are empty, because there are remnants in those containers.

I will return to the motion later, but I want to talk about the cultural experience we have.

Some people shop in the U.S. when our dollar is at an advantage, but they often do not know the differences, aside from taste, between American and Canadian milk. What they do not understand as well is that the milk industry in the United States is heavily subsidized by the U.S. government, from the farm and contributions from development marketing all the way to the grocery store.

It sounds attractive to go there to buy cheap milk, but what some Canadians do not understand is that milk is not the same as Canadian milk. They put in additives and preservatives to extend the shelf life. U.S. milk is very different from the Canadian milk on our shelves. It has not been tested as rigorously and has not gone through some of the approval processes that are necessary in Canada to ensure the health and vibrancy of the product.

Milk, as a kind of signature product, is crucial for families across Canada. It is interesting though, because there are other industries that are at risk, where many nations have strategic plans. Some of those at-risk industries and areas include the auto industry, property rights, foreign takeovers, rights and Internet freedoms, and affordability of prescription medicines.

This one is also very important, because quite literally, what will become an issue for our water and food supply in the future will be food security. Food security, at the end of the day, means the protection of good resources for Canadians so they can purchase goods and raise their families versus the situation right now. It could be a very short gain to bring in other products at the expense of this industry, which was promised protection and supports. We were supposed to get action quickly, within a matter of days here in the House of Commons, but it never happened.

We put at risk all the investment we have put forward. We put that at risk that investment for a short cut in the short term, and we will never recover in the long term.

I point to other examples in the world where we have seen governments take the short cut thinking it will save consumers, will save things, and will allow things to be better, but it has not been the case.

Most notably, look at what is taking place in London, England, and other municipalities with regard to the privatization of water. Water is one of the key elements for many of the products that are delivered at the end of the day. They have actually been seeking and securing the return of those elements, after they have privatized those facilities.

I worry about dairy farmers and others. Once we lose these elements, how do we get them back? We have a tough enough time to convince young people to stay in farming and carry the family legacy. We are talking massive investments for farmers and their families for the operations necessary to produce a product. That product, at the end of the day, is crucial for our Canadian citizens and our independence. We do not want to rely upon others for those resources.

I will give a quick example from the auto sector of how this poor judgment and the lack of competition can result in real problems. Specifically, it is the Takata air bags. Because of consolidation and lack of competition, the air bags virtually became the air bags for North American automobiles. There were problems. We did not have the same problems in Canada, but they are produced in the same places with the same logistics and the same products go into those air bags. Six people died because the air bags deployed and shrapnel killed them. Now we are in the process of recall. Defective bags are still being put into cars because they do not have a solution just yet and they cannot replace them in all the cars. We did that by dependence.

What happens if we lose this industry and we do not have the independence to resume it? I think that is critical, because all that investment we have made over the years does not seem to be worthwhile at the end of the day.

I have seen it before with respect to economic development where there are some businesses that we would call loss leaders for the full advantage of the overall plan. I have seen that with the auto sector. We have gone from number two to number ten in auto manufacturing, because the auto sector was the sacrificial lamb of NAFTA. That is why we lost the Auto Pact which was developed in the 1960s and created much of the prosperity and continues to be a cornerstone in the Canadian economy, despite the challenges. This could happen with the dairy sector as well.

The motions says, “recognize the magnitude of the economic losses to Canadian dairy producers from the importation of diafiltered milk from the United States, which totalled $220 million in 2015”.

There is a simple example of unfairness applied, because CBSA at the border allows some of it. It becomes uncompetitive because of the laws we have and the lack of interest to actually apply them. The government was good at promising a review. It was supposed to deliver a review and a solution. It has not delivered. How do we invest in this industry right now that is so critical when all it is going to do is bring uncertainty?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is nothing like sending an issue from the first stomach to the second stomach, regurgitating it to chew on the cud, sending it back to the second stomach, leaving it there and then milking it for all it is worth without ever letting it get to the last stomach to be digested.

Indeed, while the Conservative record is an “udder” failure, the member's own retirement-age New Democratic Party intellectual mastication on such an important grassroots issue is entirely reminiscent of cow pie.

The last government left this issue with so many holes in it, it might as well be Swiss cheese. It certainly is not Canadian cheese. However, we are working on a properly filtered solution. The answers are coming. We need not ruminate on it until the cows come home.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am just embarrassed by that. We have real people who have invested generations on something, who are wanting to voice an intelligent debate in this House of Commons, and that is what we get? Is that the best they can do? It is shameful.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, let us say it outright: dairy farmers are paying the price for government inaction. Foreign companies violate our rules. Canadian laws are circumvented. The government is failing to ensure that Canadian laws are upheld. Regulations on cheese composition are not enforced. The Quebec National Assembly needs to bring the federal government into line and demand that it do its job.

Throughout the debate I have heard the current Liberal government blame the Conservatives, who in turn blame the Liberals.

Does my colleague not agree that we need to know who is in charge? Are the Americans the ones with the real power on this file?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, in this trade agreement, there are lots of things that we would give up. The American interest was clear in many cases and has been exposed.

One of the things I am most close to is the auto industry in this deal, and I will give a quick example on that. The Americans worked independently to get an exemption for the automotive sector of 20 years. Canada had to do that alone, despite an integrated market, and we got five years. The U.S. got 20 years of phasing in and Canada got five years. Malaysia got 12 years. We were outdone by Malaysia. Think of that.