Arnold Viersen
Peace River—Westlock, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, one of those really great laws is Bill S-211 , which requires companies selling or distributing goods in Canada to produce an annual report. The Liberals, contrary to the law, revised their directive and exempted a bunch of their corporate buddies from having to file the report. Now the U.S.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned executive bonuses, and I just want to point out that the company also gave some great bonuses to its executives, while it has built zero kilometres of rail line. I just thought I would put that on the record as well. I want to ask my hon.”
“Mr. Speaker, $200 million is what we are talking about with this launch pad. In my riding, a sawmill was recently shut down, with 190 jobs lost. That $200 million would have gone a long way there. The member for Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park and I were debating this earlier, and he talked about how we needed a Canadian Cape Canaveral.”
“Mr. Speaker, I assure members that I only have one petition to present today. I rise to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about human rights protections in India.”
“The petitioners are asking that the government ensure that any and all trade deals with India are premised on mandatory human rights provisions, that extremists are sanctioned and that the government promote a respectful human rights dialogue between Canada and India.”
“Since then, only minor tweaks have been made to that. Because of that, there are a host of companies that work hard on creating a product that is well serviced and lasts a long time. It does not ever really end up in the landfill, because they just keep rebuilding it and keep working it over.”
The complete record
Every one of 305 lines we hold for Arnold Viersen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 7.
“Mr. Speaker, one of those really great laws is Bill S-211 , which requires companies selling or distributing goods in Canada to produce an annual report. The Liberals, contrary to the law, revised their directive and exempted a bunch of their corporate buddies from having to file the report. Now the U.S. is investigating Canada for not fighting forced labour and is threatening us in the CUSMA talks. Why is the government putting the CUSMA talks in jeopardy so that it can pad the pockets of its corporate buddies instead of fighting slavery?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned executive bonuses, and I just want to point out that the company also gave some great bonuses to its executives, while it has built zero kilometres of rail line. I just thought I would put that on the record as well. I want to ask my hon. colleague a bit more about the interest rate and the value of our money, how that affects homebuilding, and what the government is doing to affect those things.”
“Mr. Speaker, $200 million is what we are talking about with this launch pad. In my riding, a sawmill was recently shut down, with 190 jobs lost. That $200 million would have gone a long way there. The member for Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park and I were debating this earlier, and he talked about how we needed a Canadian Cape Canaveral. I wonder if the hon. member could do a bit of a comparison between Maritime Launch Services and Cape Canaveral.”
“The petitioners are asking that the government ensure that any and all trade deals with India are premised on mandatory human rights provisions, that extremists are sanctioned and that the government promote a respectful human rights dialogue between Canada and India.”
“Mr. Speaker, I assure members that I only have one petition to present today. I rise to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about human rights protections in India. The petitioners are saying that, according to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, various actors are supporting and enforcing sectarian policies that seek to establish India as a Hindu state. The petitioners say that Christians in India are being targeted by extremists vandalizing their churches, attacking church workers, and threatening and humiliating their congregations. They also note that Indian Muslims are at risk of genocide, assault and sexual violence.”
“I understand that a bill to regulate a whole bunch of particular products might be a large bill, but that has not stopped the government before from introducing large bills. That could be, but I do not understand. Last, sometimes the government gets out of its lane a bit when it comes to provincial jurisdiction. I know that a number of colleagues have raised concerns around provincial jurisdiction, that this bill would perhaps cross some of those lines. We are concerned about that as well. Perhaps the issue should be left to the provinces. I know that in particular when it came to tractor regulations, there was—”
“We debated whether that was a good idea or not, but we could have done it with this bill as well, saying what the timelines for consumer products ought to be, and we could have built a schedule for that. We can do all that in the House. However, this bill is much like the Liberals' approach to a lot of things. They get a great idea, such as going to space, or whatever it happens to be, but then they do not put the details in the bill. They do not do the hard work of governing the country. They say to just trust them; they will get the minister on it. The minister will use their pen and decide all the things that need to go into it, working with this or that particular stakeholder. Parliament is dedicated to building the laws of this country.”
