Debates of Feb. 5th, 2009

Decorum

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

On Friday last, during question period, I used language that offended the sensibilities of some of my colleagues. I regret any discomfort the words I used may have caused. I would like to take this opportunity to withdraw those words without any reservation or condition, and have the record show those words withdrawn.

Opposition Motion--Canada-United States Relations

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

moved:

That, in view of the growing protectionism in the United States, which is reminiscent of the counterproductive behaviour that led to the great depression of the 1930s, this House calls upon the Government to intervene forthwith and persistently, with the United States Administration, and the Congress, in order to protect Canadian jobs, and urge the United States to respect its international agreements including the Canada-United States Trade Agreement (CUSTA), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to this motion, a tremendously important motion because for Canada no trade issue or policy is more important or as complex as our relationship with the United States. The amazing level of integration between our economies makes this a complex relationship, but by and large a very positive one.

That is why it is more important for us to strengthen our relationship, especially now, during this economic crisis.

Our relationship with the United States transcends economics and politics. We are friends, neighbours and family. We share common values. We believe in equality, democracy and the rule of law. We share common interests and we face common challenges, whether in security, the environment or economic policy.

The fact is, we trade $1.5 billion worth of goods and services every day across the Canada-U.S. border, and since 1989 Canada-U.S. trade has more than tripled to over $700 billion this year. That increase is about 10% every single year.

We are each other's biggest trading partners. In fact, Canada is the most important destination for exports from 39 U.S. states. The Canada-U.S. trade relationship is responsible directly and indirectly for seven million U.S. jobs.

The U.S. economy is heavily dependent on trade and investment linkages with Canada and this interdependence between Canada and the U.S. has only increased over time. In fact, 40% of our bilateral trade is intrafirm, trade within divisions of the same company or corporate family.

Companies on both sides of the border have integrated their North American operations to take advantage of economies of scale and to become more competitive in North America, and to compete and succeed globally.

In terms of our energy market, Canada is the largest supplier of energy products to the United States, supplying 94% of U.S. natural gas imports, nearly 100% of electricity imports, and 35% of uranium imports used for nuclear power generation.

The U.S. imports more petroleum from Canada than from any other country, including Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. This is particularly important, given the continued U.S. concern around energy security.

The North American gas, electricity and oil sectors are highly integrated, as is our infrastructure for transporting energy and other commercial products. Our shared infrastructure is increasingly being organized on north-south continental lines.

Canada and the United States do more than simply trade. We build things together. The average North American car crosses the Canada-U.S. border the equivalent of four times before it is completed.

Each province in Canada now trades more with the United States than with each other. Two-thirds of our trade between our nations is within established supply chains. Our economies are so intertwined that if we were ever to try to separate them, it would be like trying unscramble an omelette.

Canada is also the largest purchaser of American exports. These facts are important because they illustrate why protectionism, whether in Canada or the U.S., is bad for both of our economies. Increasingly, during a time of economic crisis, protectionism anywhere can turn a downturn into a depression. That is what happened in the 1930s with the Smoot-Hawley tariff act, which raised tariffs on 20,000 goods and ignited retaliation globally against U.S. protectionist measures.

The response from the government to the current situation in the U.S. and the rising protectionism has been late, and has demonstrated a lack of foresight in failing to see it coming during an economic downturn. At a time when some U.S. legislators are proposing buy American plans, the response from the NDP has been to support the U.S. buy American programs and to say that in fact we should introduce buy Canadian plans.

If I look at what social democrat leaders and parties around the world are espousing today, they are espousing trade. They understand that in today's world, trade is critical, that during an economic downturn, the worst thing we could do would be to put up protectionist barriers.

I am hoping that during this debate we can convince the New Democrats to join their social democrat colleagues from around the world who understand the importance in today's modern global economy of trade in terms of protecting Canadian jobs and interests, because when it comes time to vote on this motion, if they do not vote to support the motion, that simply applies pressure to U.S. legislators to avoid these kinds of protectionist measures that can hurt Canadian jobs, they will be voting against Canadian interests.

I hope that during this debate we can have a rational debate that engages New Democrat members, Conservative members and Bloc members in what ought to be a less partisan approach to Canada-U.S. relations, an important foreign policy and trade policy area for us.

The fact is that President Obama has demonstrated great leadership this week. He has moved forward and has set a tone that I hope will have a significant influence on what happens in both the Congress and the Senate, not just on this issue but on future issues, because protectionism continues to percolate. There is a strong vein of protectionist sentiment in the U.S. Congress.

We have not seen that kind of leadership on this issue here in Canada from the Prime Minister or the Minister of International Trade. When we see American congressmen move forward with protectionist measures, we should be responding immediately. We should be working through established relationships. One of the problems is that the Conservatives have focused so much over the last three years on building relationships with Republicans that they have completely forgotten to build relationships with Democrats. They have put their narrow partisan agenda ahead of the interests of Canada, and now, when there has been a sea change in American politics, Canada is disadvantaged.

This is really important, because on issues of foreign policy and trade policy, we cannot pick one party or another. We have to have bipartisan relations that are strong during the good times and that help protect our joint interests during the tough times.

We must recognize the importance of the Obama agenda and how positive it can be not just for the Americans but for the Canadians, and the importance of our working with President Obama in terms of his priorities. Securing access for Canadian business to the U.S. market is one of our priorities, but how can we expect American politicians to take action on our priorities if we are unwilling to take action on theirs?

If one looks at the Obama government's stimulus package, at the measures on greening the American economy, investing in education and creating the jobs of tomorrow, it is starkly different from the budget recently presented in this House by the Conservatives. It is no surprise that a green economy is a priority for the Obama administration. In fact, Ambassador Wilson recently stated:

We should expect policies [from the Obama administration] designed to move the country noticeably away from a carbon-based economy. Policies reinforced by a strong commitment to technological change and greater reliance on alternative energy sources.

Yet we are increasingly seen as both foreign in an adverse sense, and purveyors of dirty fuel.

