I think you start by getting the paradigm right. That's why I did the work I did over the last five years on integrative trade, showing that all the components of international business matter and how they fit together. I think people are now getting that.
The next step, then, is not so much analysis as it is getting the delivery in the field right, looking at how the trade commissioner service is positioned geographically, what their objectives are; looking at all of the instruments of government, things like the Canadian Commercial Corporation, EDC, and Investment Canada, which has been drawn inside International Trade Canada; and giving the right mandates to some organizations.
Investment Canada, since it was created in 1985, has had a mandate only to attract investment to Canada. I think they're only doing half the job. I think we have to understand that for Canadians to compete in Europe, for example, you can't ship from Mississauga or from a plant in Calgary. You have to go to Europe, because there are barriers around fortress Europe. And unfortunately, we've never really empowered government institutions to actively pursue that outward investment flow.
So getting the paradigm right really does matter, and then examining, institution by institution, whether you have the right tools in place.
One of the comments we made in our report is on thinking about trade remedy—the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the use of things like anti-dumping. Well, all that was built for the traditional view that imports are unfairly competing against domestic goods. We still need to examine whether competition is fair or not, but we have to do it with a different mindset—not assume that imported steel from China is a bad thing. Maybe for some manufacturers, it's critical; it's the only way they're going to be in the game.