“There used to be a regulation on small collision repairs. If someone ran into a pole at less than 30 kilometres an hour, there was a test for that. If that happened and the repair had to be made, it had to cost less than $2,500 or less than $300, depending on where one was in the world. It was helpful that the government made this benchmark saying that as a result of a certain kind of a collision, it should not cost more than a certain amount to repair a vehicle. There is the capability of doing that kind of thing. I wish the bill had contemplated many of those kinds of things. We can put in law, and the House can be responsible for it, that a certain product should last a certain length of time. We did that with the airlines.”
“Since then, only minor tweaks have been made to that. Because of that, there are a host of companies that work hard on creating a product that is well serviced and lasts a long time. It does not ever really end up in the landfill, because they just keep rebuilding it and keep working it over. The two examples I gave, airplane engines and Cummins engines, are of things that were designed entirely by the market. They were not constrained by a lot of government regulation whatsoever. That reality does exist. We see the bureaucratic growth of the government. I am going to talk particularly about the appliances the bill is trying to capture. I do not necessarily think there is opposition to putting in place a mandatory minimum on how long they should last, a benchmark for warranty, essentially. That has been done in the automotive industry.”
“(1740) I have a lot of expectation and no concern, because that technology has been around probably since the 1970s, that the engine will do another 30 years in whatever piece of equipment it is in. Because it is so well built, it is very well supported. There are a dozen companies that support it with aftermarket parts. Because it is so popular and well known, there are a dozen companies that copy it, build other pieces for it, build attachments and these kinds of things. These are all great things. We see this also with airplane technology. A lot of airplanes are flying around today with 1930s technology in their engines, because the industry figured it out. The progression of aircraft went from 1912 to the 1930s, and that is when it really dialed in on what an airplane engine ought to look like.”
“If the car or truck that engine was in rusted away, which would be after about 10 years, that engine was taken out and moved into another vehicle. They can often been seen for sale, and the pickup truck that it is in is very worn out. They take the engine out and put it in another piece of equipment, because that engine did not have planned obsolescence. It was built it to last, and it lasts. Again, we see more concerns around efficiency and other concerns. On the flip side of it, these other products that do not last long end up in the landfill. That Cummins engine, probably designed in about 1990, is still operating, and because it is so good, it will be taken out of the pickup truck it is in and stuck in another piece of equipment, saving it from the landfill. Members can rest assured, it will continue on.”
“As the government has layered on regulation after regulation, or this or that code, it has not necessarily been the market that has driven that. It has been regulation. Now we are seeing that the government is going to put a solution for all of these created problems on the back end of it and say, “Oh, now manufacturers have to make sure their product lasts a particular length of time.” There is another bunch of problems around this as well. Planned obsolescence is something that drives me crazy. I come from the automotive world and am an auto mechanic by trade. With older vehicles that had the 12-valve Cummins, for example, there was no planned obsolescence for it. It outlasted the vehicle they put it in by a factor of three or four.”
“With all of the energy requirements and all of the water requirements that have gone into them, it seems that, when someone buys a dishwasher nowadays, it does not advertise how well it does the dishes, it advertises how little water and how little energy it uses. I actually want a dishwasher that does the dishes. The other thing is the dishwasher that my mom had seemed to last for 30 years, and the dishwashers I buy seem to last for 10 years. Members can see the issues that we have now. Here we are. Consumers are frustrated with the fact that they have an expectation that the products they buy do not seem to be lasting as long as they expect them to last, nor can they get the parts for them. This is reality.”
“Life is generally a series of trade-offs. Particularly when people are purchasing a consumer product, there are a lot of trade-offs. It is an interesting thing to me. Earlier today we heard the Leader of the Opposition say that, when Liberals see something moving, they tax it. When it is still moving, they regulate it, and when it stops moving, they subsidize it. This is essentially the subsidizing part of that equation. Over the years, we have seen Liberals pile on requirements, one after the other, whether it be around water use, energy use or products that can be used. Now we see that products do not necessarily last as long as they used to. Take a dishwasher, for example.”
“Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to add my voice to the debate on Bill C-267 . As I mentioned earlier, this bill seems to be trying to boil the ocean. It is a framework bill. It attempts to do a laudable thing, to make it so the products that we buy have a shelf life that lasts a long time and they do not quickly end up in the landfill. Now, I have a cousin. I have a lot of cousins, but I have a particular cousin who has an expression, and I always think it is interesting. He says, “That is pure landfill.” Basically, he is saying that something is a poor quality product, and if someone purchases it, they might as well just take it straight to the landfill because, by the time they put it to work, it will not do the thing they need it to do or it is poor quality. I always think of that when we talk about this particular bill.”
“Madam Speaker, I am wondering about the lack of specificity in this bill. One of the things the member talked about is planned obsolescence, or programmed obsolescence. These things are very frustrating to consumers. I am wondering why he did not bring a bill that would have targeted that specifically through legislation rather than in this broad framework bill, which is like trying to boil the ocean.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I rise here today, I would like to congratulate Maria Gainey, who used to work for me. She got engaged on the weekend to her fiancé Toby, so I would like to congratulate them. My question for my hon. colleague is around sovereign wealth funds. Alberta has a heritage fund. This is a thing that has been done already in Canada. This happened at a time when Alberta was making record profits through the oil patch. It has continued and grown to $32 billion today. I am wondering if he has any comments about that.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating to me. As Conservatives, we believe Canada is one of the greatest countries in the world, and we should be the wealthiest country in the world. We have unlimited natural resources. We are the envy of the entire world when it comes to our energy resources, yet here we are in massive deficits run for 10 years by Liberal governments. Where does the member think the wealth should come from for this so-called wealth fund?”
“Speaker, and I respectfully ask that you find a prima facie question of privilege, at which point I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.”
“In this situation, I would remind members, we are discussing annual reports addressing potential situations of exploitation, forced labour and modern-day slavery being committed by Canadian companies operating in other countries. I am sure every member of the House would agree that we need to have access to these annual reports, which the minister is obligated to table in the House of Commons and has failed to do for three years. The effect of this failure is to limit members' access to information required for effective parliamentary oversight of an entity established by the Government of Canada and to frustrate the operation of the House's own procedures for examining these reports. It is on this basis that I submit that this matter engages the privileges of the House, Mr.”
“In that case, the Chair observed that where statutory deadlines exist, the prima facie finding of contempt would be more readily supportable, as the members' ability to scrutinize the government's action is directly affected by compliance with tabling requirements. The Chair also emphasized that the tabling obligations are central to Parliament's ability to function. Unlike that circumstance, the present case involves a recurring statutory obligation to table annual reports. The concern here is not an isolated delay but an ongoing failure to ensure that Parliament is kept informed through the mechanism that it established.”
“In that instance, the Chair declined to find a prima facie breach because the matter had already been taken up by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. That circumstance does not exist in the present case. No committee has been seized, however, with the failure to table the CORE annual reports. (1520) As a result, members have been deprived of access to these reports that would have otherwise been subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the House's established procedures, including the referral mechanism contemplated under Standing Order 32(5), which depends on proper tabling in the House. A further ruling, in 2001, similarly addressed a failure to comply with statutory tabling obligations.”
“In the ruling on February 5, 1992, at pages 6425 to 6427 of the Debates, Speaker Fraser affirmed, “It is through tabling that Members are officially apprised of the existence of a document....it is not done lightly but is done for a serious purpose.” Speaker Fraser went on to state that “the tabling of documents...is one of the procedures on which hinges the ability of Members to discharge their functions” and recognized that the failure to table these required documents may impede both members and the standing committees in carrying out their mandate under Standing Order 108(1). Speaker Fraser also noted that the House is the appropriate forum to address the deficiencies arising from non-compliance with statutory tabling requirements.”
“There is a clear precedent in supporting this proposition that the failure to comply with the statutory tabling obligations may engage the privileges of this House. On February 3, 1992, a question of privilege was raised concerning the failure of a minister of finance to table order in council appointments in the House of Commons required under the order of the Customs Tariff.”