What we ought to be doing is making the case to the Obama administration that we are going to be not just their energy partner but their clean energy partner. We are going to invest in cleaning our oil sands operations and CO₂ sequestration more vigorously than in the past, in cleaner conventionals, cleaner oil and cleaner gas. We are going to invest more in alternatives and we are going to be the clean energy partner that Americans need and that Obama wants.

We know that addressing climate change is a priority for the Obama administration. We know that as the U.S. moves forward with a cap-and-trade system and as the U.S. Congress moves forward with a form of carbon tariff aimed at imports from other countries, Canada will be disadvantaged. This is another case where the Conservative government is failing to look ahead. It is failing to look at the challenges of the future and to prepare for those challenges.

The Obama administration realizes that bad environmental policy is ultimately bad economic policy. We have a responsibility to move ahead as a partner in progress with the Obama administration and the Americans and to build the clean energy solutions of the future.

There are other issues, not just this immediate protectionist issue, where the Conservative government has failed to see a challenge looming and has failed to take action early.

I have talked to business people and business organizations across Canada. The thickening of the Canada-U.S. border is a number one issue for many of them. The smart borders initiative introduced by the Chrétien and Martin governments has not moved forward effectively under the Conservative government. On January 23, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano issued an action directive on the northern border strategy. It reads:

The northern border of the United States has become, since 9/11, important to our national security. As we have designed programs to afford greater protection against unlawful entry, members of Congress and homeland security experts have called for increased attention to the Canadian border.

That is ominous when we now see a January 23rd letter from the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security speaking of the risks at the Canadian border. Much of that is based on what I believe to be a false impression of our border and an impression we should be correcting.

Once again, relationships come into play. The Prime Minister should be speaking with the president. We should be reaching out to legislators and members of the Obama administration and making the case that this kind of thickening of the border will not enhance U.S. security and in fact, will do everything to undermine Canada-U.S. economic prosperity. But once again, there is silence from the Conservative government until the issue becomes a crisis.

In terms of ITAR, the fact is that Canadian companies are subject to ITAR restrictions by the Americans which actually prevent Canadian companies in many cases from competing for and succeeding in obtaining U.S. defence and aerospace contracts.

We saw that as one of the principal reasons MacDonald, Dettwiler said that to succeed in achieving contracts with the U.S. Space Agency it actually had to become a U.S. company. That was one of the rationales. The company pointed to the fact that Australia and the U.K. have successfully negotiated exemptions from ITAR from the Americans, but we have not. We are a trade partner with the Americans. We are a security partner. We are a defence partner. We are a friend of the Americans, and it is inexcusable that the Conservative government has not negotiated ITAR exemptions from the Americans.

It is clear that there needs to be greater cooperation and a better and stronger relationship between not just the Prime Minister and the president and their administrations, but between legislators.

Another issue that we have seen in recent months is the negotiation on the bailout of the Detroit three.

The Conservative government sat back and allowed those negotiations to proceed in the U.S. without trying to get a seat at the table, without having any influence on what was happening down there. While we were sitting up here saying that once the deal was done we could provide them with a commensurate amount of money, perhaps 20%, to reflect the Canadian auto sector's percentage of the North American operation, while that was going on and we were sitting back, American legislators, congressmen and senators, were demanding commitments from the auto sector companies to invest in jobs and good product mandates.

Back in 1979 when the Chrysler bailout was being discussed, Gordon Ritchie, a Canadian negotiator, was part of those negotiations. Canada was successful at that time. Negotiators were successful in getting the mandate for the Chrysler mini-vans, which was a very successful mandate. Now we are at the end of the current negotiations and Canada does not have any leverage whatsoever.

We saw the spectacle a few weeks ago when the Minister of Industry went down to Washington to meet with the auto sector leaders but they were all in Detroit. In fact, while he was in Washington he was not able to get any meetings with influential legislators. It is bad enough that we are not at the table, but the minister cannot even find the table. At the end of these negotiations, Canadian auto workers will be lucky to find crumbs off the table.

It is critically important that we work together on an ongoing basis and that we do not ignore the Canada-U.S. relationship as badly as the Conservative government has done.

These are just some examples--the border, the ITAR issue, the auto sector negotiations--of where the Conservative government, long before the current issue around protectionist policies in the U.S. Congress emerged, had already failed Canadians on the Canada-U.S. relationship.

Behind every trade statistic is a personal relationship or a human story. Relationships are important. When building relationships in the U.S., they need to be bipartisan. As the Conservatives over the last three years fawned almost exclusively on the Bush Republicans, they missed the sea change that was going on in U.S. politics.

The Prime Minister's Office interfered in the U.S. primaries, and the whole NAFTA-gate issue prematurely biased the new administration against the Prime Minister. There is a new U.S. president who provides hope to Americans while our Prime Minister deals in fear. President Obama is a uniter. Our Prime Minister is a divider. President Obama is a multilateralist. We have a Prime Minister in Canada who is a unilateralist who does not trust multilateralist organizations. President Obama appeals to people's better angels. Our Prime Minister pits one group against another. President Obama is a dreamer. In Canada we have a Prime Minister who is a schemer.

In a speech which Ambassador Wilson made on January 19, he said, “These personal relationships matter a lot in Washington, at all levels, especially with new administration officials and staff”.

The Prime Minister has not built the relationships in the U.S. that are important to protect Canadian interests and it should not surprise Canadians because he has not built relationships within Canada. We should not wait for an economic and political crisis to build these relationships. It is a little bit like trying to fix the roof during a rain storm. We should not wait for an economic or protectionist crisis to point out the importance of Canada-U.S. trade and economic relations to the U.S. economy to American legislators. We should be communicating on an ongoing basis as allies and as friends.

Building those relationships one by one during the good times is essential to protecting Canada's national interests during the tough times. On issues we have to look ahead. The Conservatives failed to see the protectionist sentiment brewing in Congress. They failed to see the political sea change happening in the U.S. They failed to recognize the importance of building relationships on both sides of the House.

Wayne Gretzky, that great Canadian economic and political theorist, once said, “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been”. The Conservative government has ignored where the world is going and where the Americans are going under their new leader.

