The member says “Go ahead”. If he had put his paper down long enough he might have heard some of the earlier comments.
There are obviously problems with this bill. They have been pointed out by members of the opposition, and not just by the official opposition but by other parties as well. U.S. trade representatives have said that there are problems with this bill. They have clearly signalled their intention to challenge it.
When they challenge this and win is when the trouble will start for the industries across this country. We do not know where the retaliation will take place, whether it will be western Canadian grain producers or an industry in Ontario.
There are over 100 members of the Liberal caucus representing Ontario. I would have thought they would have some concerns about this. I do not see members standing on the opposite side voicing their concerns. They will have to pay the price when this legislation goes through, when the challenge is made and this bill is soundly defeated in the World Trade Organization as being unfair, discriminatory and protectionist, as it most obviously is.
It is the members opposite who will be responsible. They will have to answer. They have been forewarned, as they have been forewarned on many things before but have not taken the advice. Unfortunately, they do not like to take advice from members of the official opposition. We know that.
However, we would hope that in the interests of Canada, in the interests of their constituents, in the interests of all of our industries across this country that they would have a plan of action before putting something in place. We would hope that they would take a look at the legislation they are bringing forward to see how it will impact the people of this country and the economy of this country.
I might add that we are seeing the Canadian dollar dropping.
The government is responsible in a large way for providing an economic climate to allow industries to grow.
We see this government introducing this type of bill rather than dealing with some other major priorities that we have been asking it to address.
I have to remind my colleagues opposite that this bill is badly flawed. I think members opposite know that.
It is one thing to proceed on a course of action, whatever it might be, if we truly believe something to be so, and to proceed on that course of action that will provide some benefit in the future. It is another thing to proceed on a course of action when we know full well that that course of action is not a good course of action, that there are obstacles in the way, that it will not be of benefit. There are other terms to describe that way of thinking.
I cannot understand why the government is proceeding in this manner, with this legislation, in a way that will imperil Canadians working in many other fields across the country. We do not know what the retaliation is going to be.
I simply do not understand why it is that we would proceed to try to disrupt, maybe unintentionally—and I will give the government the benefit of the doubt—and to aggravate our biggest trading partner on this issue. They can obviously retaliate in a number of ways. It could affect the softwood lumber industry in my province of British Columbia. It could affect those involved in farming, in the prairies in particular.
My father-in-law is a former farmer. These are the people who are talking about what it is we are dealing with in this place. What are the government's priorities? That is what I hear from people when I talk to them about what is happening in this place.
They do not ask me about the minister of heritage and Bill C-55, and what a great impact that will have on their daily lives. They are not raising those concerns.
It is just unbelievable that in the face of good advice somebody would proceed in a way that would not benefit the country. The governing party is responsible for setting out a course for the country. I do not see that happening in this piece of legislation. What I see is exactly the opposite.
I can only encourage the members of the government who are here today and the government in general to re-look this piece of legislation to see the potential damage that it could cause. They should do the right thing and not proceed with it, but proceed in other areas of priority across this land.
We hope that members of the government will reconsider moving on this bill and not stubbornly move ahead on a piece of legislation that is doomed for failure.
I hear loud heckling from members opposite. I am sad to say that, once again, it looks as though a few of the members are not even willing to listen. That is upsetting, not to me because I am used to it, but it is upsetting to the people of Canada, their constituents.
This bill is just not going to work.