“Furthermore, the failure to ensure timely tabling of these reports limits our ability as members to access this information, required for effective parliamentary oversight of an entity established by the Government of Canada. It also prevents members from engaging the House's established process for scrutiny of these tabled documents. I recognize that orders in council are not statutes, but they do have force in law. Orders in council are indeed a form of subordinate legislation, deriving their power from a statute, an act of Parliament. In other words, they are legal instruments made by the Governor in Council pursuant to a statutory authority and take legal effect when signed by the Governor General.”
“Furthermore, the minister has left this position unfilled for over a year, and I doubt we will see a report later this year. In accordance with Order in Council P.C. 2019-1323, dated September 6, 2019, which establishes the mandate of the CORE, section 13 states: (1) The Ombudsperson is to submit an annual report to the Minister on their activities. (2) The Minister is to table [that] annual report in each House of Parliament. (3) The Ombudsperson is to publish the annual report after it is tabled in Parliament. This raises concerns regarding the compliance with this order in council, which imposes a clear legal and fiduciary obligation on the minister to table these reports in both Houses each year. If the minister does not table these reports in the House of Commons, the CORE cannot release them publicly.”
“I want to be clear. What we are discussing here is the annual reports of an entity empowered by the Crown to respond to potential victims of exploitation, forced labour and modern slavery being committed by Canadian companies operating in other countries. I went to the CORE web page to verify this for myself yesterday, and the last annual report tabled in Parliament was the 2021-22 report tabled on March 22, 2023, by the minister. The former ombudsman confirmed that she sent the 2022-23 annual report to the minister in November 2023. She also confirmed to me that she provided a draft report to the interim ombudsperson at the end of her term in April 2024. That report has never been tabled in Parliament, nor has the 2024-25 report that would have been completed by the interim ombudsperson.”
“Mr. Speaker, this morning I gave notice with respect to the question of privilege I am raising today. The question arises from the reporting obligations of the Minister of International Trade , specifically the requirement under the order in council that annual reports be tabled in each House of Parliament by the minister. I am honoured to be one of the co-chairs of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. We just held a parliamentary briefing with the International Justice and Human Rights Clinic from UBC. At that briefing, we learned from the former ombudsman that the Minister of International Trade has failed to fulfill this obligation to table annual reports from the Canadian ombudsman for responsible enterprise. Not only was one report not reported, but three reports have not been reported.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was just talking about the launch corruption into the stratosphere pad out in Nova Scotia. We then discovered, through the work of Marie Lumsden, about some of the directors of the company—”
“We are paying $20 million a year for the privilege of maybe being able to use that concrete pad. That is not all. The Liberals really know how to make their friends happy: by backdating this contract a whole year and paying them back an entire year. Marie Lumsden looked into some of the people involved. Lo and behold, a Liberal premier is on the board of directors of this company. Wow, look at that, Liberals feeding their friends. Members may think that is kind of interesting. There is a partnership. All of this was brought up by the partnership from—”
“I think that is a pretty generous amount. Everybody made some good money building that pad. The Canadian government could have done that. The Canadian government could have leased the land from the Nova Scotia government, spent $1 million and built the concrete pad. I think that would be an acceptable thing for us to have done, given that the Canadian government owns most of the airports in Canada. I do not know if everyone knows this, but most of the airports in Canada are owned by the Canadian government. Then private companies, generally not-for-profits, operate these places, and they pay the Canadian government for the operations. Members can imagine being flabbergasted that this has been brought up here, that we are paying for the privilege of being able to maybe one day use this concrete pad to launch a rocket somewhere.”
“The Liberals want us to talk about that today, about our Canadian participation, how we should be so proud that Canada participates in space and that we should have our own Cape Canaveral. What we saw in the news last week is no Cape Canaveral. It is a concrete pad. Now, I poured a bit of concrete last summer, and I can say that concrete is pretty expensive by the cubic metre. It was about $300 a cubic metre back home. I can imagine that is a pretty expensive place, and the company is paying $13,500 a year to lease the land that this pad is on. We know that. I would give them a generous amount. I have paid a few contractors in my time for concrete as well, so I will be generous with it. Let us say some Caterpillar work was done there and some gravel trucks came and brought some gravel. It cost maybe $1 million.”