The Conservative government's narrow ideological and partisan focus in the U.S., in ignoring the Democrats, has hurt Canada's national interests. We cannot only focus on both parties in the U.S., we have to focus on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. It is not enough to deepen our relationship with the presidential administration. We have to one by one as legislators do more to deepen our relations with individual legislators.

Premiers are tremendously important. The relationship that premiers and governors have is tremendously important. Four of the last six presidents were former governors. President Obama four years ago was a state legislator. These relationships are important. Governor Howard Dean once spoke to me about his relationships with Canadian premiers. He said that we are all in the same boat and there are a lot of commonalities. If the Prime Minister wants to deepen relations with the Americans and to improve his chance of defending our interests, he had better start with building better relationships with Canadian premiers. Bill Clinton was a governor. The former U.S. ambassador to Canada, James Blanchard, started as a governor. These relationships are critically important.

The fact is relationships do matter. My leader knows people like Larry Summers, one of the chief economic advisers to President Obama, and Cass Sunstein, the regulatory czar of the Obama administration, and Samantha Power, a senior foreign policy adviser to the Obama administration. We need to reach out on a bipartisan basis in Canada to people like Frank McKenna and people like Gordon Giffin in the U.S., people like Derek Burney. There is a lot of expertise. We cannot be partisan in whom we work with in the U.S. or Canada on what is our most critical trade and foreign policy relations.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, a region where the steel industry is vital to the economy and employment, I am pleased to ask a question and make a comment on the speech by the member for Kings—Hants.

It is evident that our workers and pensioners feel a little more at ease today because President Obama and the Senate have decided to acknowledge the importance of complying with international and trade agreements. The member is correct, for had there been greater vigilance and had better relations been maintained with the United States, there is no doubt that this crisis could have been averted, it could have been nipped in the bud. It is important for a trading nation to maintain good relations and to maintain close, structured and constantly evolving vigilance.

I would just like to go back to a statement by Leo Gerard, President of the United Steelworkers, who pointed out that Canada was not the target of the Buy American clause. However, Mr. Gerard did say that it was important to have strict anti-dumping measures. The Bloc Québécois is a vigorous supporter of the modernization of trade laws to better protect companies against foreign dumping.

Is this the position of the member for Kings—Hants?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I agree with my colleague with regard to recent developments in the American Senate thanks to the leadership of President Obama. I agree that we must continue to strengthen relations between our Prime Minister's cabinet and the Obama administration, and especially to strengthen our American and Canadian legislatures.

With regard to the anti-dumping issue, we must constantly be careful not to put ourselves in a vulnerable position. Nevertheless, a period of global economic downturn is not the time to increase protectionist measures.

I am absolutely certain that it is not the right thing to do. Everyone agrees that current protectionist measures are dangerous for all economies, especially Canada's, because international and trade relations are particularly important to us.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion the member has brought forward is a fairly simple one and it is one that we can support. It encourages the government to intervene with the American government to ensure it does not erect protectionist measures.

Unfortunately, the member then went into a tirade against our government, which is not helpful after all the promises of being collaborative in their approach to government as we move forward.

Our government is way out in front on this issue. In fact, the Prime Minister and our international trade minister have been actively engaged in this file with the Americans, and that engagement is bearing fruit. The President has now said that he is against those protectionist measures. We know a motion was in the U.S. House of Representatives that sought to limit the buy American provisions.

Given the fact that our government has been so engaged in this issue, what efforts has he made to engage our American cousins in the issue?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with people like Congressman Brian Baird and Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney from the U.S. Congress. I saw them last weekend in Davos, Switzerland. We were speaking on protectionist issues, and I participated in those sessions.

I have also spoken with people of influence like Governor Howard Dean, who until recently was head of the Democrat national committee, about these issues. I have spoken with people like Jim Blanchard and Gordon Giffin, former ambassadors to Canada, about these issues and sought their advice as to how we should proceed. Therefore, I am doing that and I would hope more legislators are doing it.

I know, for instance, some our Senate colleagues, senators like Senator Jerry Grafstein, have more connections in Washington than probably any ambassador in history, and Senator Colin Kenny has deep relationships.

I am certain some Conservative members opposite and members perhaps from all parties are engaging in these kinds of discussions and I think we should be doing more of it. We have the capacity, for instance, to go to Washington four times a year as members of Parliament. We ought to be doing more of that in coordinated way and, on an ongoing basis, making the case of the mutual interest we have as a friend, partner and economic ally of the United States.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his outline of the economic situation vis-à-vis Canada and the United States.

However, he missed probably the most important factor in the relationship of our trade, and that is the relative positions of our currencies. Right now we are in a situation where the U.S. currency has been artificially enhanced through the falling commodity prices and the falling equity market.

We are likely to see the situation reverse. As the commodity markets improve, we will see the U.S. dollar fall and the Canadian dollar go up.

When we look at what is happening in trade between the countries, if we do not examine where the puck is going to be in a year or two with the currency, with the relative ability of Canada to sell into the United States, we are putting ourselves in a degree of difficulty.

When we talk about trade and protectionism today, it may be that we will want a different solution down the road when the economies of the world settle down, when commodity prices rise, when the U.S. has to bear the incredible burden that it has created for itself with its huge payouts to banks and with its huge stimulus program. These are factors that we have to consider today in determining how that relationship should work, whether protectionism or free trade, rather than simply looking at the situation today.

Does my colleague not agree that we need to look at where we will be? This very important factor that determines our trade and our ability to feed into the U.S. market is one of the things that has to be very much on our minds?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, our currency, as the hon. member suggested, is largely related to commodity prices. We have seen the drop in commodity prices and a commensurate drop in our currency.

As demand for commodities continues to grow because of China, India, Russia, Brazil and those countries that continue to invest in infrastructure, I expect that will come back, but I will not be held to any long-term prediction on our currency.

However, one thing we could be doing during good times and bad times is finding the non-tariff trade barriers between the Canadian and U.S. economies that impose a real cost for both Canadian and U.S. jobs. There are regulatory differences between Canada and the U.S. in some areas that do not necessarily enhance the Canadian quality of life or safety in any way, shape or form, but simply represent a non-tariff barrier between our countries.

