Thank you for that question.
You mentioned that we should be in violent agreement on trade. I share that sentiment, and I say that without any partisan motive. I believe trade should be a non-partisan issue because it is so critical to Canada's long-term prosperity.
There are some who make the assumption that trade is a zero-sum game. It is not. You don't have just a winner and a loser. Expanded trade agreements increase the size of the overall pie if they're done right, and I'm committed to doing them right. The purpose of expanded trade relationships and trade agreements is to build prosperity in all of the partner countries. So thank you for that question. I will continue to focus on doing that.
The initiatives that President Obama and Prime Minister Harper recently announced on our border vision and regulatory cooperation are examples of the close working relationship between the United States and Canada. That relationship is of critical importance. With those two initiatives we have focused on identifying security risks early, moving the security perimeter to our perimeter, and ensuring that trade across our mutual border can happen in a less impeded way—removing trade barriers and facilitating trade.
In the area of regulatory cooperation there's a huge step forward for Canada and the U.S. We're looking at regulations that are inconsistent, not because of any substantive issues, but because of historically being passed at different times and not taking into account each other's own regulatory regimes. We're moving toward a system where we actually have a greater level of regulatory coherence. That will eliminate the delays and the costs that those delays impose on the businesses that are doing business across our border.
Let's not forget that our trading relationship is in the order of $650 billion a year, and anything we can do to remove the billions of dollars of extra costs we impose on our businesses is well worth the effort.