“We have seen the Randy Boissonnault scandal. We have seen this over and over again. In the fallout of the news being reported around this gravel driveway and a concrete pad out in Nova Scotia, and a government contract for $200 million, the government decides this is the week we should be talking about space exploration, or participation in space. I am excited that Canada participates in space. I remember growing up being super proud of the Canadarm. Does everyone remember the Canadarm? I remember being excited about that, going to the Edmonton Space and Science Centre, watching the spacewalk on the IMAX and things like that, and also about the International Space Station and our participation in that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park for sharing his time with me today. I am surprised the Liberals have chosen to bring up space exploration today, given the fact that over the last week, we have seen the concrete pad out in Nova Scotia. I am sure we have all seen the picture by now. I want to thank Marie Lumsden from the Hamilton Examiner for the great article that has given me the information for this speech here today. The Liberals are true to form. We have seen over and over again where they have worked very hard to enrich their friends. We have seen the clam scam. We have seen the ArriveCan app. We have seen the WE Charity scandal. We have seen the Chuck Rifici and the marijuana “pump and dump” schemes. We have seen the Brookfield stock go up over time. We have seen the green slush fund.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would just like to share an experience that I had today at committee. The Liberals are actually filibustering a motion that we moved at the veterans affairs committee to bring some scrutiny to the spending that is being done in the veterans department. The Liberals are filibustering our motion there and they are taunting us with the fact that, very shortly, they will have a majority on the committee and will be able to shut down our motion at committee. I am just wondering if the member has any comments about that. We are seeing the Liberals taunting us. What does the member think is going to happen in the coming days?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the bill. The longest ballot has been a concern for quite a while. I am wondering if the member can elaborate a bit more on how this bill would ensure that the longest ballot committee could no longer function as it has in the past.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 comes as an answer to two Supreme Court decisions about requiring a warrant to get IP addresses. There were a number of ways the government could have reinstated the ability of law enforcement to get access to IP addresses, and it seems to have developed quite a cumbersome one in Bill C-22, so I am a little concerned about that. We have also heard a number of other things about Bill C-22 when it comes to lawful access, and I am hoping we can get a bit of clarity on this. Bill C-2 was originally introduced, and I am wondering why the government chose to pick some of the pieces from Bill C-2 and put them in Bill C-22.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on becoming a grandfather. Is there a time when the Liberal Party would think it appropriate to use the notwithstanding clause? Some of the things around the IP address could have been addressed by the government just using the notwithstanding clause. I am just wondering if there is ever a time that the Liberal Party would use the notwithstanding clause.”
“Mr. Speaker, Easter is the most important celebration, because it marks the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the son of God. Humans are not perfect. We sin, and this sin requires justice. That is why it is an incredible act of love that our Creator descended to earth to bear our punishment and rise again on the third day. As Jesus himself said in the Gospel of John, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die”. This promise was fulfilled on Easter morning when the tomb was found empty. In the Gospel of Matthew, the angel declared, “He is not here; he has risen, just as he said.” This is the good news. We are truly forgiven through the death of Jesus, so whether it is legal or not, I will always proclaim, “Christ is king. He is risen, risen indeed.””
“Not at all, Mr. Speaker. I think I laid that out very well in my speech. Another thing that is really cool about free trade and free markets is that high prices cause these products to move, so I am excited to see increased production here in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I love the topic of free trade. Canada's Conservatives are the party of free trade, and we have been advocating desperately for free trade between the provinces. We have been calling on the federal government to stand on the provinces a little bit to ensure that the barriers between provinces are also eliminated. While we are excited to be assenting to the free trade agreement with the U.K., we also call on the government to eliminate free trade barriers within Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of why we did not vote for that amendment. I am not familiar with the amendment, to begin with. What I do know is that our allies that are also part of the CPTPP are looking forward to this being assented to, so that the U.K. can enter into the CPTPP. I do not think we want to hold that up. I do not know the particulars of that, but I do know we want this to go through.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not know what to say. I do not think the member even listened to my speech. I made the exact opposite case. I said there are sentiments that Ottawa does not listen to Alberta. Once again, this here is an example. When trying to get our beef into the U.K., we see the dissimilar rules around beef coming into Canada or beef going to the U.K. They are different. Again, it does not feel like the government is listening to Alberta.”