We should be seeking areas where we can coordinate and work more closely with the Americans, and also with our EU partners, in streamlining regulatory processes so all citizens benefit from better regulatory processes. It is not a race to the bottom, but it can be an actual race to the top with more diligence and at the same time eliminate a lot of these non-tariff barriers between our countries.

The border issue is one that I think all of us as members of Parliament have to be seized with, ensuring that we make the kinds of investments in infrastructure and processes that enable a seamless movement of goods, services and people between our countries in a secure North America.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have had the opportunity to congratulate you on your new posting since the last Parliament.

Today I am pleased to join the debate on Canada's competitiveness and place in the world, specifically with regard to the stimulus bill that is being discussed in the United States House of Representatives. Within the stimulus bill, there is a provision that would only allow steel and iron from the United States be used for infrastructure projects as identified within the stimulus bill.

Today we are cautiously encouraged to the news that the United States Senate has voted in favour of softening the buy American provision within this massive stimulus package. Our government has worked extremely hard with our American counterparts and we have made some great headway. We will continue to see this through to a successful conclusion.

Why we are concerned about this issue is simple. It has been identified already in the House. Our government recognizes that in this time of global uncertainty, protectionism is not the answer.

We know from history that protectionist legislation winds up not only hurting the economy in which that protectionist legislation is moved, but it invariably hurts economies that surround it. We are telling our friends in the United States that now is not the time to shut the door. Seven million U.S. jobs are supported by trade with Canada.

The reality is our North American economy is an integrated one and the stimulus package that is being put together will impact and has to benefit not only the Americans but also trading partners. As long as governments do not succumb to the lure of protectionism, the spillover effects of this stimulus package can be overwhelmingly positive. Given the magnitude of the challenges that we all face, no individual country is likely to be able to save itself without help from trading partners.

We are living in a world where economies are tightly interwoven, in a world where global supply chains are intertwined, a world where not only capital and products but ideas that our future travel great distances at an ever increasing velocity.

It is worthwhile to remind ourselves that our closest economic relationship in the world is the one that we share with the United States. Raw materials and finished goods, services, finance and people criss-cross our border daily in volumes that are unmatched anywhere else in the world.

We all know the numbers: $1.7 billion in two-way trade, 45,000 trucks and 300,000 people move across the border each and every day. The United States is one of our largest sources of foreign investment and innovation, and we are its largest and most secure supplier of energy products, as well as being its biggest customers for agricultural exports.

As the U.S. economy flourishes, so does our economy. All this contributes not only to our prosperity, but we believe it gives us a special understanding of our neighbours to the south.

I think we would all agree that there is a strong link between a healthy Canadian industry and our own competitiveness. Obviously competitiveness is a concern to all Canadians, to this Conservative government and to all members of the House.

The government is well aware that a central challenge facing businesses today is to improve competitiveness by increasing the value of product lines and reducing production costs. This is especially the case for the manufacturing sector, which has been adjusting to higher commodity prices, increased international competition and global economic challenges.

The first thing I would note is our global competitiveness has improved significantly in recent years. According to the Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009, published by the World Economic Forum, Canada's world ranking in global competitiveness moved up from 15th in 2004 to 10th place in 2008.

This report highlights that Canada's improvement is mainly due to our superior transportation and communications infrastructure. It is also due to our highly efficient markets, particularly the labour and financial markets. Our education system also got excellent marks for its quality. This means that Canada's workforce is top quality and is well positioned to adopt the latest technologies for productivity enhancements and to create new high value-added products for the world markets.

As we all know, the economies of the world are facing a deep global recession that will draw upon all of our resourcefulness and best cooperative efforts. Governments around the world have found themselves moving into turbulent financial and economic waters, and certainly Canada is not immune. However, there is a general consensus among economists and experts that the Canadian economy will perform better while many other industrialized OECD countries will struggle over the next two or three years. This is largely due to the core strength of our economy.

The balance sheets of our financial institutions are also in relatively good shape. Canada's financial system is one of the best in the world. It is sound, well regulated and well functioning. Nevertheless, because of globalization and the interdependence of the world financial markets, the Canadian economy is impacted by the adverse consequences of the current crisis.

Looking beyond the current market turmoil, our focus should be on improving our productivity, as it is the fundamental determinant of our quality of life and our competitiveness.

When the G20 leaders met in Washington, D.C. in November 2008, there was a wide range of views regarding both the nature and the seriousness of the current situation. In spite of these differences, the G20 leaders were able to agree to provide timely stimulus to domestic demand while also maintaining long-run fiscal sustainability.

I am proud to say that the Conservative Party of Canada is strongly committed to supporting a productive economy. Our government is committed to creating a competitive environment and putting in place support for business that encourages innovation and entrepreneurship, and rewards investment.

Canada's economic action plan, to which the members opposite have given their support, addresses both the short-term downturn and the financial constraints, while also stimulating productivity in the long term. It will stimulate the economy through investments to build infrastructure, by reducing taxes and freezing employment insurance rates, by stimulating housing construction, by improving access to credit, and by strengthening Canada's financial system, helping Canadians access training programs, and supporting businesses and communities.

Our economic action plan will provide over $20 billion in new tax relief over the 2008-09 year and the following five fiscal years. The economic action plan has launched the Canada skills and transition strategy to help Canadians weather the economic storm and provide them with the necessary training to prosper in a changing economy.

This government is also taking significant action to assist key sectors, such as forestry, agriculture, shipbuilding, automotive and aerospace industries.

To alleviate the pressure on financing, we increased the resources, scope and action of Export Development Canada, EDC, and the Business Development Bank of Canada, BDC, to ensure they have the extra financial capacity to provide firms with financial assistance. Last year we approved a $2 billion increase in borrowing authority of Export Development Canada, and an increase of $1.8 billion in the borrowing capacity of the Business Development Bank of Canada. This is enabling them to offer additional credit to their clients. This is in addition to the $350 million in capital committed to each of these financial crown corporations to support about a further $3 billion in increased credit.