“Those are some of the major frustrations with the Liberal government that we have around a free trade agreement with the U.K. I look forward to the U.K.'s accession and the agreement being brought in. I know that there are mechanisms within the bill for the resolution of some of these issues. I hope that the government is prepared and that, the moment the U.K. is recognized in the trans-Pacific partnership, we will start using some of these mechanisms for these dispute resolutions, so that we can get reciprocal agreements on beef and pork across the country. I also hope that we can sort out some of the U.K. citizens' pensions here in Canada. This is another thing that was brought up. I know that many of my colleagues have brought that up.”
“When it comes to western Canada's concerns, to get a pipeline to the east coast or to fix some of the trade friction around beef products or other agricultural products, canola exports and all these kinds of things, suddenly the government seems to say that there is nothing it can do about it. It seems to sit on its hands or just to completely forget about it. Maybe that is the case. Maybe, when the Prime Minister is going over to England, he just fails to remember that there is the beef problem, which is an interesting thing, because he also says to us all the time that he is an Alberta boy. Alberta and Alberta beef are quite synonymous. One would think that, coming from Alberta, he would remember to bring up beef.”
“We hear over and over again about concerns about unity in this country and frustrations from, particularly, Alberta, that Ottawa never listens to what their concerns are. Here again, we have another one. Alberta beef is the best beef in the world. Alberta produces a lot of beef for this country. Beef in Canada and Alberta beef are quite synonymous. Again, here we have one of the sticking points, one of the reasons that folks in Alberta get frustrated with the Ottawa government, which is that when the priorities of central Canada are a concern, if there is a risk to jobs in central Canada, the Liberal government bends over backwards and burns down the phone lines to get a resolution to these things.”
“I have pointed out the multiple opportunities along the way where we have had opportunities to change this. To be fair, that was under a previous prime minister, who may not have understood pork or beef production, who liked his fancy socks and things like that. Today, we have a Prime Minister who is very integrated with the U.K., who knows a lot of people over there, who carries a passport from that side of the ocean and who calls himself a European. Certainly, if there was a Prime Minister of Canada who could get this done, it would be the current Prime Minister. It is a total failure. Today, we are being asked to accept the U.K. and Northern Ireland into the trans-Pacific partnership, which is something that we support, but this would have been another opportunity to fix some of the frustrations that we have.”
“has put in place that specifically block our beef and pork from getting in. This is a major frustration. We hear from the Liberal government all the time that it is a new government and has a new Prime Minister . The Liberals are not wrong in saying they have a new Prime Minister who has a great relationship with the U.K. He was the governor of the central bank in the U.K. Certainly, he would have some contacts over there. It feels to me like this beef problem that we are having and this pork problem that we are having with the U.K. would just need a text message or a phone call for a guy who has a contact list like the Prime Minister does, who has been the Governor of the Bank of England. Certainly he would be able to sort this out in about five minutes.”
“We are being out-competed by the Scandinavian countries to get our lumber into the U.K. That is kind of understandable. It is not that they are blocking our lumber from getting in there. It is just that the Scandinavian countries overproduce for their own countries. They are much closer to the U.K., so shipping costs are less. All of that kind of makes sense. We have this free trade deal, and I think there are some tweaks that the Canadian government could do. Building code changes in the U.K. would allow for our style of dimensional lumber to get into the U.K. a little more easily, and there are a number of these things that the government could be working on to ensure that Canadian lumber can get in there. (1615) On the beef side of things, there are blatant regulations that the U.K.”
“However, when particular rules in the United Kingdom are preventing our beef from getting in, that is what gets us quite upset. That is the reality. This has been a problem going back for a very long time, and I would point out that we have had Liberal governments for over 10 years that have failed to address this issue, even though they have had multiple opportunities to address these issues. Every time there is a change in the relationship, there are opportunities to say that, by the way, this beef issue or this pork issue continues to be a challenge for Canadian producers. We say that we have this free trade agreement with the U.K., yet the U.K. is using other mechanisms to block our beef and our pork from getting in. Softwood lumber is a different story.”