The way we mutually manage our border with the United States is important to our competitiveness. Our gateways to the United States are of particular concern to our highly integrated North American car industry. Our government knows that we cannot remain competitive with a border that clogs and slows down the smooth operation of an integrated industry.

Our economic action plan is accelerating and expanding federal investments in infrastructure with almost $12 billion in new infrastructure stimulus funding over the next two years. This is in addition to $33 billion in funding that was provided in budget 2007 to build modern infrastructure to keep these gateways open for business.

With many companies operating on both sides of the border, one-third of our trade is between related firms, it is in the national interests of both Canada and the United States to work together to find constructive solutions to the economic crisis. This is particularly critical in those industries that are especially closely integrated. For example, the auto sector represents 12% of Canada's manufacturing base and employs 130,000 people in Ontario alone. Vehicle production represents one-fifth of the North American total. The majority of this activity is in support of the big three automakers.

Our economic action plan also streamlines the federal approval process so that more provincial, territorial and municipal projects under the building Canada plan can start in the upcoming construction season. These investments will support productivity and competitiveness for years to come.

Advantage Canada provides a detailed policy agenda which builds on Canada's strengths and seeks to improve our long-term competitiveness performance. Through ongoing reductions in corporate taxes, we are on track to establish the lowest rate of tax on new business investment in the G7.

Our Conservative government is making it a priority to regulate smarter and reduce the paperwork burden on small and medium size enterprises. We increased the amount of small business income eligible for a reduced federal tax rate of 11% to $500,000 from its current limit of $400,000.

Our government created the Competition Policy Review Panel to look at Canada's competition and investment policies. It submitted its final report last June. We will proceed with legislation to modernize and improve Canada's competition and investment laws by implementing many of the recommendations of the Competition Policy Review Panel. This will make product and financial markets more effective and efficient to promote investment and innovation and to create jobs for Canadians.

Our government has also adopted a number of measures to support innovation in recent years. Budget 2008 provides reforms to enhance Canada's scientific research and experimental development and creates an automotive innovation fund to support strategic large-scale research and development projects to build innovative, greener and more fuel-efficient vehicles. Recently, the Prime Minister committed to boosting the value of this fund by $200 million so that more investments in state of the art assembly plants and leading-edge technologies can be made.

We are aggressively opening markets abroad for Canadian goods, services and investments through the conclusion of ongoing trade negotiations. The Minister of International Trade is working to fight protectionist sentiments among our trading partners, and we will launch new initiatives, such as an economic partnership with the European Union.

Clearly, this Conservative government has taken many significant steps and has made significant investments to improve Canada's competitiveness.

As the Minister of Finance laid out in Canada's economic action plan, our government will continue to manage spending responsibly. We will ensure that the programs and services are efficient and aligned with the priorities of Canadians. We will take steps to enhance credit availability for Canadian businesses that are affected by the global credit crisis. We will continue to consult with the provinces and territories and Canadians to develop responses to short-term economic issues while continuing to implement our long-term economic plan.

Finally, this Conservative government recognizes that free, open and fair trade can help Canada weather this financial storm. As the Minister of International Trade stated in the House earlier this week, “With the current crisis squarely upon us, it is crucial to resist the temptation to move towards protectionism. History showed during the Great Depression that imposing trade barriers is not the answer”.

The United States has seen its manufacturing base reduced, its deficits swell and the rise of new global competitors. The financial industry crisis and the reversal of the housing market have meant a reduction in confidence and even fear of the future. It is therefore not surprising that the voice of protectionism is heard in difficult times.

As I stated earlier, thanks to the hard work of this Conservative government, the team of my colleagues and our government ministers, we are making great headway. We are encouraged by the softening of the buy American provisions in the United States stimulus package. We are also encouraged by the recent statements by President Obama. The Minister of International Trade will continue to stay in close contact with his American counterparts and to monitor this legislative process very closely.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what does the hon. member think we ought to be doing to deepen the relationships between American and Canadian legislators?

Why has the government not done more to build on the success of the previous Martin government in introducing a secretariat in the U.S. as part of the embassy there to develop ties between Canadian members of Parliament and senators and their counterparts in Congress and the U.S. Senate? The Martin government also quite significantly increased consular representation and the Canadian missions in the U.S., recognizing the real importance of having stronger relations between legislators. What has the Conservative government done to build on that?

Does the member agree that these relationships between legislators are absolutely essential now?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, despite the calls by the opposition members over the last two and a half years to reduce our contact with U.S. legislators, we have done something quite the contrary. We have continued to build strong relationships on both sides of the political spectrum in the United States.

I can speak to specific events of which I was part. The Minister of State for Transport, the hon. member whose riding borders mine, has had the opportunity to host congressmen and senators from the United States in his constituency. As well, the ambassador at the time travelled in his constituency and met with us as members of Parliament. We have continued this process of developing these relationships. There were ongoing calls from the opposition to reduce our relationship with the Bush administration, to reduce our relationship with the Americans, but we have stood fast and continued to build these relationships. We are seeing that these relationships have developed fruit. We have seen how well the discussions over the last week and a half have resulted in positive action for us as Canadians.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech from the member for Peace River and I have been listening to the debate in the House during question period as well. It seems to me that the debate that is going on focuses on these trade agreements, which have caused enormous problems for Canada. One has to only look at NAFTA and what happened with softwood lumber.

Of course, now the debate has become totally focused on the question of protectionism. It seems to me that what is being missed here is the reality that the steel industry in Canada and the United States is already highly integrated and complementary. What we should be doing is focusing our attention and leverage, as the Canadian government and as Canadians, on working with the reality we have, ensuring that if there is a buy American policy that Canada is exempted from it.

I do not know if the member saw a very good article in today's National Post by Erin Weir, who is the chief economist for the United Steelworkers union that represents both American and Canadian steelworkers, but I think it makes very strong arguments about the North American market and how it is complementary. We should be working to achieve job enhancement in sectors such as steel and automotive.

The other point I would make is that when one has a major stimulus package, one would hope that the emphasis of it is to protect and enhance jobs in our local communities. Yet, we saw nothing of this in the Canadian budget. We saw billions of dollars of expenditure, which the government says it is going to put forward in terms of infrastructure, but there is nothing to emphasize or tell us that those funds will actually be used within Canada to produce Canadian jobs that will benefit people. I ask the member to comment on that.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to see that NDP members have reversed their position of continually calling for additional protectionist measures. It is nice to see that they have recognized that we do have an integrated market with the United States. We are going to continue to ensure that the steel and iron that is produced in Canada can be exported to the United States and used for their infrastructure projects.

However, the hon. member talked about the investments in our own communities. One of the things that is clearly identified in the budget, that the minister brought forward, is this renovation tax credit. This is something that many of us had been asking for on this side of the House because we recognize that if we were renovating and helping people invest in their own homes, they would be hiring people and using resources within their local communities.

I have spoken to my lumber mills with regards to this, and they are very encouraged by it because they know it is going to ensure that more of the product they produce in our own communities will be used in our communities. They are very encouraged by this. These are several of the measures. We are going to see many of the dollars that are spent through this economic stimulus plan we are putting forward spent in and supporting our own communities.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his excellent speech given in this House. We are both from Alberta and we both know the value that our province and country places on having international trading markets.

I feel it is a little rich for the member for Kings—Hants to get up and start criticizing all of the great things we have actually done, given the fact that his party, under former leader Jean Chrétien, had a notorious staff member bashing America and a former colleague, Carolyn Parrish, who would step on effigies of former U.S. presidents. To hear Liberals actually criticizing us for our relationship with the United States is a little rich.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague, considering the value we place on these trading arrangements, what has our province done insofar as having a representative in Washington to represent the interests of not only Canadians but Albertans?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. colleague of mine for Wetaskiwin does draw my attention to the fact that we as the province of Alberta do have a trade secretary in Washington making ongoing efforts in terms of building that relationship.

I heard some heckling from the other side with regards to the change in the administration. We recognize there has been a change, but we will not put Canadian trade at risk based on who is in the White House. We will not shut it down for four years and then try to re-establish it because of the damage that was done by the previous Liberal government in terms of our relationship with the past administration. It is something we are still working to clean up today under this new president.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, Canada was born out of an attempt to create a permanent trade link between the eastern and western parts of this country. That is why a railway was built from east to west in the early days of Confederation. From that time on, Quebec felt the need—and has always felt the need—to strengthen its trade relationship with the United States in order to offset trade that would remove some if its political and economic power within Canada.

That is why Quebec was the first province to defend its own interests in expanding its trade relationship with the United States within the free trade agreement. Bernard Landry, who was no longer a member of the Parti Québécois at the time, toured Quebec I do not know how many times to make that happen. That is why the sovereignist forces in Quebec decided to support Brian Mulroney when he ran for office. He not only proposed to bring Quebec back into Confederation with honour and dignity, but he also offered a free trade contract with the Americans.

We are the ones who suggested a stronger trade relationship. But as soon as the Liberals took power, they decided to tear up that contract. That is what Mr. Chrétien promised at the time. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. The member has identified the damage that the Liberals have done in terms of our relationship over the last number of years. That damage continued through successive prime ministers up until our Prime Minister was elected. We have seen an improvement in the relationship with our biggest and largest trading partner to the south. We will continue to work to develop that friendship and also the trading relationship.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this issue today in light of the circumstances affecting international trade and the United States of America's attempts at protectionism.

Let us reread the motion together.

That, in view of the growing protectionism in the United States, which is reminiscent of the counterproductive behaviour that led to the great depression of the 1930s, this House calls upon the Government to intervene forthwith and persistently, with the United States Administration, and the Congress, in order to protect Canadian jobs, and urge the United States to respect its international agreements including the Canada-United States Trade Agreement (CUSTA), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

The notice of motion was submitted at least a day ago, before the Senate announced that it would not take such a hard line when it comes to international agreements.

We might be tempted to believe that the situation is resolved and that this is the end of the story. However, it would be very dangerous to let the American government get started with protectionist measures. This will do nothing to stop the United States from taking what I would call their protectionist measures even further. Measures viewed as admissible under the WTO or even NAFTA could enable them to keep implementing protectionist measures. In fact, some articles could legitimize the United States' actions and enable that country to defend itself and possibly even win in court. So we have to be very vigilant and not let them put one over on us.

In principle, when governments make purchases, companies from countries that have signed these agreements—like Canada and Quebec—have the right to submit bids. But that is just in principle. The two agreements include a number of exceptions, exceptions that say, among other things, that when it comes to contracts, governments can do whatever they want.

Take, for example, a contract to build a government building. Contracts valued below a certain amount are excluded. If I remember correctly, that amount is $5 million under the AGP and $5 million in constant dollars under NAFTA. That being said, all transport department contracts for roads, bridges and so on are excluded. If I am not mistaken, this is not about construction contracts per se, but about the purchase of the structural steel and rebar used in construction. That part is much less clear.

Construction contracts are a service, whereas structural steel and rebar are goods. It is likely that Canada will contest the American measure claiming that it concerns the purchase of a good, which is covered by the agreements involving Canadian businesses. The United States will say in its defence that the purchases are part of a construction contract, not covered by the agreements. At first glance, the Americans appear likely to win their case, as I was saying. Unless I am mistaken, most purchases will not be made directly by the federal government. The buyer will be either a state or a municipality or a construction company. In all of these cases, the buyer is not covered by the agreements. So the issue is not with the awarding of contracts, but with the awarding of a subsidy, which is not covered.

Will the subsidy be considered an indirect purchase by the arbitration tribunals, so that it would be considered illegitimate subterfuge aimed solely at enabling the United States to circumvent its commitments? It is hard to say. We are not familiar with jurisprudence that would enable us to guess how the international arbitration tribunals might decide. I am assuming that the two cases may be argued, although I am not a lawyer, and even though it seems to me that Canada's case could be very weak under the circumstances and in light of the limited pressure exerted by the Conservative government.

As the matter is very complex, we will likely get bogged down in a long, drawn out dispute. As a decision in this matter is likely to be made long after any contracts have been awarded, the legal avenue is of no interest. The matter must be resolved politically, and a request that the Prime Minister raise the matter when he meets Mr. Obama seems perfectly legitimate.

American protectionism and legislation, such as the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Act, together with the increased cost of transportation, reduced the flow of trade and protracted the 1929 crisis. Some provisions of the Buy American Act of 1933 continue to apply in the United States, in the case of government procurement, for example.

American protectionism in the steel industry was counterproductive. A study by the Institute for International Economics found that the Bush government's protectionist measures for the steel industry in 2000 were counterproductive. I have a text here that says:

In 2000, President George W. Bush implemented protectionist measures for steel imports in response to pleas from the unproductive big businesses in that sector. The effects seem to have been negative in the end because the measures saved 3,500 jobs but destroyed between 12,000 and 43,000 in steel-using businesses.

These situations could be catastrophic for the United States—although not in the short term—and difficult for Canada and Quebec. In the long term, protectionist measures could spread around the world. The first response from other countries is significant: when one country imposes protectionist measures, other countries follow suit.

Obama's stimulus plan proposes extending measures for American steel. This action would threaten Quebec's steel industry, which exports 40% of its production. In Quebec alone, 2,000 jobs would be on the line. The less stringent plan proposed by the Senate, which would add respect for international agreements to the controversial section, does not make this clause any less dangerous. Even though the clause is clearly protectionist and goes against the spirit of international agreements, it does not necessarily violate those agreements.

Purchases made by American federal authorities are subject to NAFTA, but in the United States, almost all of the large contracts in the transportation sector are administered by state or municipal authorities or by private business, all of which are excluded from the NAFTA chapter on government procurement. This chapter deals with federal funding, and so those projects can be excluded, despite the fact that it is a type of subsidy in disguise.

There is a huge risk. We are not in the time of barter anymore. Simple as things were, even back then people tried to pass off worthless items as being valuable. And so, when Europeans arrived in the new world, the aboriginals of the time were exploited and that has not stopped. Eventually, the financial market and high finance appeared and paper was created.

This is the system that has put the whole world in a difficult situation and deepened the current economic crisis.

Quebec is a trading nation. It has always supported the North American Free Trade Agreement. The United States is Quebec’s largest trading partner, and in these recessionary times, Quebec cannot stand to lose its access to the market of its most important trading partner. The Bloc would rather see a diplomatic solution than recourse to the courts as a way of resolving the dispute between Canada and the United States over protectionism. Although there is often a protectionist reflex in times of economic downturn, it is essential to keep markets open in order to encourage trade and economic recovery.

The Government of Canada has a solemn duty to put pressure on the United States and ensure that Quebec businesses can export to its markets. Although President Obama has apparently backed down on the Buy American Act, the government must keep up the pressure to persuade the United States to allow Quebec and Canadian companies to access the U.S. market.

Apart from these trade issues, the Conservative government has proved negligent in its management of the economic crisis. We will obviously be in favour of the Liberal motion.

As I was saying, Quebec is a trading nation. Our companies, and especially our cutting-edge companies, could not survive on just the domestic market. International exports account for one-third of Quebec’s GDP. If interprovincial trade is added, exports represented 52% of Quebec’s GDP in 2005. Protectionism is not in our interests, and that is why Quebec, and most of all Quebec sovereignists, massively supported the Free Trade Agreement with the United States and then NAFTA. The trade environment has worsened considerably over the last few years. Between 2003 and 2007, Quebec went from a large trade surplus to a $13 billion deficit. In 2007, every Quebecker therefore consumed $2,000 more than he or she produced. And that is not to mention our international trade balance, to which must be added another $5 billion deficit in interprovincial trade.

We obviously became a lot poorer last year. The steep rise in the Canadian dollar, fuelled by Alberta’s oil exports, reduced the competitiveness of Quebec businesses on the U.S. market, while at the same time a number of emerging countries were taking over world markets. Given the changes in the trade environment, our priorities will have to change as well. Our manufacturing industry was badly hurt by the worsening trade environment because it is more dependent on exports and more exposed to international competition than services are. The Bloc Québécois has long made access to international markets its most important trade priority. The changes that have occurred in the trade environment, especially the rise of China, have revealed cracks in the system. The major international agreements negotiated under the aegis of the WTO are not intended solely to liberalize trade but also to establish a certain number of rules and conditions that must be complied with in order to access world markets. This aspect of the agreements has been neglected over the last few years.

In order for us all to benefit from trade, we must do more than just liberalize it. We must also civilize it in order to have healthy international competition and clean up the terms of trade. If countries want to access foreign markets, they should have to abide by certain rules.

Take social dumping, for example:

Social dumping is a serious problem. Trading in a product manufactured in violation of major international agreements on labour, the environment or human rights is a form of unfair competition. It puts enormous pressure on our industry, gives offenders an advantage over countries that honour their international commitments and promotes the exploitation of foreign workers and environmental degradation. This development model is unsustainable in the long term.

The Bloc Québécois has outlined a series of international trade measures, including specific measures to restore balance and healthy competition to trade.

These measures include:

modernizing our trade laws to better protect our companies against foreign dumping;

no longer rejecting the findings of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal when it recommends implementing safeguards;

allowing workers to submit complaints themselves about subsidies and dumping to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal;

making the fight against social dumping Canada's top priority in negotiations at the WTO;

putting the emphasis back on multilateral negotiations at the WTO, because only then will it be possible to adopt rules to civilize international trade;

combatting social dumping by ratifying the following fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organization: the forced labour convention, the convention on the right to organize and collective bargaining, and the convention on the minimum age for admission to employment.

As I said earlier, the protectionist measures the United States is considering are in keeping with its Buy American Act, a vestige of the protectionist measures implemented in the wake of the great depression of 1930. Under that act, road construction, infrastructure construction, transit and airport projects that receive government funding are required to use American products. As a result, federal funding for road construction will be granted only if American steel and iron are used.

The U.S. government is getting around NAFTA by funding work carried out by the states, which does not come under NAFTA. President Obama's plan contains a provision that would extend the Buy American clause to all sorts of projects, with the result that all projects funded by the recovery plan would have to use American iron and steel. At a time of economic crisis, such a measure would threaten 2,000 jobs in Quebec.

President Obama announced that he was prepared to water down the clause. Early information suggests that the clause will be amended to indicate that protectionist measures must not contravene international agreements. Toning down the American bill will not solve problems affecting the steel industry in Canada and Quebec, but it will be much less damaging to Quebec industry than the Senate's initial bill, which wanted the Buy American clause to apply to all purchased goods.

We are at an important turning point in what I would call the fight against the global economic situation.

For some time now, our government has also had the means, not to circumvent the spirit of free trade, but to bring forward solutions to protect certain industries in Canada and Quebec. The government has failed to do so.

Now the U.S. government is preparing to introduce measures that will significantly restrict free trade with Canada, its closest trading partner, and, for all practical purposes and all things being equal, its primary trading partner, given Canada's size.

Protectionist measures imposed by the world's largest economic power, which is nearly on the brink of bankruptcy, would have a negative impact on the entire global economy and every person on this planet.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear that the member has not bought into the NDP ideology of building economic silos throughout Canada to try to put up trade barriers in response to some of the protectionist threats coming from the United States.

As the member knows, ours is the first government in many years to aggressively seek out new trading relationships around the world. We have entered into free trade agreements with Peru, Colombia and the European Free Trade Association. We are seeking new free trade agreements with places such as South Korea and with the European Union.

Given that we still have this protectionist sentiment in the United States, does the member feel that it is advisable for Canada to remain aggressive in seeking out new trading relationships around the world?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Conservative member for his question.

He has referred to the free trade agreements, particularly those with Colombia and the European Free Trade Association. The hon. member has, moreover, no doubt heard my references to more humane globalization and more humane criteria, such as the protection of human rights, of jobs, of labour unions or of the environment. That is not what is happening in Colombia. President Obama has, moreover, indicated that he would not sign a free trade agreement with Colombia. For the Conservative government, however, it is a matter of a mad rush to see who can sign the most bilateral free trade agreements. As I said in my speech, what we favour is multilateral agreements. All countries need to be on the same track and defending the same causes.

As for the agreement with the European Free Trade Association, which has been discussed this week and will be discussed further in committee, I must emphasize that we support it. However, we have mentioned two important points: supply management and a shipbuilding industry policy. Even though a free trade agreement is favourable to Quebec generally speaking, these two elements remain irritants and the government needs to give some thought to dealing with them.

In the current context, I repeat, there are some 200 countries on this planet all trying to sign bilateral free trade agreements with other countries. Everyone will have free trade agreements. Often, when entering into such an agreement, to get certain things, one must give something as well. Bilateral agreements now contain a little clause indicating that, if ever the country with which one is signing an agreement signs a more advantageous one with another country, ours will have to be adjusted as well.

It can be seen, therefore, that efforts are being made, not always bad ones, but overall we do of course support the multilateral approach. We want to be sure the WTO works properly. If there is some reluctance as far as the WTO is concerned at present, it is because there is one matter that must be excluded from it. Culture has been excluded, and the food supply must be also, in order to protect food sovereignty and safety in these programs.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member very much for his comments. Does he think that the Conservative government was wrong to work only with the American Republicans? Does he think it would be very important to start working right now with both American parties and to diversify our personal relations, especially in matters of trade?

Does he also think the Conservative government is acting consistently by pursuing trade relations with Colombia and ignoring human rights, while destroying our relationship with China because of human rights issues there?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. We have said it before and will say it again—the economic situation is an emergency in itself. Specific measures must be taken to resolve the problem or mitigate it in the short term in order to resolve it in more global terms in the coming years.

The Conservative government is not implementing the right policies to respond to an emergency and revive Canada's economy tomorrow. It is not responding to it at all, and neither is its budget. Right now, times are tough—if I can put it that way—and the American government is telling us it wants to add a protectionist flavour to our relations and even to its international relations. As I said earlier, this is not going to be resolved before the tribunals, but, rather, diplomatically, through discussions with the full Senate and House. They must talk in order to make the United States understand the potential repercussions of their implementing a protectionist measure that will spread like a disease around the world, as everyone tries to protect their own assets. It is legitimate and human nature in such circumstances and conditions to want to protect oneself and one's interests. However, somewhere along the way, it creates disasters of far greater proportions.

In terms of human rights, it is clear. Obama has said he would not sign an agreement with Colombia. The Conservative government persists in its efforts to sign an agreement with Colombia. It has been signed, but not ratified, because there is a vigilant committee. The representative of the Liberal Party will be on hand to explain fully what needs protecting in the context of a vision for the planet as a whole, that is, respect for the rights of individuals, unions and the environment.

As for China, it must unfortunately also be called to order in the context of developing international trade. I believe the international community is increasingly sensitive to these issues and must, in the near future, incorporate them into international policies on trade.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech given by my hon. colleague from Sherbrooke. It left me somewhat confused, since a choice must be made between fair trade—advocated by the NDP—and this theory of free trade adopted by the Conservative and Liberal coalition. It works very well in school textbooks, but not so well in practice.

I do not understand the Bloc's position. Is it more in favour of fair trade, in other words, against agreements that cost jobs, like the European Free Trade Association agreement, which is going to destroy our shipbuilding industry? Is it against that sort of agreement, like the softwood lumber agreement? Unfortunately, the Bloc supported it, even though it caused the loss of thousands of jobs in Quebec. Does it advocate free trade in areas where the government has no role?

What is the Bloc Québécois' position?

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Sherbrooke has 35 seconds to respond to the question.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, this feels like Groundhog Day. My hon. colleague has raised this question many times. I fully respect the member, but he must be fair and honest. He knows very well that the Bloc Québécois supports economic development, but not to the detriment of people's rights, the rights of unions, or the environment. He knows that. Ideally, our aim and what we work for is ensuring—